Can of worms - Was NLP Question
John
issues that have been raised that I am most interested in.
I am a little dissapointed in the reaction to wanting to create a new
"engine". I understand that its a difficult task. Assume for the moment
that I got encouragement and produced a lousy piece of cr*p. What would the
harm be? People have done this before. Surely given that 99% of new
engines go this way, you would want more people to try so that we could get
to the 1% quicker!!! ;-)
If y'all are so quick to dismiss what comes along before you know what it
is, does it even matter what I produce?
I realize that there are people that look at things that exist and say "I
can do that better", when what they are really saying is "I can do that my
way". What I am trying to do is not a rehash of what exists. I am not
trying to do away with TADS or INFORM etc. I am trying something different.
I realize I have given very little information. I have already given my
reason for this. I don't want my idea to be analyzed before I get a chance
to create it. Someone is bound to hate it and that might hinder my
progress.
One thing I do like though, is that there is a lot of passion in this group.
Not only that, but a good degree of keeping this discussion sensible. With
other groups, the conversation would have become much more religious and
silly by now.
Looking forward to comments,
John.
Erik George Hetzner
As somebody who has, on and mostly off, been thinking about & working
on an alternative system to the Inform standard libray, first by
trying to modify the Inform library, then by rewriting the library
from scratch, then by beginning all over again in Scheme, let me tell
you a few things that I have learned along the way.
People here are not against the idea of somebody writing a new
`engine' or language or library. Quite the contrary. The often seem,
it is true, discouraging. They are simply being realistic. A great
amount of work has gone into the creation and perfection of the
existing systems (Tads, Inform, Hugo). In a sense, the problem is not
re-creating the wheel: the problem is that when you approach the
problem from a certain angle, you will either end up with something
that doesn't work, or another wheel.
You ask, what is the harm in creating a piece of crap? I suppose my
reply to that is, what is the good? Would it not have been better to
have spent the time writing this engine in more productive work, both
to the author & the rest of the world. Rather than spend the time
rewriting an engine from scratch, couldn't one have improved an
existing system?
It is true that people working on these systems will only make
`evolutionary' rather than `revolutionary' changes. But the creation
of revolutionary changes would require a lot of research into existing
systems. If a person has not yet discovered, for example, that Inform
can dynamically create objects, one must wonder how much that person
understands of the system they want to create. Those who wish to
create new systems are theose who best understand the advantages &
flaws of existing ones.
Again, I don't think that people here have ever been
discouraging. They are simply realistic. They don't want people to
waste their time, or others. When people come in & announce that they
are creating a new system, which will be better than existing ones,
but offer no specifics, of course they are discouraging. I think that
this discouragement is far more kind than the alternative, which is to
simply ignore the person.
In addition, I think that I ought to mention that a `closed-source',
proprietary system will not go over well here. Not because all of them
are free-software fanatics: neither Tads nor Inform are even open
source, and certainly not free software. Rather, in order to perform
the tricks that people often want to use, they need to be able to get
down to the nuts & bolts of the system. But I'm not clear what you
mean by a proprietary system, either. A closed compiler? I don't seem
much of a problem with this, but if you intend not to release the
source of the library, I think that I lot of people will find this
unacceptable.
If you still wish to create a new system, by all means do so. But I
advise that first you know the workings of at least one existing
authoring system inside & out, so that you know what it is that you
wish to do differently. If there are still issues that you have, I
think that it is certainly worth it. I would love to see fundamentally
different ways of writing IF. But I haven't yet.
Erik Hetzner
John <nojgoa...@hotmail.com> wrote: : I decided to start a
L. Ross Raszewski
>I am a little dissapointed in the reaction to wanting to create a new
>"engine". I understand that its a difficult task. Assume for the moment
>that I got encouragement and produced a lousy piece of cr*p. What would the
>harm be? People have done this before. Surely given that 99% of new
>engines go this way, you would want more people to try so that we could get
>to the 1% quicker!!! ;-)
The harm is this:
You're clearly a fairly intelligent, talented fellow if you have the
skill to make even a lousy engine. You could be using that talent and
inteligence producing something actually worthwhile. Instead, you're
going to waste a year or so producing somethign that is almost
certainly crap. It's obviously your perogative, but don't expect us to
encourage you to waste your time.
Georgina Bensley
> If you still wish to create a new system, by all means do so. But I
> advise that first you know the workings of at least one existing
> authoring system inside & out, so that you know what it is that you
> wish to do differently. If there are still issues that you have, I
> think that it is certainly worth it. I would love to see fundamentally
> different ways of writing IF. But I haven't yet.
As far as new ways of writing IF and projects that I'd like to see someone
do (but don't intend to develop myself) : I'd really like to see someone
work on a system that would work like a mud/moo/whatever, but create
single player games. And when I say "like a moo" I mean that primarily in
the sense of being *inside* the game world while you're building the game.
When you create a new object in a moo, you don't have to recompile the
whole moo to see your changes. It's there in your (virtual) hand. YOu can
look at it, test all its verbs, and carry it to its new destination.
It might not be the ideal environment for writing IF but it would be a
different one... a nice change, maybe? (And a good way to invite all the
MOOers/MUDders/whatever to easily jump into game-writing, if the system is
sufficiently similar. There's bunches of them!)
John
is required to create a useful new system. Although it is one approach, you
may end up getting constrained within the existing system.
I also don't believe I ever said the system I would create would be any
better than existing ones.
Closed source was mentioned by someone else. I never said that what I
create will be closed source. To put it in writing right now, what I will
create will be open from day 1.
I don't think that trying this is a waste of time. For me at least, I will
use it as a learning exercise. Maybe the first attempt will have major
issues. Hopefully I would get constructive feedback. I could then use that
to do better, or alternatively someone else looking to do something (either
with TADS or a new system) could see that feedback.
As I said, I appreciate the feedback, I really do.
John.
"Erik George Hetzner" <e...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:agcro7$16g4$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
John
John.
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
news:4QmW8.21392$5f3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eytan Zweig
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
news:4QmW8.21392$5f3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
By this reasoning, fairy intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't be playing
existing IF - after all, the time such a person spends playing, say, Curses,
produces nothing except Curses savefiles, which are in no ways superior to
existing Curses savefiles, and quite likely worse. Therefore, fairly
intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't expect the IF community to encourage
them to play IF.
Eytan
Erik George Hetzner
: I personally don't believe that a thorough understanding of current systems
: is required to create a useful new system. Although it is one approach, you
: may end up getting constrained within the existing system.
In this I must disagree *completely*. While I suppose that it could be
argued that you could get constrained by the existed in systems, I
strongly feel that if you don't know what the literature in the field
is, you have a 99 percent change of either (a) rediscovering, with a
great deal of effort, what already exists; or (b) creating something
which is not as useful as what already exists. Actually, I think that
the danger of being constrained by existing systems may be great,
paradoxically, if you don't have a firm grasp of existing
systems. This is because you are in, probably, roughly the same state
of mind that caused the authors of exisinting systems to create
theirs. You will probably find yourself creating the same, or lesser,
solutions to the problems that they encountered. But by knowing how
the problems have been solved previously, it may be possible to
imagine different, but more complete or comprehensive, solutions to
design questions.
: I also don't believe I ever said the system I would create would be
any : better than existing ones.
I'm sorry: I just assumed that. Because I can't see the point of
creating a new system unless you think that it will be better, or
significantly different, than what already exists.
: Closed source was mentioned by someone else. I never said that what I
: create will be closed source. To put it in writing right now, what I will
: create will be open from day 1.
Apologies for my misunderstanding.
: I don't think that trying this is a waste of time. For me at least, I will
: use it as a learning exercise. Maybe the first attempt will have major
: issues. Hopefully I would get constructive feedback. I could then use that
: to do better, or alternatively someone else looking to do something (either
: with TADS or a new system) could see that feedback.
I am a firm believer in learning by doing: but I also believe that one
must absolutely use the work of others. Every revolutionary change has
been proposed by somebody who knew quite well the existing system, and
could see most clearly its flaws. The person outside, the person who
comes from beyond, untainted by the orthodoxy of existing sytems, and
creates the great new change, is a myth.
Erik Hetzner
: As I said, I appreciate the feedback, I really do.
: John.
:>
:>
:>
John
SNIP!
John
> any : better than existing ones.
>
> I'm sorry: I just assumed that. Because I can't see the point of
> creating a new system unless you think that it will be better, or
> significantly different, than what already exists.
It will be significantly different, at least as far as I can discern.
John.
L. Ross Raszewski
>By this reasoning, fairy intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't be playing
>existing IF - after all, the time such a person spends playing, say, Curses,
>produces nothing except Curses savefiles, which are in no ways superior to
>existing Curses savefiles, and quite likely worse. Therefore, fairly
>intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't expect the IF community to encourage
>them to play IF.
If you really can't see the difference, then I take back the
'creative, talented individual' thing.
Playing a game is something you do to enjoy yourself. If you derive
pleasure, that's good enough. I assume that the primary goal in
writing a new IF system is not to have fun doing it (Of course, there
are those who enjoy doing this sort of thing, it's true, but that's
not the *primary* reason for doing it. I enjoy writing IF, but I
don't write IF primaaily to have the pleasure of writing; I do it
primarily so that other people will have the experience of playing. If
you really think you can write an engine purely for the pleasure of
doing it, then there would be no reason to post here about it or
concern yourself with our disapproval; simply never release it or
mention it to us.), but to produce something useful to others.
We may well reccommend that you not play a very bad game, say, a
particular game named after a certain town in Virginia, because your
presumed goal in playign a game, to have fun, would almost certainly
not be met -- it is a bad game, so you would fail.
Likewise, if your goal is to produce a system which others will find
useful and on par with the existing languages, we will advise you not
to, because that goal will probably not be met. Instead, the
overwhelming historical liklihood is that you'll produce crap, with a
fair chance you'll end up bitter and disillusioned.
And, of course, if you play curses, and nothign comes of it, that's
the end of it. Historical precident suggests that if you write a bad
IF engine, we'll spend till the end of time listening to you and a few
insane hangers-on hawkign it, insulting the existing languages, and
claiming that though your system can't parse >X ME, it's still the
most impressive advance in literary technology since gutenberg.
Steven Sommer
wrote:
>I decided to start a different thread to try to address a couple of the
I encourage you to go ahead with your project. Without being familiar
with any of the current systems except TADS, which I experimented with
briefly a couple of years ago, I have started writing a system using
LISP. I'm sure I'm making lots of mistakes; some of them I discover
as I go and others I will discover later. But I'm also learning a lot
about how to write an IF system, particularly the parser, and I'm
having fun doing it. Once I get further along I plan to look more
closely at TADS and the other systems for ideas. Also, I have no
hesitation at all about throwing away everything I've done so far and
starting over if I discover that I've gone down the wrong path. I, at
least, learn more by doing something wrong and then realizing it and
fixing it than I do by imitating how someone else did it.
I would also encourage you to present your ideas to the group, rather
than holding them back because you're afraid that someone might hate
them. I find feedback during the initial stages of a project to be
invaluable. Ignore the negative comments and take advantage of the
useful ones.
Adam Thornton
Eytan Zweig <eyt...@oook.cz> wrote:
>Therefore, fairly intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't expect the IF
>community to encourage them to play IF.
And we don't. Instead we encourage them to write IF, so we can play
more of it.
Adam
OKB (not okblacke)
> I am a little dissapointed in the reaction to wanting to
> create a new "engine". I understand that its a difficult
> task. Assume for the moment that I got encouragement and
> produced a lousy piece of cr*p. What would the harm be?
> People have done this before. Surely given that 99% of new
> engines go this way, you would want more people to try so
> that we could get to the 1% quicker!!! ;-)
That's a refreshing perspective. Heh. Just reading that made me happy.
> If y'all are so quick to dismiss what comes along before
> you know what it is, does it even matter what I produce?
Well, I don't think (most) people are trying to shoot anyone's plans down. I for one am just trying
to give a little perspective, because my impression was that the person proposing the new engine wasn't
fully aware of the issues involved. It'd be a shame if someone poured oodles of time into a project that
was then ignored, so I'm just saying "hey, don't be surprised if people don't use your new system". At the
same time, I had a little personal curiosity about the motivation behind this project.
If people want to go make their own IF systems for fun, or to work on their programming chops or
whatever, that's great.
--
--OKB (not okblacke)
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is
no path, and leave a trail."
--author unknown
OKB (not okblacke)
> I assume that the primary goal in
> writing a new IF system is not to have fun doing it (Of
> course, there are those who enjoy doing this sort of thing,
> it's true, but that's not the *primary* reason for doing
> it. I enjoy writing IF, but I don't write IF primaaily to
> have the pleasure of writing; I do it primarily so that
> other people will have the experience of playing. If you
> really think you can write an engine purely for the
> pleasure of doing it, then there would be no reason to post
> here about it or concern yourself with our disapproval;
> simply never release it or mention it to us.), but to
> produce something useful to others.
I disagree. Regardless of someone's motivations for writing an IF system, it's not unreasonable for
them to post here about it, and be interested in other people's opinions on it.
David Welbourn
>
> As far as new ways of writing IF and projects that I'd like to see someone
> do (but don't intend to develop myself) : I'd really like to see someone
> work on a system that would work like a mud/moo/whatever, but create
> single player games. And when I say "like a moo" I mean that primarily in
> the sense of being *inside* the game world while you're building the game.
>
> When you create a new object in a moo, you don't have to recompile the
> whole moo to see your changes. It's there in your (virtual) hand. YOu can
> look at it, test all its verbs, and carry it to its new destination.
>
> It might not be the ideal environment for writing IF but it would be a
> different one... a nice change, maybe? (And a good way to invite all the
> MOOers/MUDders/whatever to easily jump into game-writing, if the system is
> sufficiently similar. There's bunches of them!)
As someone who's done a sizeable amount of JotaCoding on ifMud (eg: see
http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/cheeseshop.html for an example), I'd just
like to ask that if anyone is insanely tempted to design such a thing as
Georgina proposed, to please include an editor (like vi) within the game
building environment? Assuming one actually wants to write a proper example
of IF, where objects may contain hundreds of lines of code, the lack of an
editor on the mud really hurts more than any almost anything else. I find,
that to code anything of substance, I must write it up first in an editor on
my own machine, then, for *every* @field statement, I must copy them to
another area of the file, remove the line breaks, and cut-and-paste the
@field statements over to the mud. Far, far more tedious than conventional
compiling.
I'd also challenge the idea that writing IF in a mud environment is easy --
just try debugging your code when you've got a zillion nested brackets, for
example -- but I trust my cheeseshop example speaks for itself. Wouldn't you
rather program that in Inform or TADS?
-- David Welbourn
Tzvetan Mikov
"John" <nojgoa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DwlW8.7790$A43.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I decided to start a different thread to try to address a couple of the
> issues that have been raised that I am most interested in.
>
> I am a little dissapointed in the reaction to wanting to create a new
> "engine". I understand that its a difficult task. Assume for the moment
> that I got encouragement and produced a lousy piece of cr*p. What would
the
> harm be? People have done this before. Surely given that 99% of new
> engines go this way, you would want more people to try so that we could
get
> to the 1% quicker!!! ;-)
>
> If y'all are so quick to dismiss what comes along before you know what it
> is, does it even matter what I produce?
Not all of "us" :-). I am a programmer myself and unfortunately lack the
artistic ability to create a good IF game (especially in English which is
not native tongue). So, I've been lurking here for a long time, mainly
because of my interrest in the programming aspects of IF, and because of a
fascination with IF in general.
I think your idea is cool and should be encouraged. I infer that you are
thinking of creating some sort of a simulational engine - that is something
that has always appealed to me because it seems that it would require a
large amount of interresting programming and on the other hand would result
in hopefully realistic environments without any effort from the game writer.
That would let the game writer be more a writer and at the same time let you
(the creater of the engine) be more of a programmer. The best of both worlds
!
Even if this is not you intend to do, I would still eagerly be awaiting any
development.
It seems to me that people here have gotten afraid of new major projects
because of the continuing effort of keeping the existing ones alive. The IF
community is so small that it is understandably being afraid of spreading
too thin. To me however, it seems that the existing IF engines have almost r
eached their saturation point in terms of technology (oh, I will probably be
killed for saying this). Anything new should be welcomed not the least
because if it fails, it shows that the existing engines are still good
enough.
regards,
Tzvetan
Eytan Zweig
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 01:04:32 +0200, Eytan Zweig <eyt...@oook.cz> wrote:
> >By this reasoning, fairy intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't be
playing
> >existing IF - after all, the time such a person spends playing, say,
Curses,
> >produces nothing except Curses savefiles, which are in no ways superior
to
> >existing Curses savefiles, and quite likely worse. Therefore, fairly
> >intelligent, talented fellows shouldn't expect the IF community to
encourage
> >them to play IF.
>
> If you really can't see the difference, then I take back the
> 'creative, talented individual' thing.
>
> Playing a game is something you do to enjoy yourself. If you derive
> pleasure, that's good enough. I assume that the primary goal in
> writing a new IF system is not to have fun doing it (Of course, there
> are those who enjoy doing this sort of thing, it's true, but that's
> not the *primary* reason for doing it.
[snip a lot]
That's where we differ - I have no plans to design an IF authoring system -
I neither have the skill nor do I see the need - but if I were ever to do
so, I'd do it only because I thought it was fun. If other people can benifit
from it, that's great - but the basic reason would be my own enjoyment. I
assumed, maybe incorrectly, that the same applies to the OP in this thread.
Which means that, IMO, that no matter the results, the effort he puts in is
worthwhile.
Eytan
Joao Mendes
Hey, :)
Georgina Bensley <ge...@duke.edu> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02070...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu:
> As far as new ways of writing IF and projects that I'd like to see
> someone do (but don't intend to develop myself) : I'd really like to
> see someone work on a system that would work like a mud/moo/whatever,
> but create single player games. And when I say "like a moo" I mean
> that primarily in the sense of being *inside* the game world while
> you're building the game.
If memory serves me correctly, (though it often doesn't), PennMUSH can
easily be compiled/configured to accept only one user.
Of course, what you end up with is a hideously large footprint that
includes code that will be utterly useless.
Also, on the pros side: 'save' is not an issue, as the state of the world
is permanent, anyway, provided the server is shutown correctly (rather
than, say, kill -9...); on the cons side: 'restart' and 'restore' don't
exist... oh, well... ;)
Cheers,
J.
John
"Tzvetan Mikov" <ce...@jupiter.com> wrote in message
news:agdmps$p...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> Anything new should be welcomed not the least
>> because if it fails, it shows that the existing engines are still good
>> enough.
Thats an excellent point!
John.
Richard Bos
> In addition, I think that I ought to mention that a `closed-source',
> proprietary system will not go over well here. Not because all of them
> are free-software fanatics: neither Tads nor Inform are even open
> source, and certainly not free software.
Not free software? I never paid a penny for Inform, nor for any 'terps.
As for open source, at <http://www.inform-fiction.org/> you can download
both Inform and an assortment of 'terps, with source if you wish.
Richard
Fraser Wilson
> Not free software? I never paid a penny for Inform, nor for any 'terps.
Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
Moving along now.
Fraser.
Georgina Bensley
> As someone who's done a sizeable amount of JotaCoding on ifMud (eg: see
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/cheeseshop.html for an example), I'd just
> like to ask that if anyone is insanely tempted to design such a thing as
> Georgina proposed, to please include an editor (like vi) within the game
> building environment? Assuming one actually wants to write a proper example
> of IF, where objects may contain hundreds of lines of code, the lack of an
Do muds not have any editor at all? I spent all my time on MOOs - the
editor there may not be the best, but there is *something*. Looking at
your posted Mud code it looks much more complicated and confusing than
MOOcode.
But then, ISTR that the translation of "MOO" was "Mud, Object-Oriented"...
:)
Richard Bos
> in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>
> > Not free software? I never paid a penny for Inform, nor for any 'terps.
>
> Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
industry.
Richard
Matthew Russotto
Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>
>Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
>Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
>Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
>industry.
Inform is not open source.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
Richard Bos
> In article <3d2ae51b...@news.tiscali.nl>,
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> >
> >Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
> >Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
> >Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
> >industry.
>
> Inform is not open source.
<ftp://ftp.ifarchive.org/if-archive/infocom/compilers/inform6/source/>
Seems open to me. Ok, it may not be quite open enough to balance the
closed-mindedness of the GNU definition of OpEn SoUrCe, but as I said...
Richard
David Welbourn
>
> Do muds not have any editor at all? I spent all my time on MOOs - the
> editor there may not be the best, but there is *something*. Looking at
> your posted Mud code it looks much more complicated and confusing than
> MOOcode.
>
> But then, ISTR that the translation of "MOO" was "Mud, Object-Oriented"...
> :)
Alas, my knowledge of muds and moos is limited to but a single example:
ifMud. ifMud does not provide an editor. Editing is done crudely, eg: one
may display an object definition by using the "examine" command, or
change/add a field with the "@field" command, or set/clear a flag with the
"@set" command.
I should point out, though, that for most people on the mud this is more
than sufficient, since few people build stuff there or even explore. Most
people are quite content to just visit the lounge and chat. And my examples
of JotaCode are atypically complicated; other people's stuff is much
simpler.
-- David Welbourn
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <3d2ae51b...@news.tiscali.nl>,
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>>
>>Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
>>Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
>>Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
>>industry.
> Inform is not open source.
Okay, let us consider practical matters, as opposed to labels. (The
"free as in speech/beer/freedom" slogans are breathtaking in their
pointlessness. They are neither a meaningful set of analogies nor
complete descriptions of the issues surrounding software licensing.)
Inform has several of the advantages Stallman claims for his vision of
"open source". There are no legal obstacles to porting Inform to a new
platform. There is no legal (or technical) way that Inform can be
withdrawn from public distribution and use; nor is there any way that
fees, limitations, or requirements can be imposed on current or future
users of Inform (in its current version).
Several of the interpreters for Inform games *are* open source, by any
definition of "open source" you prefer. (This is arguably a whole
lot more important for the acceptance of an IF development system. If
I want to write an Inform game, I only have to convince myself to use
the compiler, on one computer.)
Also, documented game-file format. (Which is why we *have* all those
interpreters.)
Anyone who wants to work on a closed-source IF development would be
darn well advised to think about all these issues. Forget about
whether RMS likes your terminology.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
L. Ross Raszewski
<in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>
><ftp://ftp.ifarchive.org/if-archive/infocom/compilers/inform6/source/>
>
>Seems open to me. Ok, it may not be quite open enough to balance the
>closed-mindedness of the GNU definition of OpEn SoUrCe, but as I said...
>
Even ignoring the wackiness that is Gnu,I think there is a useful
distinction to be made between "The source is available" and "The
source is free of ownership for anyone to modify and redistribute"
Jaap van der Velde
> As far as new ways of writing IF and projects that I'd like to see someone
> do (but don't intend to develop myself) : I'd really like to see someone
> work on a system that would work like a mud/moo/whatever, but create
> single player games. And when I say "like a moo" I mean that primarily in
> the sense of being *inside* the game world while you're building the game.
That's the first time in a while I've actually heard someone
propose an idea for a new language/engine that sounds like
its worth persueing(sp?). John, if you are looking for
something worthwhile to spend your surplus hours on, why not
this gem?
I'd try to set up a moo-like environment that allows you to
create a world 'like in a moo', but instead of the moo being
the terp, I'd go for a moo that generates a piece of (Inform/
TADS) code as you go along, that can be compiled afterwards
and used on a 'regular' terp. The compiled source would result
in the created environment, minus the moo (editing)
functionality.
It would be easy to learn, a lot more accessible because of
the large number of moo-users and it would be -the- solution
for good context-sensitive help.
I guess all I really wanted to say was: hear, hear!
Grtz,
JAAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cover me. I'm changing lanes."
-- a bumper sticker
John
news:vdamiu092o8g87vah...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:47:05 -0400, Georgina Bensley wrote:
> > As far as new ways of writing IF and projects that I'd like to see
someone
> > do (but don't intend to develop myself) : I'd really like to see someone
> > work on a system that would work like a mud/moo/whatever, but create
> > single player games. And when I say "like a moo" I mean that primarily
in
> > the sense of being *inside* the game world while you're building the
game.
>
> That's the first time in a while I've actually heard someone
> propose an idea for a new language/engine that sounds like
> its worth persueing(sp?). John, if you are looking for
> something worthwhile to spend your surplus hours on, why not
> this gem?
>
My idea is quite similar to this. My previous comment of creating objects
was indicative of creating the object within the game. Shoot me down in
flames, but I don't know a lot about MUDs, MOOs etc, but from the sounds of
it I am going to be implementing similar features.
Maybe I should rename this thread "cat out of the bag"!!!! Actually the cat
is really just peeking. The reason is that I am not going to try and
specify up front what this will be. I prefer to take an evolutionary design
approach where features come and go and I see what sticks. I have enough
structure in my day job!!!!
John.
Matthew Russotto
Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <3d2ae51b...@news.tiscali.nl>,
>> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> >Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
>> >Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
>> >Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
>> >industry.
>>
>> Inform is not open source.
>
><ftp://ftp.ifarchive.org/if-archive/infocom/compilers/inform6/source/>
>
>Seems open to me. Ok, it may not be quite open enough to balance the
>closed-mindedness of the GNU definition of OpEn SoUrCe, but as I said...
Try http://www.opensource.org
They aren't GNU.
Matthew Russotto
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>Inform has several of the advantages Stallman claims for his vision of
>"open source". There are no legal obstacles to porting Inform to a new
>platform. There is no legal (or technical) way that Inform can be
>withdrawn from public distribution and use; nor is there any way that
>fees, limitations, or requirements can be imposed on current or future
>users of Inform (in its current version).
Stallman has his "free software", the Open Source Initiative has their
"open source", and Inform meets neither. In rough Inform terms, inform
is 'transparent' but not 'open'.
John
different that people like, does that mean that its better than the existing
systems?
Do people really stick to a particular system when playing games? Is there
a "I only play games on TADS" feeling? Surely you would like to play the
games that you would like the most. Its not like the consoles where you
only own a Gamecube but want to play XBox games.
John.
"Vincent Lynch" <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:agee1i$bi2$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> Tzvetan Mikov <ce...@jupiter.com> wrote:
> > It seems to me that people here have gotten afraid of new major projects
> > because of the continuing effort of keeping the existing ones alive. The
IF
> > community is so small that it is understandably being afraid of
spreading
> > too thin. To me however, it seems that the existing IF engines have
almost
> > reached their saturation point in terms of technology (oh, I will
probably
> > be killed for saying this). Anything new should be welcomed not the
least
> > because if it fails, it shows that the existing engines are still good
> > enough.
>
> Surely that's a judgement we can make now, without the need to see whether
> some hypothetical new system is more popular? Do the existing systems do
what
> IF writers want? My impression is that for the most part, they do.
>
> If someone can design a (good) game that is implementable, but not on
current
> systems, *then* we can talk about the current technology not being good
> enough. But the design has to come first; or how will you know what
> innovative features are needed in your revolutionary new system?
>
> -Vincent
>
Jaap van der Velde
> My idea is quite similar to this. My previous comment of creating objects
> was indicative of creating the object within the game. Shoot me down in
> flames, but I don't know a lot about MUDs, MOOs etc, but from the sounds of
> it I am going to be implementing similar features.
Not flaming, but I would suggest you try a Moo sometime,
if only to know what Georgina was talking about. But I think
you're likely to get some good inspiration there. I don't
know of any active and decent Moo's though, the last time
I used one was years ago, but I'd say Georgina can help you
with that one...
John
I need to be careful though, you may see me in a couple of months with no
progress on the writing of a game, but plenty of playing a game!!!
BTW, what would people classify Everquest as?
John.
"Jaap van der Velde" <ve...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:15cmiu46lg2cdraug...@4ax.com...
Alex Watson
He means Free software, not free, I believe.
--
Alex Watson
http://www.aglami.com/watson/
Replies to me[AT]watson1999-69.freeserve.co.uk
<bz2> Odd, gcc dies with the error message 'virtual memory exhausted'
<@Screwtape> You need to exercise it more.
- #afda
wo...@one.net
Hi Erik George Hetzner,
>The person outside, the person who
>comes from beyond, untainted by the orthodoxy of existing sytems, and
>creates the great new change, is a myth.
Not a myth, but certainly a lot rarer than is fondly believed...
Respectfully,
Wolf
"The world is my home, it's just that some rooms are draftier than
others". -- Wolf
Georgina Bensley
> Not flaming, but I would suggest you try a Moo sometime,
> if only to know what Georgina was talking about. But I think
> you're likely to get some good inspiration there. I don't
> know of any active and decent Moo's though, the last time
> I used one was years ago, but I'd say Georgina can help you
> with that one...
I'm not very active on them anymore myself. Used to be, but now I
generally only log into some small MOOs and chat with people I already
know.
I'd probably still recommend LambdaMOO for the 10+ year history and the
wide, wild array of items made by an eclectic group of people over that
timespan. And there's plenty of lm-specific tutorials, essays, and
programming guides floating around the net. (I'd offer to give tours but
I'm not often logged in there so it could be hard to meet up.)
Tzvetan Mikov
"Vincent Lynch" <ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:agee1i$bi2$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> Tzvetan Mikov <ce...@jupiter.com> wrote:
probably
> > be killed for saying this). Anything new should be welcomed not the
least
> > because if it fails, it shows that the existing engines are still good
> > enough.
>
> some hypothetical new system is more popular? Do the existing systems do
what
> IF writers want? My impression is that for the most part, they do.
Well, the truth is that the existing engines are sufficiently general
purpose and powerful to be able to implement almost anything in them with
some, possibly large, amount of programming. I mean, one can replace
anything in Inform (and TADS3 probably) - parser, library, etc. One could
even come up with an entirely new language and compile it to ZCode. But it
gets really impractical if it has to be done for every game. Judging from
the posts in this group, there is a lot of programming and customization
required to make a really good "advanced" game. So, may be a new approach is
needed and may be it will not be a simple incremental improvement over the
existing. Then again, may be not, but we won't know until we try.
> If someone can design a (good) game that is implementable, but not on
current
> systems, *then* we can talk about the current technology not being good
> enough. But the design has to come first; or how will you know what
> innovative features are needed in your revolutionary new system?
:-) How can you tell that a game is implementable if the technology to
implement it doesn't exist ? If I were creating a game that I wanted it to
actually see the light of day, I would design it with respect to the
limitations of the current engines.
Actually the possible improvements that I would like to see do not affect to
the end result (a good game in any case), but more the process of creating
it. Generally I think that it should be less of a programming challenge than
it is now. Too bad I don't any idea how to accomplist that ... :-)
regards,
Tzvetan
Fraser Wilson
> Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
Oh, my mistake. I didn't realise you were tactically using the
no-cost sense of free.
Is this an important debate w.r.t. IF?
> Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
> Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
> industry.
Somebody else said Inform wasn't free, you said it was, and to my
regret I popped out a quickie to highlight why both these things are
true. If we can say free variable, free money, and free Tibet, then
free software isn't such a stretch. But I promise I'll make the sense
clear.
Speaking of NLP (because I just looked at the subject line, and
apparently we were), I implemented a version of Michael Dyer's demon
based parser, but instead of using Conceptual Dependency, I plugged it
into a modified public Cyc release, and now it can answer questions
about dogs. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to apply it to IF yet
(except for small stories involving, well, dogs).
Fraser.
Michael Burschik
> Why does it always have to be so black and white? If I produce something
> different that people like, does that mean that its better than the existing
> systems?
I could not agree more wholeheartedly.
Consider syntax, for example. For some reason, most people seem to
prefer a C-like syntax. I, however, consider lisp-like syntax, that of
scheme in particular, to be the embodiment of all that is elegant and
wholesome. So I would rather use an IF authoring system with a
lisp-like syntax, even if it were slightly less powerful than existing
systems.
No doubt, other people have other preferences that are not fulfilled
by existing authoring systems.
Regards
Michael Burschik
Richard Bos
> in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>
> > Ah, the Stallman modification of the English language, a.k.a. GNUnglish.
>
> Oh, my mistake. I didn't realise you were tactically using the
> no-cost sense of free.
I wasn't. I was automatically assuming the English meaning of free,
which includes the no-cost sense.
> Is this an important debate w.r.t. IF?
No, but clarity is important, and so is the question of where to get
Inform and its competitors, and how. In this case, someone claimed that
Inform wasn't free; but in the meaning of the word as I use it, Inform
_is_ free, and I didn't want people to think they have to pay to use
Inform or to read its source code.
> > Better mention that you're using it next time, because in English,
> > Inform _is_ free software, and RMS does not own the entire open source
> > industry.
>
> Somebody else said Inform wasn't free, you said it was, and to my
> regret I popped out a quickie to highlight why both these things are
> true. If we can say free variable, free money, and free Tibet, then
> free software isn't such a stretch. But I promise I'll make the sense
> clear.
That is all I would ask for. You're free(!) to use your meaning of free,
as long as you don't assume people will automatically understand your
restrictive meaning. In the default English language, Inform both is
free and has open source code; if you use more specialised meanings of
those words without making it clear that you do so, any confusion is
your problem, not the world's.
Richard
Erik George Hetzner
: I wasn't. I was automatically assuming the English meaning of free,
: which includes the no-cost sense.
If somebody says that one is living in a `free country', do you assume
that everything is given away for no cost?
: No, but clarity is important, and so is the question of where to get
: Inform and its competitors, and how. In this case, someone claimed that
: Inform wasn't free; but in the meaning of the word as I use it, Inform
: _is_ free, and I didn't want people to think they have to pay to use
: Inform or to read its source code.
Inform may be free, but as far as I am converned it is not free software. If I
did not make that clear in the beginning.
: That is all I would ask for. You're free(!) to use your meaning of free,
: as long as you don't assume people will automatically understand your
: restrictive meaning. In the default English language, Inform both is
: free and has open source code; if you use more specialised meanings of
: those words without making it clear that you do so, any confusion is
: your problem, not the world's.
For the first part of your statement, true enough. I won't assume
it. But don't try to keep me from using words as I wish. When I say
that something is free software, I may have less restrictive
definition that Richard Stallman, but I do not consider Inform free
software. If somebody is confused by that, fine, I will be glad
to explain myself.
As for the second part: from the Open Source Initiative site
(www.opensource.org), part of their definition of open source:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them
to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
software.
Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support
independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid
evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and
redistribute modifications.
`Open Source' is a very new term, not any part of the `default' English
language. It has a very distinct definition, under which Inform does not
fall. I'm sorry.
Erik
L. Ross Raszewski
<Michael....@gmx.de> wrote:
>I could not agree more wholeheartedly.
>
>Consider syntax, for example. For some reason, most people seem to
>prefer a C-like syntax. I, however, consider lisp-like syntax, that of
>scheme in particular, to be the embodiment of all that is elegant and
>wholesome. So I would rather use an IF authoring system with a
>lisp-like syntax, even if it were slightly less powerful than existing
>systems.
>
>No doubt, other people have other preferences that are not fulfilled
>by existing authoring systems.
Time for someone to ressurrect ZIL...
Nikos Chantziaras
> I understand that its a difficult task. Assume for the moment
> that I got encouragement and produced a lousy piece of cr*p. What
> would the harm be? People have done this before.
Keep in mind, that the best way to learn how *not* to produce crap, is
actually producing some. Yes, crap *is* useful! ;-)
> If y'all are so quick to dismiss what comes along before you know
> what it is, does it even matter what I produce?
It doesn't. If you write something just because you feel the need to
do so, then you write it for yourself. If someone else likes it, fine.
If not, no big deal. Many well known projects started like this.
> What I am trying to do is not a rehash of what exists. I am not
> trying to do away with TADS or INFORM etc. I am trying something
> different.
If people wouldn't do this, TOPS-10 and Cobol would still be cutting
edge technology!
> I realize I have given very little information. I have already given
> my reason for this. I don't want my idea to be analyzed before I get
> a chance to create it. Someone is bound to hate it and that might
> hinder my progress.
On the other hand, someone might like it. You might even find someone
able to help you prototyping your engine.
-- Niko
Fred the Wonder Worm
In article <uikmk54...@corp.supernews.com>,
David Welbourn <dsw...@look.ca> wrote:
>"Georgina Bensley" wrote:
>> I'd really like to see someone work on a system that would work like a
>> mud/moo/whatever, but create single player games. And when I say "like
>> a moo" I mean that primarily in the sense of being *inside* the game
>> world while you're building the game.
[ ... ]
> As someone who's done a sizeable amount of JotaCoding on ifMud (eg: see
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~dswxyz/cheeseshop.html for an example),
This example reinforces for me why I prefer LPmud for coding purposes, or
even TinyMUCK. I admire your persistence!
> I'd just like to ask that if anyone is insanely tempted to design such
> a thing as Georgina proposed, to please include an editor (like vi)
> within the game building environment?
For a _single player_ version this is presumably not required, as long
as there is a facility for moving between object definitions and files.
With LPmuds this happens more-or-less automatically, since an object's
definition does lie in a source file. This is not typically the case
with the database-style muds.
(LPmuds also came with a builtin version of 'ed', which while less than
ideal was adequate to get the job done. At least some versions also came
with 'mtp', an ftp-like interface to the underlying source files that knew
about the mud permissions and acted appropriately. This was good, and I
personally regard it as better than running vi over the link. Better
again would probably be an rsync client.)
> I'd also challenge the idea that writing IF in a mud environment is
> easy -- just try debugging your code when you've got a zillion nested
> brackets, for example -- but I trust my cheeseshop example speaks for
> itself. Wouldn't you rather program that in Inform or TADS?
Or LPC. :) I feel this is very much a property of the programming
language used by the mud, not intrinsic to a mud.
[ I know I've focussed on LPmuds here -- those and TinyMUCKs are the ones
I have had the most experience with. There are other muds that have decent
programming languages, like Ubermuds, and possibly Muq, although that does
not look like it has been worked on for a while. I find that the approach
used by LPmuds matches best what I believe should be used once one gets
beyond wanting to do simple things. Certainly it is the approach I intend
to use in the mud I have been not-writing for many years now. :) ]
Cheers,
Geoff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Bailey (Fred the Wonder Worm) | Programmer by trade --
ft...@maths.usyd.edu.au | Gameplayer by vocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joao Mendes
Hello, :)
Erik George Hetzner <e...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in
news:aghr2c$2hft$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>: I wasn't. I was automatically assuming the English meaning of free,
>: which includes the no-cost sense.
> If somebody says that one is living in a `free country', do you assume
> that everything is given away for no cost?
Hmm... I would presume he meant that the country can be taken over with no
cost... ;)
Cheers,
J.
John Colagioia
>I personally don't believe that a thorough understanding of current systems
>is required to create a useful new system. Although it is one approach, you
>may end up getting constrained within the existing system.
Artists (particularly writers) go through this a lot. "How
can I be original, if I look at prior art?" When Clemens said
that originality is the art of concealing sources, he meant
it. Very few people are "accidentally" original, coming from
a vacuum; they're more likely to have been *inspired* by
something that already existed, and improved upon it.
Example from the programming world: Notice how many "new"
programming languages are more or less BASIC or Pascal with
the keywords changed, and with less power. This is what
happens when an author fails to familiarize himself with
the state of the art, because you can't intuit user
problems without having been a user.
That is, understanding isn't a requirement, per se, but having
a good understanding will give you a much better idea of what
you want to do, by illustrating the good points and major
pitfalls. The frustration you'll feel at not remembering the
difference between "has" and "provides" in Inform (as a basic
example) will be invaluable when you start designing your own
approach to polymorphism.
[...]
Eytan Zweig
"Erik George Hetzner" <e...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:aghr2c$2hft$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> : I wasn't. I was automatically assuming the English meaning of free,
> : which includes the no-cost sense.
>
> If somebody says that one is living in a `free country', do you assume
> that everything is given away for no cost?
If I tell you I'll give you a "free literature", do you assume I'm going to
give you literature which you can freely modify and re-distribute?
I'd posit software is a lot more similar to literature than to countries.
Eytan
Plugh!
> is, does it even matter what I produce?
> What I am trying to do is not a rehash of what exists. I am not
> trying to do away with TADS or INFORM etc. I am trying something different.
> I realize I have given very little information. I have already given my
> reason for this. I don't want my idea to be analyzed before I get a chance
> to create it. Someone is bound to hate it and that might hinder my
> progress.
I understand exactly what you are saying here, but took a differnet
approach myself (not an engine, but a GUI based TADS generator, see
http://www.plugh.info <end of Plugh plug>).
What I thought was, since people will anyway ask me to change it if I
go ahead and design it myself, I could save myself a bunch of work &
ask r.a.i.f how it should operate & what features it should have &
then implement it.
I received enough encouragement to keep me going and enough input to
change quite a bit of the fucntionality, but the result is that when I
release the first beta (real soon now), I don't expect so many folks
to reply "I won't use it unless it can X, or unless you change Y and
add Z)."
Why not go ahead and seek collaborative input on the design, then hack
the implementation yourself? That way you can be reasonably sure of
giving the community something which (a majority of) it really wants.
John Colagioia
While I don't want to "jinx" it by saying too much, let's
just say that someone has acquired some information on
that route, and once some groundwork has been laid, and
licensing issues approached and settled (since said
information has made it to my hands through not-
entirely-legitimate means), an attempt will be made to
do so.
I'll try to keep close-mouthed on the subject, for the
most part, though, until I actually have code.
Matthew Russotto
I've kicked around that idea a few times, but my common sense keeps
getting in the way.
David Given
"John" <nojgoa...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Any recommendations of a MOO to try would be very much appreciated.
Well, *the* MOO is LambdaMOO:
http://www.gotham-city.net/lambda.html
It's one of the oldest and one of the biggest MOOs around. It...
[connects] currently has 128 users logged on, which is pretty light. I
suspect most of the US is asleep at the moment. This is the place to go
if you're interested. (However, when it's busy it's pretty laggy.)
The LambdaMOO engine, which you can use to build your own MOOs with, is
pretty nice. The language is rather TADS-like; garbage collected, object
oriented, with lots of nice features like lists and exceptions. It's
very full featured and includes pretty decent security. Objects,
properties and verbs all have their own owners and access permissions,
which means it's possible to define a class belonging to A, which B
can subclass and add methods to, but B can't override some of A's
methods.
In terms of power, I wrote an online web-based game once in the
LambdaMOO engine. It provided processing, HTTP access, data storage, the
lot, all written in Lambda code.
The standard database is pretty good and contains everything you need to
get started on a world. The default parser is simplistic but suffices
(it goes up to VERB NOUN PREPOSITION NOUN but not much more). If you
wanted to expand it further, you're probably better off throwing the
database away and starting again.
The programmer's reference:
http://www.bvu.edu/ctown/Progman/ProgrammersManual_toc.html
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ "Why should we put ourselves out of our way to
| d...@cowlark.com | serve posterity? For what has posterity ever done
| (d...@tao-group.com) | for us?" --- Sir Boyle Roche
+- www.cowlark.com --+
David Given
"David Welbourn" <dsw...@look.ca> writes:
[...]
> Alas, my knowledge of muds and moos is limited to but a single example:
> ifMud. ifMud does not provide an editor. Editing is done crudely, eg: one
> may display an object definition by using the "examine" command, or
> change/add a field with the "@field" command, or set/clear a flag with the
> "@set" command.
Back when I was a LambdaMOO guru I wrote some verbs that cooperated with
TinyFugue to provide local editing. When you asked LambdaMOO to edit
something, it spat out some magic numbers that TF would recognise. TF
would then download the text from the MOO and spawn an editor an the
local machine. When you finished, TF would upload the text again and the
MOO would save it.
It worked extremely well. Could you do something similar?
John
John.
"David Given" <d...@pearl.tao.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjrjga...@172.16.100.88...
D. Jacob Wildstrom
>true. If we can say free variable, free money, and free Tibet, then
>free software isn't such a stretch. But I promise I'll make the sense
>clear.
"Free Tibet.... with the purchase of any two first-world countries!"
+------Archbishop, First Church of Mystical Agnosticism------+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Alfred Renyi |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+------------------------------------------------------------+