Excuse me while I defend myself from what Mr. Turner says I mean. I wish
this to stop, but he continues to put words into my mouth in direct
contradiction to my actions and words.
Yes, there is useful information in here too, so don't get too upset.
On 26 Apr 1998, James Turner wrote:
>George <greerga@circlemud.org> writes:
>
>> I have come to the conclusion that you, my dear sir, are petty to a fault
>> and reiterate the same arguments over and over. I am all in favor of making
>> changes with people who will admit when they are wrong, but you shall
>> never, I see.
>
>So the value of an idea is dependant of the person who suggests it?
If you do not accept when you are wrong, you are doomed to re-implement it.
I'm wrong often, but you never are.
>That's not a very effective way to promote growth, George. I am sorry
>that you are unwilling to accept new ideas.
Excuse me, I never said I was unwilling to accept new arguments. I am
willing to reject preposterous arguments. I have done so, here are your
points.
POINT #1
* The entire macro->function conversion.
I will convert the macros in CircleMUD which are deemed necessary.
This does _not_ include the GET_*() macros. It may include CAN_SEE
and the other similiar functions. Anyone wishing to suggest a
macro may do so and I will consider it, including you.
* C++ features, including 'inline.'
No. Wait for a real C++ release.
POINT #2
* Skill code
Already scheduled to be rewritten.
* Guild code
No. Everyone has a different way to do it.
POINT #3
* Layout
The function placement makes sense to us.
* Unified header
No. Disadvantages far outweigh the advantage. (singular)
* Database layout
ASCII pfiles should fix that.
POINT #4
* Redundancy
The 'interpreter' functions have specific purposes and are more
understandable than the unified function you suggested.
POINT #5
* UNIX tools
No. I get enough questions about where to find Win95 'patch'.
POINT #6
* Appearance
ACMD and ASPELL enforce that all spells and commands must have
the same functions and keep all of the arguments the same name.
The conformity is enforced and allows changing the arguments at
any time. In short, they are useful.
POINT #7
* Linked lists
Might be nice, but requires major rewriting and a linked list
library all in the name of being 'proper.' Sometimes the most
'proper' way to do something isn't the best.
* External libraries
Not necessary and reduces portability.
>I see now that your desire is merely to patch bugs and occasionally toss
>in snippets, instead of rework some of the deeper undercurrents.
Unless you know me, please stop saying what I desire. I am currently
working on CircleMUD, OasisOLC, my web site, and numerous other projects
involving CircleMUD. If all I wanted to do was 'patch bugs and
occaisonally toss in snippets', I would not have accepted the position on
circlemud.org, I would not have created my web page, and I would not be
defending myself from you tonight.
>It is a pity; packing features in at the sake of good design is
>something proprietary software is good for. But it is certainly your and
>Jeremy's choice.
I plan on redesigning the player file handling based on what I am given. I
have a project in the works to rewrite all of db.c. I'm currently doing
major renovation on OasisOLC.
>It is clear now that circle would never function well under a bazaar
>style development model; you clearly have no interest in letting
>others become involved beyond handing in simple patches.
I have every intention of rejecting (excuse the word) stupid suggestions.
>Everyone, myself included, appreciates the time and effort you put into
>circle. But it is unfortunate that you are not willing to admit there are
>flaws that could be addressed in future revisions.
Of course there are, but many of your 'flaws' (macros), are not.
>However, though I have met with some positive responses (most through
>email, something Mr. Koepke apparently cannot differentiate between
>the mailing list), a good deal of them have been "me-toos" agreeing
>with you, not always for the sake of your arguments, but simply
>because you're George.
This was prompted by you saying that which I have not. I would hope that
everyone does not agree with me simply because I am who I am. I can be
wrong, and are.
>When I began the thread, I was interested in whether ideas would be
>valued on their own merit or not. Clearly they are not, at least not
>by the vocal minority on this list. It is a pity, but it is certainly
>your choice.
Your ideas had merit, until you started to reiterate them over and over
with no new information, or proof, or anything besides 'it shouldn't be
done this way' or 'this is messy'. We can only take so much of 'you're
wrong' when we have proven time and time again that many of your positions
are not the best, or even wrong.
And as always, Jeremy has final say, you don't have to ask me.
--
George Greer - Me@Null.net | Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
http://www.van.ml.org/~greerga | is not thus handicapped. -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST