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

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.
96 answers Last reply
More about maybe idea source code openess
  1. 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
  2. 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...:)
  3. 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.
  4. 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:)
  5. 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 :)
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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. :)
  9. 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?
  10. 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."
  11. 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."
  12. 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."
  13. 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."
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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/
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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)
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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 :)
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.html
    bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
  36. 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
  37. 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."
  38. 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."
  39. 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."
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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?
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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."
  47. 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."
  48. 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?
  49. 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."
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games