Adrift: good or bad?
Jackie Huber
games. The problem is I'm a writer, not a coder. I've tried to learn but
I've finally come to the conclusion that my brain just doesn't work that
way. So that leaves me with Adrift. I can use Adrift, but I've gotten the
impression that it's the red-headed stepchild of the IF community. To be
honest, I've played a lot of really poorly-written, buggy games with it, so
I can hardly blame it's detractors. So my question is, is it even worth the
effort? If I go through the trouble of making a game will anyone even bother
to play it? I suppose I could start reading up on TADs again...
davidw
"Jackie Huber" <ho...@tisd.net> wrote in message
news:3f47...@news.tisd.net...
It's certainly worth using Adrift if you're not a programmer or you just
feel like being able to write your game without resorting to learn a
programming language to do so. And while there are certainly more than a few
dire games written with Adrift, there are also quite a few decent ones
(check out http://www.shadowvault.net/fav%20games.htm for my favourites).
Mark J. Tilford
Go to http://www.ltlink.com/~newsguy/ifcollab.html and look for a
programmer.
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Mad Monk
Yeah, ADRIFT has had more than its fair share of passing-by game
writers who download it, tap out a poorly-written "tribute" to their
favourite anime television show, and vanish back into the Internether.
And, of course, there are some quite excellent authors in its
community, and your game will most certainly be played (except by
everyone without Windows, which may be a turn-off for you*). But yes,
if you want to write, and can't code past a shiny silver coin in TADS,
ADRIFT is worth the however-many minutes it takes you to download it.
*Then there's the ever-lovely SCARE and JAsea, which allow people on
other systems to play any ADRIFT game you may write.
Desi
is that it's shareware.
I think most of the problems in ADRIFT games originate because people
underestimate the system. I had a lot of fun with ADRIFT, but then had
to leave it because of the 25 object limit you get if you don't
register it.
If you wanna use a simple system that's surprisingly powerful (and
free for credit card-less people like myself), use CAT
(http://www.richmond62.freeserve.co.uk/). It's menu-driven, but you
still need to learn some very basic code to get it working.
davidw
"Desi" <patmcr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:597901a0.03082...@posting.google.com...
V3.9 of ADRIFT is freeware and there are no size restrictions imposed on the
games you write with it.
SimonW
wrote:
>I've played IF for a couple of years and would like to try making my own
I Haven't used Adrift so I can't really comment on it's features etc.
Obviously the games you write in it are only available for windows.
On your question about writing a game and will anyone read it :-
I am starting out like you. ( I am using Inform rather than Adrift)
I don't know if anyone will read my games (if I finish any) or if they
will be good enough for IFcomp. But, I am having *FUN* learning about
the language, coding really simple games and reading the
documentation.
IF is a hobby to me and I always enjoy putting effort into my hobbies.
I am sure if you wrote a good game in language, lots of people will
play it.
Have fun!
Simon
Eric Mayer
I am definitely a writer rather than a coder and there's no doubt Adrift is
very helpful and can allow someone like me to make a simple game fairly
simply. However, even with Adrift, for anything beyond the simplest
"wander and pick up objects" game, one is quickly confronted with the
equivalent of coding - which is to say, your brain has to -- a least to an
extent -- work "that way."
I enjoy dipping my toe into the coding water. If you really and truly
don't, then probably you really don't want to write computer games. I don't
think the two aspects - the writing and coding, are so readily seperable as
it might seem. Your toolbox and how well you understand and can use the
tools you have, in any form of art, is going to have a great influence not
only on what you can do, but what you can even conceive of doing.
--
Eric
http://home.epix.net/~maywrite/
=====================================================================
"Who does not see that I have taken a road, in which, incessantly and
without labor, I shall proceed so long as there shall be ink and paper in
the world? I can give no account of my life by my actions; fortune has
placed them too low; I must do it by my fancies." Michel de Montaigne
======================================================================
David Thornley
>I've played IF for a couple of years and would like to try making my own
>games. The problem is I'm a writer, not a coder. I've tried to learn but
>I've finally come to the conclusion that my brain just doesn't work that
>way.
That may be a serious problem. Writing most IF requires programming
to some extent, and using a system that doesn't use standard programming
language syntax isn't going to make that problem go away.
So that leaves me with Adrift. I can use Adrift, but I've gotten the
>impression that it's the red-headed stepchild of the IF community. To be
>honest, I've played a lot of really poorly-written, buggy games with it, so
>I can hardly blame it's detractors.
One problem is that any yahoo can write a sloppy, buggy game with it
with a minimal amount of work. (Since it's sloppy, and in Adrift
rather than a language with some sort of text representation, it's
going to be hard to debug.) It was not until the last comp that
anybody released Adrift games I considered above average.
So my question is, is it even worth the
>effort? If I go through the trouble of making a game will anyone even bother
>to play it? I suppose I could start reading up on TADs again...
>
Thing about TADS is that the learning curve to get something going is
a bit steeper, but actually doing anything complicated is likely to
be easier in TADS.
The issue here with Adrift is that, if your game starts requiring
things that Adrift doesn't immediately support, you're going to be
doing programming whether your brain works like that or not, and
with suboptimal tools.
So, go ahead and try Adrift, at worst you aren't going to lose much
time learning what to do. Try to write a good game, and see if you
like it. If you start having trouble making the game system do what
you want it to, consider TADS or Inform or some such language.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Desi
> V3.9 of ADRIFT is freeware and there are no size restrictions imposed on the
> games you write with it.
Whoa thanks!
Desi
(http://www.richmond62.freeserve.co.uk) (my favorite IF authoring
environment so far):
>> ADRIFT is damn easy to learn. I learnt after poking around for a
few minutes.
>> CAT requires you to learn some basic programming, but CAT's
"programming" is simply some plain-word conditions followed by
plain-word actions. Sounds simple, is surprisingly powerful.
>> ADRIFT has handy little text boxes and pull-down menus to make it
easy for first-time creators to insert events, responses, objects and
rooms. Also has text boxes for changing room and object descriptions
after certain requisites have been met.
>> CAT still has text boxes, just not as many of them. And you can
code in a much larger variety of responses without much study,
including amended changes in room and object descriptions, as well as
whole new ones.
>> ADRIFT has a spellchecker.
>> CAT has a spellchecker.
>> ADRIFT Runner only works under Windows, but there have been other
readers made for other systems.
>> CAT can be turned into a standalone game once your game is
finished, but right now it can only run under Windows.
For me, CAT's weak spot is its Windows-only environment, but the
majority of people use Windows anyway (no offence to non-Windows
readers out there). I say use ADRIFT if you're just starting out, or
if you wanna make a quick game. But if you want something that has a
bit more power for creating bigger games (and is still easy to learn)
then use CAT. Or you can just go learn TADS or Inform, which I'm sure
has more features.
Eric Forgeot
Inform.
I wanted to try something new and I've begun also a 3rd game, this
time with Quest. Both system has its advantages, but if you feel
afraid of using a system such as Inform, Alan or Tads, you can give a
try to Quest.
The advantage of it over Adrift is you can edit the source code
generated by the development toolkit, so you can tweak it to your
needs. This language is fairly easy to understand (even if in a way I
find Inform more logical, probably because it's close to C), here is a
small sample of a room definition, with one object in it :
define room <arena>
look <It's the arena.>
command <hit #@player#> {
if got <hammer> then {
msg <You hit #@player#.>
msgto <#player#; |b$name(%userid%)$|xb hits you with a hammer.>
}
else msg <You don't have anything to hit #@player# with.>
}
prefix <the>
define object <hammer>
prefix <a>
take
type <giveable>
end define
end define
The language has much flexibility so if you feel you're more a writer
than a programmer, you can write easily in it. I recommend you give it
a try
John Colagioia
> own games. The problem is I'm a writer, not a coder. I've tried to
> learn but I've finally come to the conclusion that my brain just
> doesn't work that way.
Sure it does. If you can put together a plot and say "what if this
happens here," you can write code. It might (to be blunt) be crappy
code beyond all belief, but that just takes practice.
> So that leaves me with Adrift.
There are a dozen or so "you don't need to type anything" IF
languages. ADRIFT is the most popular of them.
> I can use
> Adrift, but I've gotten the impression that it's the red-headed
> stepchild of the IF community. To be honest, I've played a lot of
> really poorly-written, buggy games with it, so I can hardly blame
> it's detractors. So my question is, is it even worth the effort? If
> I go through the trouble of making a game will anyone even bother
> to play it? I suppose I could start reading up on TADs again...
If you're willing to write IF, and really do want it to be good, then
my answer is, "try it." Sounds like I'm avoiding the issue, but the
truth is that none of us can tell you what'll work best for your
situation.
So, spend an hour or so hacking around ADRIFT. If you like it, build
up complexity and see if you still like it. If you don't, try again
with Quest or something.
Also, don't give up on the "real" programming languages. After you've
done the above (which'll get your feet wet in the programming concepts
while you're not paying attention), go back to TADS or pick up Inform,
along with a simple sample game, and make modifications. You'll
probably be surprised how quickly you actually pick it up.
Then throw out that game (it'll be atrocious, hopefully by design),
and start fresh in your new system of choice...
Adam Thornton
This is going to come off sounding bitchy and petulant, and I really
don't mean it that way, but:
If you're a writer, not a coder, then you probably shouldn't be writing
IF, but plain old fiction. What differentiates IF from F is, well, the
I, which *is* coding. Now, the degree of I can vary wildly, from a
linear CYOA at the one end to a full-on physical simulation of some
situation at the other, but if you're making the I happen, you *are*
coding.
I suspect that if your brain really *doesn't* work that way, the IF
you're going to write isn't going to be very much fun to play, because
there will be no reason you couldn't have written it as static fiction.
If, on the other hand, you mean, "learning a new syntax is hard, but I
have some idea of the narrative branching possibilities in the game I
want to make, and the thing I'm thinking of really couldn't be done as
static fiction" then that really *is not* "my brain doesn't work that
way." If you're conceiving of it in a shape where the interactivity is
integral, your brain is, I'm afraid, already working that way. The
syntax of the language is really a fairly unimportant implementation
detail and will, I promise, become easier with practice.
Once you start coding, you will probably find, as the consensus seems to
go, that Adrift makes easy things really really easy, but medium, let
alone hard, things, very close to impossible. On the other hand, TADS,
or Inform, or Hugo, make easy things sort of medium, but medium things
also medium, and hard things hard. That is, they are richer, more
expressive languages, and therefore don't get in your way when you want
to implement something tricky. The downside is that they do take quite
a lot of effort to learn, particularly (I would guess) if they're among
your first programming languages.
Adam
Desi
> This is going to come off sounding bitchy and petulant, and I really
> don't mean it that way, but:
>
> If you're a writer, not a coder, then you probably shouldn't be writing
> IF, but plain old fiction. What differentiates IF from F is, well, the
> I, which *is* coding. Now, the degree of I can vary wildly, from a
> linear CYOA at the one end to a full-on physical simulation of some
> situation at the other, but if you're making the I happen, you *are*
> coding.
Ummm, if J's posting here... and this is an IF forum... then doesn't
that mean that s/he would rather use hir skills in IF and not in plain
one-dimensional writing.
Adam Thornton
Desi <patmcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote in message
>news:<bidia5$n75$3...@news.fsf.net>...
>> IF, but plain old fiction. What differentiates IF from F is, well, the
>> I, which *is* coding. Now, the degree of I can vary wildly, from a
>> linear CYOA at the one end to a full-on physical simulation of some
>> situation at the other, but if you're making the I happen, you *are*
>> coding.
>Ummm, if J's posting here... and this is an IF forum... then doesn't
>that mean that s/he would rather use hir skills in IF and not in plain
>one-dimensional writing.
Well, yeah, which is what the rest of my post was about: assuming that J
has an idea that *can't* be expressed as static fiction, then the claim
that his or her brain "doesn't work that way" is, most likely, not
correct. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a game in there begging to be
written.
Adam
David Thornley
>In article <597901a0.03082...@posting.google.com>,
>
>Well, yeah, which is what the rest of my post was about: assuming that J
>has an idea that *can't* be expressed as static fiction, then the claim
>that his or her brain "doesn't work that way" is, most likely, not
>correct. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a game in there begging to be
>written.
>
that way without much of a learning curve. If he gets frustrated
with trying to figure out how to do much of anything, probably not.
If he gets frustrated trying to figure out how to do something
in Adrift, that's promising.
Desi
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Well, yeah, which is what the rest of my post was about: assuming that J
>has an idea that *can't* be expressed as static fiction, then the claim
>that his or her brain "doesn't work that way" is, most likely, not
>correct. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a game in there begging to be
>written.
He does not listen to the voices in his head?
From My Sig Collection:
"You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
KF
> In article <bidv4v$hqi$3...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
> >In article <597901a0.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> >
> >Well, yeah, which is what the rest of my post was about: assuming that J
> >has an idea that *can't* be expressed as static fiction, then the claim
> >that his or her brain "doesn't work that way" is, most likely, not
> >correct. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a game in there begging to be
> >written.
> >
> In which case Adrift might be a way to see if his brain does work
> that way without much of a learning curve. If he gets frustrated
> with trying to figure out how to do much of anything, probably not.
> If he gets frustrated trying to figure out how to do something
> in Adrift, that's promising.
It might also be useful to point out that their is an active group of
ADRIFT users on the forum at www.adrift.org.uk/forum who will try to
answer any questions about ADRIFT. At the top of the General
Discussion forum is a post designed to assist new user.
Jackie Huber
I like it so far. I realize there's a lot Adrift can't do, but for me it's
better than the alternative. For right now I'm just practicing with an
old-fashioned dungeon crawl, not terribly original but I'm just getting a
feel for the program. I'm not sure yet if I want to buy 4.0, I'll have to
see how Adrift holds up to a slightly more ambitious game and check out some
of the other languages mentioned first.
Jackie Huber
>IF, but plain old fiction.
I do write a lot of 'plain old fiction', I'd just like to try something
different. I have a lot of ideas for stories that might actually be more
interesting as IF. And this may sound incredibly stupid, but I think another
reason I want to try writing IF is because I enjoy creating detailed
settings. In static fiction, most of the time if you spend more than two
sentences describing a room or a person people will complain about the
pacing.
Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote in message
news:bidia5$n75$3...@news.fsf.net...
Adam Thornton
>>If you're a writer, not a coder, then you probably shouldn't be writing
>>IF, but plain old fiction.
>
>I do write a lot of 'plain old fiction', I'd just like to try something
>different. I have a lot of ideas for stories that might actually be more
>interesting as IF. And this may sound incredibly stupid, but I think another
>reason I want to try writing IF is because I enjoy creating detailed
>settings. In static fiction, most of the time if you spend more than two
>sentences describing a room or a person people will complain about the
>pacing.
Well, then, your brain, I'm afraid, *does* work that way (and by "that
way", I mean, you can code; if you have story ideas that work better as
IF than as static fiction, you're there). I guess the suggestion that
you try Adrift and see how it works for you--without investing a lot of
effort--isn't a bad one, but I suspect you will bump into its
limitations pretty fast.
Adam
KF
> Well, then, your brain, I'm afraid, *does* work that way (and by "that
> way", I mean, you can code; if you have story ideas that work better as
> IF than as static fiction, you're there). I guess the suggestion that
> you try Adrift and see how it works for you--without investing a lot of
> effort--isn't a bad one, but I suspect you will bump into its
> limitations pretty fast.
>
> Adam
Sometimes I do tend to wonder what the last version of ADRIFT was that
people have used. The difference between ADRIFT in 2000 and now is
enormous with a whole raft of features.
While it is true that by its very nature this sort of system is more
limited than a pure programming language, if I don't know all of the
ins and outs of a language I am just as limited. If I go through the
menus of ADRIFT and can't find something, it isn't there. If I don't
know how to do something in TADS I have to attempt to find out how to
do it.
Adrien Beau
>
> If I go through the menus of ADRIFT and can't find something, it
> isn't there. If I don't know how to do something in TADS I have
> to attempt to find out how to do it.
So, if you can't find something in ADRIFT, you can't do it. If you
don't know something in TADS, you... can come here, ask for help,
get help, and succeed doing it.
--
spam....@free.fr
You have my name and my hostname: you can mail me.
(Put a period between my first and last names).
KF
> On Vendredi 29 Août 2003 23:52, KF wrote:
> >
> > If I go through the menus of ADRIFT and can't find something, it
> > isn't there. If I don't know how to do something in TADS I have
> > to attempt to find out how to do it.
The point I am making here is that the menus of ADRIFT mean that the
new user has a reasonable chance to find how to do something. Starting
out with TADS is an interesting, but often frustrating adventure.
> So, if you can't find something in ADRIFT, you can't do it. If you
> don't know something in TADS, you... can come here, ask for help,
> get help, and succeed doing it.
OK, that is a fair point, but with ADRIFT there is also an active
group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you work with
ADRIFT you have accepted the fact that it is not a general purpose
programming language.
Perhaps I would liken ADRIFT to a text editor as against TADS being
MSWord. The text editor has more limited functionality, but will
quickly turn out a document. MSWord will still produce the document,
but has a host of extra features for when you are turning out more
than a short document. The point being that a lot of the time you can
produce the same kind of results by taking a different route to get
there.
Both have their place and I know that by using a programming language
I have more options, they are just less easy to get at. I can't see
why people seem to believe that there shouldn't be a choice.
Adrien Beau
>
> Perhaps I would liken ADRIFT to a text editor as against TADS
> being MSWord. The text editor has more limited functionality,
> but will quickly turn out a document. MSWord will still produce
> the document, but has a host of extra features for when you are
> turning out more than a short document. The point being that a
> lot of the time you can produce the same kind of results by
> taking a different route to get there.
I would more likely liken ADRIFT to MsWord and TADS to a "real"
text editor such as Vim or Emacs, but apart from that I agree
with you.
> I can't see why people seem to believe that there shouldn't be a
> choice.
I can't see why you believe that there are people who seem to
believe so. :-) Opinions differ on the limits ADRIFT imposes to
authors, and if such limits matter, but I don't think anybody
said Adrift or any other system shouldn't exist.
Charles A. Smith
news:f1764690.03082...@posting.google.com...
I think Quest would make a good choice for a beginner in IF because you can
start by using the Windows interface for its game editor (called QDK) and
then as you learn the syntax you can go directly to working with the code.
As someone not trained in software programming, I find the syntax *fairly*
easy to read and change. Plus, the support from Alex Warren and other users
(especially Al Bampton, the MaDbRiT who has written an excellent library for
the program) has been terrific. You can download QDK to use for 30 days. I
was very happy to register for $25 as a way to thank Alex for his continued
work on the program.
For me, QDK is a crutch that has helped me learn how the syntax works. Most
Quest games I have downloaded and examined do not use the full power of the
program and tend to be rather superficial. The power is there. So if you
take a look, give yourself the time to learn how the code works by playing
with QDK and then examining the text file it creates.
I agree with others who say that if you want to create IF you have to learn
programming syntax. I am now enjoying learning how to assemble complex story
elements using Quest. If you have been frightened off by the esoteric nature
of other powerful programs, be sure to check Quest out.
Chuck Smith
J. J. Guest
It's not strictly true that if you can't find something in ADRIFT, it
isn't there - one of the most powerful aspects of the program is the
ALR, or ADRIFT Language Resource. Because it isn't instantly available
from a pull down menu, it's not immediately obvious that it's there.
This tool simply enables you to replace any peice of text output by
the game with any other. It can be used to replace system responses
without additional programming, and in conjunction with variables to
give randomised responses and messages, alternative descriptions and
so on. It was the one thing I really missed when I went over to using
TADS.
Where ADRIFT really falls down is with its disambiguation methods.
Having several objects with similar names can get very problematic,
and there is no support at all for indistinguishable objects,
something I use a lot in my new game. The other problem is that with
just one very busy developer it can take months for quite major bugs
to get sorted out.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>OK, that is a fair point, but with ADRIFT there is also an active
>group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you work with
>ADRIFT you have accepted the fact that it is not a general purpose
>programming language.
OK, that is a fair point, but with <language> there is also an
active group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you
work with <language>, you have accepted the fact that it not a
general-purpose programming language.
For "<language>", read "TADS", "Inform", "Hugo", or your choice
of many other special-purpose IF languages.
There is a reason why special-purpose tools exist.
[snip]
Mark J. Tilford
>
> It's not strictly true that if you can't find something in ADRIFT, it
> isn't there - one of the most powerful aspects of the program is the
> ALR, or ADRIFT Language Resource. Because it isn't instantly available
> from a pull down menu, it's not immediately obvious that it's there.
> This tool simply enables you to replace any peice of text output by
> the game with any other. It can be used to replace system responses
> without additional programming, and in conjunction with variables to
> give randomised responses and messages, alternative descriptions and
> so on. It was the one thing I really missed when I went over to using
> TADS.
Opinions vary. I tend to view the ALR as a workaround for ADRIFT's lack
of programmability.
1) I view it as bad programming style to output text, dismissing some
internal data in the process, and then laboriously try to reparse it to
get that information back, when you could just decide to not throw that
information away in the first place.
2) Using ALRs spreads the code for one object across the game.
For example, a construction I've seen in a number of games is:
Cabinet's description:
The oaken cabinet stands about three feet high. The cabinet is currently
empty.
ALR lines:
The cabinet is currently empty. A|A
The cabinet is currently empty. An|An
The cabinet is currently empty. Some|Some
The cabinet is currently empty. The|The
In Inform, this would be done as
description [ ;
print "The oaken cabinet stands about three feet high. ";
if (self hasnt open)
"The cabinet is closed.";
if (~~ child(self))
"The cabinet is currently empty.";
print "Inside the cabinet";
WriteListFrom (child (self), ISARE_BIT + TERSE_BIT + ENGLISH_BIT);
".";
],
TADS would probably use similar code to this.
In Inform, everything related to describing the cabinet is located within
the cabinet's description method. In ADRIFT, some of it is located within
the cabinet, and some is located in the ALR.
Similarly, using the ALR to print random messages spreads code; you end up
with part of it in the ALR, part in a task, and part in a global variable.
In Inform, all of that goes together in a single routine.
The ALR is rather inefficient. If you use a routine to handle the
cabinet, it only need to perform a quick check to do so, and only when
you're actually examining the cabinet. Using the ALR means the game has
to do a string comparison for every appropriate length substring of your
output text, whether you're referring to the cabinet or not.
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
David Thornley
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>kf_a...@hotmail.com (KF) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>OK, that is a fair point, but with ADRIFT there is also an active
>>group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you work with
>>ADRIFT you have accepted the fact that it is not a general purpose
>>programming language.
>
> OK, that is a fair point, but with <language> there is also an
>active group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you
>work with <language>, you have accepted the fact that it not a
>general-purpose programming language.
>
> For "<language>", read "TADS", "Inform", "Hugo", or your choice
>of many other special-purpose IF languages.
>
language. It's obviously specialized to IF, but one of its strengths
is that it is able to program anything programmable.
This is one of the key differences between TADS and Inform and
(presumably, I don't know personally) Hugo on the one hand, and
Adrift on the other. In Adrift, there are things that you cannot
change, and a whole lot of things that are very difficult to do,
if you can do them at all. In the general-purpose IF languages,
you can do anything.
> There is a reason why special-purpose tools exist.
>
Sure, and a reason why some of them have Turing-complete base or
extension languages.
Mark J. Tilford
Actually, I believe that ADRIFT is Turing complete, if you ignore stack
limitations. I can't recall exactly what string manipulations it has, but
I think that with one string var & one integer var & a heap of tasks to
handle state transitions, you can write a universal Turing machine. But
the stack limitation is probably significant enough that you can't do
anything interesting.
> --
> David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
> da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
> http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Adam Thornton
KF <kf_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Both have their place and I know that by using a programming language
>I have more options, they are just less easy to get at. I can't see
>why people seem to believe that there shouldn't be a choice.
Never said I believed there shouldn't be a choice.
However, I see the choice as:
Get frustrated now learning TADS or Inform or Hugo. Spend some time
learning the language. Write the game.
vs.
Start writing game in Adrift. Get stuck because it doesn't let you do
something crucial to your game. Get frustrated, and spend some time
learning Inform, TADS, or Hugo, and then spend some more time recreating
the part of the game you already wrote in Adrift before you got stuck.
Adam
Adam Thornton
>active group of users who will try to help. Nevertheless, when you
>work with <language>, you have accepted the fact that it not a
>general-purpose programming language.
People keep writing things to prove that Inform really is a
general-purpose language.
Yes, yes, they're called "abuses," but is that really the point? Look!
A monkey!
Adam
Roberto Grassi
I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
in Adrift without losing anything.
The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
Rob
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Harry
<robg...@yahoo.it> made the world a better place by saying:
>It's good.
>I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
>in Adrift without losing anything.
>The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
>Rob
I'd love to see this statement backed up...
Harry
-------------------------------------
"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be."
http://www.haha.demon.nl
(To send e-mail, remove SPAMBLOCK from address)
Roberto Grassi
> >It's good.
> >I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
> >in Adrift without losing anything.
> >The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
> >Rob
> I'd love to see this statement backed up...
Ahahah :))
A bit provocative, isn't it?
Harry
<robg...@yahoo.it> made the world a better place by saying:
>Hi!
>
>> >It's good.
>> >I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
>> >in Adrift without losing anything.
>> >The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
>> >Rob
>
>> I'd love to see this statement backed up...
>
>Ahahah :))
>A bit provocative, isn't it?
>Rob
Especially since it is rather ambiguous ;-)
You either say:
a) ADRIFT has 90% of the power of Inform
b) 90% of Inform games don't use it's full potential
c) The quality of an average ADRIFT game is about 90% of an Inform
equivalent
d) 90% of Inform games suck
e) Adrift is 10% away from not sucking
f) Yellow
g) All of the above
Roberto Grassi
> Especially since it is rather ambiguous ;-)
You're damn right! ;)
> a) ADRIFT has 90% of the power of Inform
> b) 90% of Inform games don't use it's full potential
> c) The quality of an average ADRIFT game is about 90% of an Inform
> equivalent
> d) 90% of Inform games suck
> e) Adrift is 10% away from not sucking
> f) Yellow
> g) All of the above
A) No. They are differente and Inform is more powerful as it is "pure
object oriented".
B) Yes! That's exactly what i had in mind! ;)
C) The quality of a *GOOD* ADRIFT game is about 90% of an Inform
equivalent
D) Ahahahah! Are you trying to provoke me? :)
E) I notice that "d" and "e" answers are auto-exclusive! :)
F) Sounds good.
G) Liquid thought.... :)
IMVHAMO,
Andrew Plotkin
> Hi!
>
> > >It's good.
> > >I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
> > >in Adrift without losing anything.
> > >The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
> > >Rob
>
> > I'd love to see this statement backed up...
