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

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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...

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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)

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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