Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

(Maybe) some new idea about RL's source code openess in ge..

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:28:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Some RL are open-sourced, the others arent. The people who dont want
the world know their code usually defend themselve with something along
the line of "There are secrets you should find out. If I give away the
codes, people with know the my lovely secrets without playing the
game!" These secrets are vary greatly in concept but they are, I think,
are related more to the concept/content/story part of the game then the
technique part. If this is the case, it is possible to display the
codes which are not related to the concept/content/story of the game.
Simply put, I think it is nice for RL developers to hold the
monster/item/tile/map/whatever libraries to themselves while showing us
their map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:19:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

tongHoAnh wrote:
> Simply put, I think it is nice for RL developers to hold the
> monster/item/tile/map/whatever libraries to themselves while showing
us
> their map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time.

I agree completely. Not that RL developers should be forced to show us
their source code, but it would help newbie developers to read through
others' source, while more seasoned programmers could point out bugs
and save time debugging.

My own (Javascript) RL is open source, and I intend to hide the secrets
(some AI routines, maps, items, monster details) and load them in using
AJAX techniques.

Andy

--
JRR - Javascript Roguelike Redux (a work in progress)
http://www.pagezero.net/roguelike/javascript2
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Andy Driver wrote:
> I agree completely. Not that RL developers should be forced to show
us
> their source code, but it would help newbie developers to read
through
> others' source, while more seasoned programmers could point out bugs
> and save time debugging.

I think releasing source code for roguelikes is quite useless.
In case of Angband it has spawned zillions of versions with usually
minor changes and no one wants to play Angband anyway so...
Crawl (and I'd say Nethack too) are examples of horrible coding
which no one should attempt to mimic:) 
I guess also usually the programming style varies so much than using
parts from another source code doesn't work that well. It's easier
to write completely new code. I think only benefit from reading
existing source code is to understand how NOT to do things:) 

The reason I don't want to release my source code is that I have
spent lot of time creating it and I feel it belongs to me only.
It's not proper for someone else to handle my precioussss...:) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

tongHoAnh wrote:
> Some RL are open-sourced, the others arent. The people who dont want
> the world know their code usually defend themselve with something along
> the line of "There are secrets you should find out. If I give away the
> codes, people with know the my lovely secrets without playing the
> game!" These secrets are vary greatly in concept but they are, I think,
> are related more to the concept/content/story part of the game then the
> technique part. If this is the case, it is possible to display the
> codes which are not related to the concept/content/story of the game.
> Simply put, I think it is nice for RL developers to hold the
> monster/item/tile/map/whatever libraries to themselves while showing us
> their map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time.

I'm actually considering doing something similar for my own RL. I
might release all my generic engine code, while keeping code that
corresponds to the secrets to myself. ADOM has benefited greatly from
being closed-source, and DoomRL has done the same. Both still contain
secrets unknown by the players. I too have a game in the works,
that'll be chock-full of secrets. I'd like to keep them hidden, and
force players to find them for themselves, without just source-diving
for it.

Granted, I also might just release the whole thing open-source, and
just hope for the best.


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:32:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
> Tell that to all the people who want DoomRL/DiabloRL source *despite*

> knowing that it's Pascal.

Pascal, the language of doom and despise..:) 
I forgot to mention that it could be wiser to release parts of the
source code which can be used in another project. Now that would
be helpful. It could be a function or class, or set of classes which
do something tricky (other than basic stuff) and could be useful
for beginners and someone like me who are not that good programmers.
For example I'd really like to see a complete and fast LOS source code,
not just a mathematical idea of it which I can't understand:) 

Btw those small re-usable pieces of code are really hard to find.
Reminds me when I was desperately trying to find a source code
for bilinear interpolation for scaling image size.. man, it was
almost impossible. Eventually I hacked my own routine by trial and
error, and it took some time...

I try to release this kind of source myself when I come up with
something clever. Such as my (un?)famous walking routine for
roguelikes:) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

> Tel that to the folks on rgr.angband, or to DarkGod, and you'll be
> purified with heavenly fire ;-).

> And as such are good to look at from time to time:
> "Damn, my source starts to look lie Crawl. I'll better clean that
> routine up..."

> Tell that to all the people who want DoomRL/DiabloRL source *despite*
> knowing that it's Pascal.

I second all these.


Krice wrote:

> The reason I don't want to release my source code is that I have
> spent lot of time creating it and I feel it belongs to me only.
> It's not proper for someone else to handle my precioussss...:) 

You are among the few brave that admit the fact :) 

You can state in the licence something along the line "for personal and
educational purpose only" (Java source spring to mind)

Even so, without the object libraries, no one can easily toy around
with your codes, significantly reducing the number of "underage"
variant :) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Andy Driver wrote: > tongHoAnh wrote: > > Simply put, I think it is
nice for RL developers to hold the > > monster/item/tile/map/whatever
libraries to themselves while showing > us > > their
map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time. > > I agree
completely. Not that RL developers should be forced to show us > their
source code, but it would help newbie developers to read through >
others' source, while more seasoned programmers could point out bugs >
and save time debugging. > While it has been brought up. Does anyone
know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how to
use classes with all their benifits like inheritance, etc? I'm
especially curious how others implement items, store and handle them.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:43:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 10 May 2005 10:01:35 -0700, "Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:

>I think releasing source code for roguelikes is quite useless.
>In case of Angband it has spawned zillions of versions with usually
>minor changes and no one wants to play Angband anyway so...

There are a number of Angband variants that are minor changes, but
some a quite different; at least as much so as the leap from Moria to
Angband. And to claim that no one wants to play Angband is so obvious
false I can only assume that was meant as some sort of joke. I guess
Finnish humor doesn't translate.

For that matter, many of the "small change" variants fall into one or
two categories: (1) testing ground for ideas intended for standard
Angband -- some of which have, in fact, been later adopted into
Angband, or (2) unfinished projects -- and I don't think the
percentage of abortive Angband variants is greater than the percentage
of abortive RL attempts, they're just more visible because the first
steps still produce a working game.

>Crawl (and I'd say Nethack too) are examples of horrible coding
>which no one should attempt to mimic:) 

Crawl is still being developed, however, despite the original author
giving it up. And the code is, slowly, being cleaned up. Eventually,
it may be quite readable -- the pre-Ben Angband code wasn't nearly so
nice as more recent versions. Nethack development has been aided by
folding in variants and SLASH'EM continues as a "NetHacklike" game
with a certain following.

Contrast with ADOM, which I gave up on account of bugs that would
almost certainly have been patched if the source were publicly
available. I've *never* had Moria, plain Angband (not a variant), or
NetHack crash on me (and only maybe once or twice, Crawl, even as mess
as it is) in over a decade of RL gaming. Mature open-source RLs are
more stable than most commercial software.

>The reason I don't want to release my source code is that I have
>spent lot of time creating it and I feel it belongs to me only.
>It's not proper for someone else to handle my precioussss...:) 

This, however, is a perfectly valid reason. Nobody has any kind of a
right to see your source code. If you offer it to the world, that is a
gift, not an obligation.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
Dance, Puppet, dance!
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:37:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

tongHoAnh wrote:
> Some RL are open-sourced, the others arent. The people who dont want
> the world know their code usually defend themselve with something
along
> the line of "There are secrets you should find out. If I give away
the
> codes, people with know the my lovely secrets without playing the
> game!" These secrets are vary greatly in concept but they are, I
think,
> are related more to the concept/content/story part of the game then
the
> technique part. If this is the case, it is possible to display the
> codes which are not related to the concept/content/story of the game.
> Simply put, I think it is nice for RL developers to hold the
> monster/item/tile/map/whatever libraries to themselves while showing
us
> their map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time.

Don't forget the ever-popular 'I'm too embarrassed to reveal my
technically functional but extremely inefficient, ineligant' code. :) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 10 May 2005 06:28:01 -0700, "tongHoAnh" <anh.tong@gmail.com> wrote:

>Some RL are open-sourced, the others arent. The people who dont want
>the world know their code usually defend themselve

And there is the problem. They get attacked, so they defend
themselves, whereas if their wishes are respected, they might change
their minds, if it becomes appropriate.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Dance, Puppet, dance!
But why are there *humans* dancing for the puppet?
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:15:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:
> I think releasing source code for roguelikes is quite useless.
> In case of Angband it has spawned zillions of versions with usually
> minor changes and no one wants to play Angband anyway so...

Tel that to the folks on rgr.angband, or to DarkGod, and you'll be
purified with heavenly fire ;-). Angband was my first roguelike BTW.

> Crawl (and I'd say Nethack too) are examples of horrible coding
> which no one should attempt to mimic:) 

And as such are good to look at from time to time:
"Damn, my source starts to look lie Crawl. I'll better clean that
routine up..."

> I guess also usually the programming style varies so much than using
> parts from another source code doesn't work that well. It's easier
> to write completely new code. I think only benefit from reading
> existing source code is to understand how NOT to do things:) 

Tell that to all the people who want DoomRL/DiabloRL source *despite*
knowing that it's Pascal.

> The reason I don't want to release my source code is that I have
> spent lot of time creating it and I feel it belongs to me only.
> It's not proper for someone else to handle my precioussss...:) 

Kheh, I understand.
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and
restart body."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:44:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Andy Driver wrote:
> My own (Javascript) RL is open source, and I intend to hide the secrets
> (some AI routines, maps, items, monster details) and load them in using
> AJAX techniques.

What are "AJAX techniques"?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:48:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:
> I think releasing source code for roguelikes is quite useless.
> In case of Angband it has spawned zillions of versions with usually
> minor changes and no one wants to play Angband anyway so...

Er what? Angband is alive and well and has as big a following as ever,
thank you very much.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:51:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:
> Pascal, the language of doom and despise..:) 

Kornel just won't release the code because his compiler is a jealous
mistress and doesn't want any of Kornel's code ever being touched by
another woman. ;) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:03:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> What are "AJAX techniques"?

Why? You want someone to do your work for you and just bash it as they
explain it, or should we await your whitty replies of how the system
doesn't live up to your expectations?
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:04:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> Please go away.

He can't hear you. He has you killfiled. This means that he can't read
your replies, so stop replying to him.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:14:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> Andy Driver wrote: > tongHoAnh wrote: > > Simply put, I think it is
> nice for RL developers to hold the > > monster/item/tile/map/whatever
> libraries to themselves while showing > us > > their
> map-generator/event-handler/AI logics... at the same time. > > I agree
> completely. Not that RL developers should be forced to show us > their
> source code, but it would help newbie developers to read through >
> others' source, while more seasoned programmers could point out bugs >
> and save time debugging. > While it has been brought up. Does anyone
> know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how to
> use classes with all their benifits like inheritance, etc? I'm
> especially curious how others implement items, store and handle them.

Whoa, man! Something's realy wrong with your quoteing mechanism! :-D
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:
> Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>
>>Tell that to all the people who want DoomRL/DiabloRL source *despite*
>
>>knowing that it's Pascal.
>
> Pascal, the language of doom and despise..:) 

Kheh, "Language of Doom" -- I guess it was unintentional? ;-)

> I forgot to mention that it could be wiser to release parts of the
> source code which can be used in another project. Now that would
> be helpful. It could be a function or class, or set of classes which
> do something tricky (other than basic stuff) and could be useful
> for beginners and someone like me who are not that good programmers.
> For example I'd really like to see a complete and fast LOS source code,
> not just a mathematical idea of it which I can't understand:) 

That's exactly what Valkyrie's all about.
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"If hackers will ever use virtual reality, it would show a bunch
of text terminals floating around them..." -- The Sheep
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:37:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
> Michal Brzozowski wrote:
(badly quoted text)
>
> Whoa, man! Something's realy wrong with your quoteing mechanism! :-D

Yes, I'm sorry for that. It was links + google beta.

I repeat my question then:

While it has been brought up. Does anyone
know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how to
use classes with all their benifits like inheritance, etc? I'm
especially curious how others implement items, store and handle them.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:01:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how to
> use classes with all their benifits like inheritance, etc? I'm
> especially curious how others implement items, store and handle them.

Check out IVAN. I don't know exactly if it's well written, but
it looks like pretty heavy C++.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ivan/
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:11:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Andy Driver wrote:
> > My own (Javascript) RL is open source, and I intend to hide the
secrets
> > (some AI routines, maps, items, monster details) and load them in
using
> > AJAX techniques.

> What are "AJAX techniques"?

Sorry, it's all the rage in web programming circles at the moment. AJAX
stands for Asynchronous Javascript And XML. It refers to the use of the
xmlHttpRequest() Javascript function to request XML (or anything
really) from the server without having the browser move away from the
current page.
People have been doing similar things for ages, but they've only
recently coined a snappy buzzword for it. Google uses it for Gmail,
Groups beta and their autocompletion doodad.

Andy
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 6:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:

> > And there is the problem. They get attacked, so they defend
> > themselves, whereas if their wishes are respected, they might
change
> > their minds, if it becomes appropriate.

> This seems to be the case with Thomas Biskup.

ADOOM RL was what I had in mind. Though personally, I didnt learn much
from other's code; I find having your codes open-sourced help fixing
bugs much quicker, as many have said.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:00:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:

> I disagree. Open source is useful for a project where you want to
> collaborate with many other people. If you're working on your own
> project, it's many times faster to take bug reports and enhancement
> suggestions in plain English, and decide if you want to implement
them
> and how, than to have people submitting patches of dubious skill and
> random design intent and you have to try to guess why they want them
> included.

I have 2 options and have more fun with them. You have but one and be
happy with it. (There might be some grammar mistakes here)
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:37:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Risto Saarelma wrote:
> On 2005-05-11, Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>
wrote:
> > I disagree. Open source is useful for a project where you want
to
> > collaborate with many other people. If you're working on your own
> > project, it's many times faster to take bug reports and enhancement
> > suggestions in plain English, and decide if you want to implement
them
> > and how, than to have people submitting patches of dubious skill
and
> > random design intent and you have to try to guess why they want
them
> > included.
>
> Does this happen much with open source projects? I would imagine that
> most users are too lazy to start making a patch and just complain to
the
> developer in plain English like they would with a closed source
project.
> And of course it's possible that the user has looked at the source
and
> has some ideas on what could cause a bug, but describes these ideas
in a
> message instead of a dubious patch. If the user is right, this might
> save a lot of bug-hunting work.

Or, if you're really lucky like me, the people who start submitting
patches for your game could be much better programmers than you are
yourself. Even without submitted code, I've found that it's useful to
have a community of people who understand the inner workings of
GearHead. They've helped me to track down certain obscure problems and
optimize my code.

- JH.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:48:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 2005-05-11, Michal Brzozowski <rusolis@poczta.fm> wrote:
> While it has been brought up. Does anyone
> know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how to

Avanor might be worth a look: http://www.avanor.com/

--
Risto Saarelma
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
> Filip Dreger wrote:
> > - [OT] use Allegro
>
> [OT] Don't use archaic Allegro, use modern SDL ;-)
>

I use the ever-modern ncurses :) 
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

tongHoAnh <anh.tong@gmail.com>
wrote on 11 May 2005 02:46:27 -0700:
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> > And there is the problem. They get attacked, so they defend
>> > themselves, whereas if their wishes are respected, they might
> change
>> > their minds, if it becomes appropriate.
>> This seems to be the case with Thomas Biskup.
> ADOOM RL was what I had in mind. Though personally, I didnt learn much
> from other's code; I find having your codes open-sourced help fixing
> bugs much quicker, as many have said.

I disagree. Open source is useful for a project where you want to
collaborate with many other people. If you're working on your own
project, it's many times faster to take bug reports and enhancement
suggestions in plain English, and decide if you want to implement them
and how, than to have people submitting patches of dubious skill and
random design intent and you have to try to guess why they want them
included.

When I get tired of a project, I release it under a true open-source
license so others can benefit from it, but that will never, ever happen
while I'm working on something.

--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. [...] The
streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a
swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle." -Neal Stephenson, /. interview
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:33:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Filip Dreger wrote:

> There was an interesting discusion on this topic some time ago - I
> would cal it "a creative disagreament". The points raised, in short,
> were:
> 1. OO model in C++ is very unflexible; it does not, among other
> things, let you add impromptu attributes or methods (like the
> ever-popular 'reflecting' attribute for mirrors);
> 2. some argued that the way around it would be to implement a custom
> dispatcher, sort of an universal setter/getter: 'getAttributeByName'
> 3. This actually separates "ideal classes" that you have in your
> design (where "ancient dragon" inherits from "dragon") from
> "implementational classes" that C++ actually sees. Some of the
> attributes are managed by the language in an official way, and some
by
> your custom dispatcher.
> 4. The above has some advantages - one of them is the fact that you
> can write a universal serializer, able to serialize any kind of
"ideal
> object". This is not possible in pure C++, as it does not suppoer any

> kind of reflection.
> 5. It also has a big drawback: you have to write a lot of OO support
> code by yourself, especially the inheritance code. If most of your
> objects' attributes are just items on a list, then you can not easily

> make a 'magic sword' object that is 'a plain sword but with one
> additional attribute'. You have to explicitly copy sword's standard
> attributes into your 'magic sword' attribute list, unless you come up

> with some kind of custom inheritance, like adding a method
> item::copyAttributesFrom(item* motherobject).
> 6. IMHO the above is reimplementing Smalltalk :-)
> 7. Kornel has (he did not say it explicitly, so I may be mistaken)
> some great item system that works around the idea of templates;
> objects have custom 'dispatchers' like described above, but when you
> are defining an object, you get to decide what is the object's base
> template.
> 8. All (?) agreed that simply using C++ and doing things like magic
> sword class inheriting from sword class inheriting from weapon class
> inheriting from item class is a Bad Thing.
>
> My personal opinions are:
> - think with objects, code with procedures;
> - never duplicate things your language/runtime does (eg. do not
write
> your own OO layer on top of C++)
> - writing RL you will need a _lot_ of polymorphism. Use as few
> classes as possible, or use a language with dynamic typing
> - [OT] use Allegro

Thanks for your long reply.

I think I found the discussion, but the only thing I've learnt from
it is how much I don't know about object oriented progamming :) 
I took the points however, and I'll try to rethink my design so that
it fits my tiny roguelike.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Krice wrote:
>> Pascal, the language of doom and despise..:) 
>
> Kornel just won't release the code because his compiler is a jealous
> mistress and doesn't want any of Kornel's code ever being touched by
> another woman. ;) 

LOL! Right into my tagfile ;-)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Kornel just won't release the code because his compiler is a jealous
mistress and doesn't want any of Kornel's code ever being touched by
another woman. ;) " -- Twisted One
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:46:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com>:
>On 10 May 2005 06:28:01 -0700, "tongHoAnh" <anh.tong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Some RL are open-sourced, the others arent. The people who dont want
>>the world know their code usually defend themselve
>And there is the problem. They get attacked, so they defend
>themselves, whereas if their wishes are respected, they might change
>their minds, if it becomes appropriate.

I dunno why the plural here. Anyone seriously having a go at Kornel? Hajo
certainly never got fed up enough with it not to change his mind...

I can think of one individual. One might almost think the difficulty there
was a property of that individual.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, May.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:16:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 2005-05-11, Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> I disagree. Open source is useful for a project where you want to
> collaborate with many other people. If you're working on your own
> project, it's many times faster to take bug reports and enhancement
> suggestions in plain English, and decide if you want to implement them
> and how, than to have people submitting patches of dubious skill and
> random design intent and you have to try to guess why they want them
> included.

Does this happen much with open source projects? I would imagine that
most users are too lazy to start making a patch and just complain to the
developer in plain English like they would with a closed source project.
And of course it's possible that the user has looked at the source and
has some ideas on what could cause a bug, but describes these ideas in a
message instead of a dubious patch. If the user is right, this might
save a lot of bug-hunting work.

--
Risto Saarelma
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Risto Saarelma wrote:
> On 2005-05-11, Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>>and how, than to have people submitting patches of dubious skill and
>>random design intent and you have to try to guess why they want them
>>included.
>
> Does this happen much with open source projects?

In my own (non-RL) OSS project, I've received fewer patches than many
advocates would have you believe, but I have received a few, and they
were quite good.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Michal Brzozowski" <rusolis@poczta.fm> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:1115797024.435841.311250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>> Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> (badly quoted text)
>>
>> Whoa, man! Something's realy wrong with your quoteing mechanism!
>> :-D
>
> Yes, I'm sorry for that. It was links + google beta.
>
> I repeat my question then:
>
> While it has been brought up. Does anyone
> know a well written c++ roguelike that could be an example on how
> to
> use classes with all their benifits like inheritance, etc? I'm
> especially curious how others implement items, store and handle
> them.

There was an interesting discusion on this topic some time ago - I
would cal it "a creative disagreament". The points raised, in short,
were:
1. OO model in C++ is very unflexible; it does not, among other
things, let you add impromptu attributes or methods (like the
ever-popular 'reflecting' attribute for mirrors);
2. some argued that the way around it would be to implement a custom
dispatcher, sort of an universal setter/getter: 'getAttributeByName'
3. This actually separates "ideal classes" that you have in your
design (where "ancient dragon" inherits from "dragon") from
"implementational classes" that C++ actually sees. Some of the
attributes are managed by the language in an official way, and some by
your custom dispatcher.
4. The above has some advantages - one of them is the fact that you
can write a universal serializer, able to serialize any kind of "ideal
object". This is not possible in pure C++, as it does not suppoer any
kind of reflection.
5. It also has a big drawback: you have to write a lot of OO support
code by yourself, especially the inheritance code. If most of your
objects' attributes are just items on a list, then you can not easily
make a 'magic sword' object that is 'a plain sword but with one
additional attribute'. You have to explicitly copy sword's standard
attributes into your 'magic sword' attribute list, unless you come up
with some kind of custom inheritance, like adding a method
item::copyAttributesFrom(item* motherobject).
6. IMHO the above is reimplementing Smalltalk :-)
7. Kornel has (he did not say it explicitly, so I may be mistaken)
some great item system that works around the idea of templates;
objects have custom 'dispatchers' like described above, but when you
are defining an object, you get to decide what is the object's base
template.
8. All (?) agreed that simply using C++ and doing things like magic
sword class inheriting from sword class inheriting from weapon class
inheriting from item class is a Bad Thing.

My personal opinions are:
- think with objects, code with procedures;
- never duplicate things your language/runtime does (eg. do not write
your own OO layer on top of C++)
- writing RL you will need a _lot_ of polymorphism. Use as few
classes as possible, or use a language with dynamic typing
- [OT] use Allegro

regards,
Filip

--
Contrary to what some people say, my OS _is_ a lifestyle choice, not a
tool; however, I am against osizm
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On 10 May 2005 10:01:35 -0700, "Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>I think releasing source code for roguelikes is quite useless.
>>In case of Angband it has spawned zillions of versions with usually
>>minor changes and no one wants to play Angband anyway so...
>
>
> There are a number of Angband variants that are minor changes, but
> some a quite different; at least as much so as the leap from Moria to
> Angband. And to claim that no one wants to play Angband is so obvious
> false I can only assume that was meant as some sort of joke. I guess
> Finnish humor doesn't translate.

In that case I would say it doesn't translate very well to Finnish
either, or I've grown up in some other Finland.

I haven't bought the Biskup-style rationale so far, even though I
recognise what's behind it and can certainly respect that.

>>The reason I don't want to release my source code is that I have
>>spent lot of time creating it and I feel it belongs to me only.
>>It's not proper for someone else to handle my precioussss...:) 
>
> This, however, is a perfectly valid reason. Nobody has any kind of a
> right to see your source code. If you offer it to the world, that is a
> gift, not an obligation.

How I wish roguelike authors (and software authors in general) would
actually use that valid reason more often, instead of resorting to more
and more outrageous excuses. Come on people! It's only four words: "I
don't want to."

--
"For a mechanic you seem to do an excessive amount of thinking."
-- C-3P0
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Filip Dreger wrote:
> - [OT] use Allegro

[OT] Don't use archaic Allegro, use modern SDL ;-)

--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Kornel just won't release the code because his compiler is a jealous
mistress and doesn't want any of Kornel's code ever being touched by
another woman. ;) " -- Twisted One
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 10:19:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>Quoting R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com>:
>>And there is the problem. They get attacked, so they defend
>>themselves, whereas if their wishes are respected, they might change
>>their minds, if it becomes appropriate.
>
>I dunno why the plural here. Anyone seriously having a go at Kornel? Hajo
>certainly never got fed up enough with it not to change his mind...
>
>I can think of one individual. One might almost think the difficulty there
>was a property of that individual.

