MWedel just talked about a complete redesign in his latest post. Things that are redesigned tend to be broken for 1 or 2 years. I could be dead in 1 or 2 years, so could any of us. I'd rather not wait around.
--- Yann Chachkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it would be wise to remove the > hacks, the hacks make things work as they should. > > Hacks are what the name imply: "dirty fixes". By > "removing hacks", it simply means "replacing them by > something cleaner that does the same job". Which > benefits from code clarity, ease of debugging, and > probably performances as well. We already removed > some in the past, so that's simply a restatement > that the efforts in that should continue. > > > If someone want's to create a RPG engine > crossfire, in my opinion, is not the place to do it. > > > It is the exact place where to discuss about what we > want to do with Crossfire, being maintaining it in > its current state, expanding it or making it more > generic. See the description of the list: "This list > is used for general discussion and questions, > answers, and latest changes and updates." This is > general discussion around the game, so that > discussion is perfectly in sync with that > definition. If you don't like it, don't answer to it > - simple as that. > > > Crossfire is a game in it's own right, > > I never said the contrary. > > > we should be concerned with our game, not some > theoretical developers who might want to make their > own game. > > I'm not speaking about "theoretical developers" - > I'm speaking about those who (hopefully) will still > play with crossfire and its code long after we > don't. I'm thinking about all the ideas that could > get implemented much more easily on a cleaner base > than on a patchwork of code. > > No, I don't suggest working towards a cleaner and > more generic code just for the sake of a handful of > theoretical developers. I'm suggesting it to make > *our* own developments easier and faster, to have a > workbasis that we can expand further than what can > be achieved now. We have wonderful game mechanisms > in most cases, that can rival or even outclass those > of a lot of commercial (successful games). I think > that adding a new spell or a new object type to > Crossfire should be as simple as writing a new map, > so that new gaming mechanisms can get quickly > implemented and tested - I don't see this as the > benefit of a few coders, but a benefit for all > players, who wouldn't have to wait for ages to get > bugs solved or new, interesting ideas implemented. > > Maybe you're satisfied with the rythm at which your > proposals are tested and implemented. I am not, and > I believe a good structure would speed the process > up a bit. > > > We have media, we are beyond framework. > > Nonsense. Just because we have code doesn't mean > that its structure is of good quality, or that > staying forever with it is satisfying. > > Given that you never had to add stuff in the > Crossfire code, I suggest that you first try to do > so, and *then* speak about your experience, as I > really don't think you have any knowledge of the > difficulties involved with the current codebase. > > Finally, I'd suggest not to introduce notions you > obviously don't understand. By "framework" in this > case, I was speaking about "a structure supporting a > style of game"; or, if you prefer that term, a > "generic, structured core of functions". The > Media/Framework model has *nothing* to do with that. > I don't think there can be any sane debate if you > don't even understand the terms used. > > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire