Matthew Johnson writes (quoting an online review): > "Overall the system structure and coding is poor - and reflects the > checkered and disrupted development history"
That is true, unfortunately. FlightGear's code is better organized than many open source projects (and far better than nearly all commercial ones), but it's still pretty haphazard -- the main loop is a poster child for the spaghetti code antipattern, for example. We can fix these problems, and the current CVS is a big improvement over 0.7.10, but we still have a long way to go before the code is properly readable and maintainable. > "Documentation is poor and in many cases non-existent." The documentation contributed so far is generally good, but there's not nearly enough of it. That's a problem common to most open source projects (and many commercial ones). I disagree strongly with formal requirements documents, RFCs, etc. -- unless you're working on software for something like a life-support system or a missle guidance system, those are just excuses not to code. I do agree with Norm, however, that we need more high-level developer docs; perhaps a few simple, one-page stories about the design would help. > "Any significant system changes or adaptations require C++ and Unix > skill" Fortunately, that was not fully true of 0.7.10 and is scarcely true at all now. People have implemented entire aircraft systems without touching the C++ code. "Unix skill" could mean something as simple as changing directories and opening a configuration file in a text editor, so I cannot really comment on that. > "Adapting the system for more general use (e.g. multi-user/network > simulation would be difficult and would require major rewrite." I don't think their conclusion is correct here; in fact, our property system will make multi-user easier to implement than in most games or simulators, not harder. > "Strongly linked to the Unix/C++ development environment - limits > broader appeal." Perhaps they mean that our main development platform uses configure and make, and the VC++ project file is always lagging. Or perhaps they're commenting on the lack of good scripting support. > "The system is difficult to work with due to the lack of a > maintenance/management front-end. Tasks like adding and animating > aircraft models; adding scenery etc. are difficult and fiddly." I agree with them here. FlightGear is still hard for end-users, though it's worth noting that installing a new aircraft is no harder than it was in FS98 (I haven't tried the newer versions), so we're not *that* far behind. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