That particular individual didn't want variants written. Someone said,
in a rather obnoxious manner, that they would write a variant of his
game whether he wanted them to or not. This, to that particular
individual's mind, outweighed any benefits he might have reaped from
releasing the source code, so he decided not to release it.

I believe the wannabe variant author subsequently embarked on some mad
scheme to analyse the binary and work out what was going on inside the
game.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.ht...
bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:15:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Filip Dreger wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Michal Brzozowski" <rusolis@poczta.fm> napisal w


> - never duplicate things your language/runtime does (eg. do not write
> your own OO layer on top of C++)

Exactly! I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I'm coding in C
(and implementing a lot of OO-type primitives) precisely because the
OO primitives of C++ were a poor fit for the roguelike project.

Bear
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:21:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>
>>Michal Brzozowski wrote:
>
> (badly quoted text)
>
>>Whoa, man! Something's realy wrong with your quoteing mechanism! :-D
>
> Yes, I'm sorry for that. It was links + google beta.

That's what happens when not only don't you use a real newsreader, but
you don't even use a real Web browser. ;) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:26:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> Having users look at the source is rarely useful for anything except
> Unix utility programs, because most Unix users are familiar with
> programming. Most Mac users don't even comprehend that there is such a
> thing as "source code", and would certainly never look at it, while most
> Windows users know what it is but are too stupid to be of any use (yes,
> I'm a horrible person to stereotype like that.... It's still mostly
> true). So there's very misleading results from comparing what happens
> with Unix tools and everything else.

Unix tool users being a self-selecting sample. Since you need a
programming and comp sci Ph.D. to even use them, due to their sorry
excuses for user interfaces, you're guaranteed that anyone who found a
bug probably can read the source, fix it, and submit a patch better than
the tool's original developer. ;)  (Hey, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to write
something with a horrible interface, believe me! Just to use it
successfully if you aren't the author. ;) )

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:31:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> I think I found the discussion, but the only thing I've learnt from
> it is how much I don't know about object oriented progamming :) 

Don't worry. It's like quantum theory. "I don't think it's true that
there are only a dozen people in the world that understand Einstein's
theory of gravity. On the other hand, it's safe to say that nobody
understands quantum theory." Feynman said this, or something closely
resembling it. :) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> That's what happens when not only don't you use a real newsreader, but
> you don't even use a real Web browser. ;) 

Yeah, well most people aren't too dumb to use certain software, so this
type of thing doesn't concern them.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> Unix tool users being a self-selecting sample. Since you need a programming
> and comp sci Ph.D. to even use them, due to their sorry excuses for user

Maybe you'd need a PhD, but considering all the twelve year olds who can
use them just fine, it's clear that you're still just talking out of your
ass.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:30:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One's Mother wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:
>
> > That's what happens when not only don't you use a real newsreader,
but
> > you don't even use a real Web browser. ;) 
>
> Yeah, well most people aren't too dumb to use certain software, so
this
> type of thing doesn't concern them.

I don't exactly understand, who are you insulting now?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:29:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Joe Hewitt wrote:

Well here's a person I havn't heard for ages :-)

> Or, if you're really lucky like me, the people who start submitting
> patches for your game could be much better programmers than you are
> yourself. Even without submitted code, I've found that it's useful to
> have a community of people who understand the inner workings of
> GearHead. They've helped me to track down certain obscure problems and
> optimize my code.

BTW -- any need for the new GearHead page? Or maybe a new NovaCity page
(how's the progress?).
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:34:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia Thu, 12 May 2005 15:29:15 +0200, Kornel Kisielewicz napisa³(a):
> BTW -- any need for the new GearHead page? Or maybe a new NovaCity page
> (how's the progress?).