>
> Ahahah :))
> A bit provocative, isn't it?
Please post the support along with the provocation, next time. Keeping
people in suspense just makes you look like a troll.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
davidw
"Harry" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:t1b9lvsq51ocgi1jm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:03:28 +0000 (UTC), "Roberto Grassi"
> <robg...@yahoo.it> made the world a better place by saying:
>
>
>
Couldn't the same be said of 99.9999999% of all the games ever written?
Harry
the world a better place by saying:
>
>"Harry" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
>news:t1b9lvsq51ocgi1jm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:03:28 +0000 (UTC), "Roberto Grassi"
>> <robg...@yahoo.it> made the world a better place by saying:
>>
>>
>> b) 90% of Inform games don't use it's full potential
>>
>
>Couldn't the same be said of 99.9999999% of all the games ever written?
>
No. Because when you take *all* games into account that are ever
written, you have an infinite number of games. A percentage sucking
games will approach 100% to infinity since the sample is infinitely
large. Therefore, you just said *all* games suck. Boy are YOU
judgmental ;-)
James Glover
wrote:
> On Samedi 30 Août 2003 11:44, KF wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I would liken ADRIFT to a text editor as against TADS
>> being MSWord. The text editor has more limited functionality,
>> but will quickly turn out a document. MSWord will still produce
>> the document, but has a host of extra features for when you are
>> turning out more than a short document. The point being that a
>> lot of the time you can produce the same kind of results by
>> taking a different route to get there.
>
> I would more likely liken ADRIFT to MsWord and TADS to a "real"
> text editor such as Vim or Emacs, but apart from that I agree
> with you.
Except aren't Vim and MsWord two completely different kinds of application?
The only area I could see in which they realy overlap would be in terms of
HTML generation, with the WYSINWYG of word, (The N standing for not. I have
never seen the point in WYSIWYG as the output rarely looks like what you
have on the screen) and the direct HTML syntax of something like Vim. I
would never use something like word for writing, say Inform, yet likewise I
wasn't aware that something like Vim could be used to produce output like
Word. If I'm mistaken I'd be grateful if I could be pointed to a relevant
source.
--
James Glover
E-mail: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
Web: http://www.jaspsplace.co.uk
MSN: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
ICQ: 75440795
Michael
> Here, Roberto Grassi <robg...@yahoo.it> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > >It's good.
> > > >I think that 90% of advs written in Inform can be written
> > > >in Adrift without losing anything.
> > > >The remaining 10% are Inform masterpieces.
> > > >Rob
>
> > > I'd love to see this statement backed up...
> >
> > Ahahah :))
> > A bit provocative, isn't it?
>
> Please post the support along with the provocation, next time. Keeping
> people in suspense just makes you look like a troll.
>
> --Z
Perhaps you should post support for YOUR statement. Troll troll troll!
Jeezus...
Seebs
James Glover <jasps...@jaspsplace.co.uk> wrote:
>Except aren't Vim and MsWord two completely different kinds of application?
>The only area I could see in which they realy overlap would be in terms of
>HTML generation, with the WYSINWYG of word, (The N standing for not. I have
>never seen the point in WYSIWYG as the output rarely looks like what you
>have on the screen) and the direct HTML syntax of something like Vim. I
>would never use something like word for writing, say Inform, yet likewise I
>wasn't aware that something like Vim could be used to produce output like
>Word. If I'm mistaken I'd be grateful if I could be pointed to a relevant
>source.
Docbook. You write raw XML or SGML (your choice), and render to anything
you want.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Adrien Beau
>> is by Adrien Beau
> is by James Glover
>>> Perhaps I would liken ADRIFT to a text editor as against TADS
>>> being MSWord. The text editor has more limited functionality,
>>> but will quickly turn out a document. MSWord will still
>>> produce the document, but has a host of extra features for
>>> when you are turning out more than a short document. The point
>>> being that a lot of the time you can produce the same kind of
>>> results by taking a different route to get there.
>>
>> I would more likely liken ADRIFT to MsWord and TADS to a "real"
>> text editor such as Vim or Emacs, but apart from that I agree
>> with you.
>
> Except aren't Vim and MsWord two completely different kinds of
> application?
Well, no and yes. No, because they both allow you to type great
length of text. Yes, because one is mostly used to compose office
documents, while the other is mostly used to write source code.
> The only area I could see in which they realy
> overlap would be in terms of HTML generation, with the WYSINWYG
> of word, (The N standing for not. I have never seen the point in
> WYSIWYG as the output rarely looks like what you have on the
> screen) and the direct HTML syntax of something like Vim. I
> would never use something like word for writing, say Inform, yet
> likewise I wasn't aware that something like Vim could be used to
> produce output like Word. If I'm mistaken I'd be grateful if I
> could be pointed to a relevant source.