What would you say for the new Xenocide page? :) 
My old webmaster doesn't want to host it anymore nor to give it's content
:/ 

regards,
Jakub
--
"We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
xenocide.e-plan.pl - SF roguelike in development
www.graveyard.uni.cc - visit Roguelike Graveyard
www.alamak0ta.republika.pl - my other projects
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:26:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jakub Debski wrote:
> Dnia Thu, 12 May 2005 15:29:15 +0200, Kornel Kisielewicz napisa³(a):
>>BTW -- any need for the new GearHead page? Or maybe a new NovaCity page
>>(how's the progress?).
>
> What would you say for the new Xenocide page? :) 
> My old webmaster doesn't want to host it anymore nor to give it's content
> :/ 

Sure, I'd love to ;-)
But hosting would be a problem for me -- I already tremble with fear
that my ISP will find out that I eat over 5GB/month of his bandwith...
if you could provide an external download for it I think I could host it
tough.
As for a webpage itself -- no problem. It's the session period tough, so
my work might be a little slowed down tough ;-)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
Carceri -- A prelude to GenRogue... Coming Soon
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:06:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> Twisted One's Mother wrote:
[snip]
> I don't exactly understand, who are you insulting now?

So much for the notion that TOm was really, completely gone. *sigh*

Pay no attention to the losers in my killfile.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:13:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> It's because most people are exposed to Unix in college computer
> science courses. Until recently, programming-disabled people had no
> contact with Unix, so there was no reason for Unix to accomodate their
> child-like needs. It's very sad to see that there are billions of
> people who cannot program, to me that's like seeing billions of people
> who cannot read, but that's how it is.

There are people who can program who would still prefer to see powerful
unix tools actually have some kind of reasonably nice user interface --
discoverable, explorable, visualizable, and connected to a decent help
system with real documentation instead of a miscellany of
semi-contradictory readme files, man pages, and html files spread across
six directories and two out of three logical filesystems. :)  Apparently
though a tool whose design has clearly had actual HCI insight put into
it isn't geeky and l33t enough for a certain subset of hackers...

The obvious please-everybody path would be to have each tool remain sort
of as is and create a nice front-end with a Real UI(tm). Since a key
desire expressed by some of the "no guis please!" crowd is for the tools
not to be bloated and for them to be easily invoked automagically, these
can get just the bare-bones tool executable and the documentation that
focuses on command-line and scripted invocation. The fact that the tool
is designed to be remote controlled easily makes making the front end
with the nice UI a snap, and even making more than one front end a snap.
These can have user-friendly documentation and can come in various
flavors -- basic vs. power-user oriented, KDE vs. Gnome, whatever.

> Any normal person *can* use a modern Linux distro, but it's still
> largely used by programmers for cultural reasons. Even when a
> programming-disabled person uses Linux now, they use it differently than
> a programmer would.

Programmers will always use a computer system differently in at least
one respect: sometimes they will use it for programming. :) 

> In particular, the pattern of bug reports for Unix GUI tools is very
> different from that of Unix command-line tools. The GUI tools get
> incoherent Windows-user-like feedback, in English only if you're lucky.

What's incoherent about GUI app bug reports?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 12 May 2005 18:55:13 GMT, Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
<kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:

>It's very sad to see that there are billions of
>people who cannot program, to me that's like seeing billions of people
>who cannot read, but that's how it is.

You grossly overestimate the importance of the computer, especially as
there are billions of people who don't have access to a computer to
program on, even if they had the skills. This is like being sad that
not everyone can rebuild the engine in a car or do carpentry or field
strip an M-16 while blindfolded. In some sense, it would be nice if
these skills could be made universal, but they really are specialty
skills and not everyone needs them, even under a very flexible
definition of "need".

Can you run a farm? That's a basic skill, vital to civilization.
Without it, civilization would cease to exist and with it, most of the
human race. Without computers, civilization would be different, but it
wouldn't collapse, even now.

There are far more important skills, like being able to do simple
calculations quickly in one's head, or cook a decent meal, to regret
are not universal.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Dance, Puppet, dance!
But why are there *humans* dancing for the puppet?
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:15:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> There are far more important skills, like being able to do simple
> calculations quickly in one's head, or cook a decent meal, to regret
> are not universal.

I can cook *and* program. :) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
!