Vim can be used to write HTML, but also LaTeX and DocBook¹. These
languages are used to write and describe textual documents such
as memos, reports, thesis, manuals, books, etc. They produce
"output like Word"².
¹ And even PostScript, if you want ultimate control on the output.
² I did not say: they produce .doc files.
Rexx Magnus
> No. Because when you take *all* games into account that are ever
> written, you have an infinite number of games. A percentage sucking
> games will approach 100% to infinity since the sample is infinitely
> large. Therefore, you just said *all* games suck. Boy are YOU
> judgmental ;-)
>
Nah, all but 1/infinity games suck then. ;)
--
UO & AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal
To email me, visit the site.
David Thornley
Mark J. Tilford <til...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 01 Sep 2003 21:28:27 GMT, David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, and a reason why some of them have Turing-complete base or
>> extension languages.
>
>Actually, I believe that ADRIFT is Turing complete, if you ignore stack
>limitations. I can't recall exactly what string manipulations it has, but
>I think that with one string var & one integer var & a heap of tasks to
>handle state transitions, you can write a universal Turing machine. But
>the stack limitation is probably significant enough that you can't do
>anything interesting.
>
enough string functionality to do that. Apparently, strings are
taken in and written out, but no other processing is allowed (although
there are plans to allow the outputting of part of a string).
The minimum it would need would be the ability to select a character
at a given point in a string, and treat that as a variable in some
manner. This would involve either taking the character as an ASCII
value or having some way of testing for character equality.
It would also need the ability to change a character at a random
part of a string, and the ability to extend strings. Neither
seems to be there.
Mark J. Tilford
Campbell added a number of string related features that aren't documented
in the manual itself, but are listed in the Release.txt file (4.0.27)
Ucase(text) or Upper(text) - converts <text> to upper case
Lcase(text) or Lower(text) - converts <text> to lower case
Pcase(text) or Proper(text) - converts <text> to proper case (Capitalised)
Left(text,length) - returns the <length> leftmost characters of <text>
Right(text,length) - returns the <length> rightmost characters of <text>
Mid(text,start,length) - returns <length> characters of text,
starting at <start>
Instr(text,search) - returns the position of <search> within text
text & text or text + text - appends strings together
Gene Wirchenko
David Thornley
Mark J. Tilford <til...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 05 Sep 2003 02:53:45 GMT, David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <slrnbl7hd7....@ralph.earthlink.net>,
>> Mark J. Tilford <til...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>On 01 Sep 2003 21:28:27 GMT, David Thornley <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, and a reason why some of them have Turing-complete base or
>>>> extension languages.
>>>
>>>Actually, I believe that ADRIFT is Turing complete, if you ignore stack
>>>limitations. I can't recall exactly what string manipulations it has, but
>>>I think that with one string var & one integer var & a heap of tasks to
>>>handle state transitions, you can write a universal Turing machine. But
>>>
>> enough string functionality to do that. Apparently, strings are
>> taken in and written out, but no other processing is allowed (although
>> there are plans to allow the outputting of part of a string).
>>
>
>in the manual itself, but are listed in the Release.txt file (4.0.27)
>
know if I've got 4.0.27.
I'm not currently interested in writing anything in Adrift, I just
looked at it because other people are interested in it, and because
it does have advantages over the more powerful systems (specifically,
it's easier to hack out a quick game, and doesn't look like programming
to people who are afraid of programming).
> Ucase(text) or Upper(text) - converts <text> to upper case
> Lcase(text) or Lower(text) - converts <text> to lower case
> Pcase(text) or Proper(text) - converts <text> to proper case (Capitalised)
> Left(text,length) - returns the <length> leftmost characters of <text>
> Right(text,length) - returns the <length> rightmost characters of <text>
> Mid(text,start,length) - returns <length> characters of text,
> starting at <start>
> Instr(text,search) - returns the position of <search> within text
> text & text or text + text - appends strings together
>
OK; now, is it possible to do string replacement? In other words,
given a string "rst" (which has the right side of the Turing tape)
and a variable "head", and a variable "rstlength", is it possible
to do, essentially, the following:
rst = Left(rst, head - 1) + "x" + Right(rst, rstlength - head)
(I'm not guaranteeing no off-by-one errors here)? (Note: I haven't
worked in Adrift and haven't really studied the manual, so I freely
grant that I may have just asked a stupid question.)
If so, then it is possible to write an Adrift Turing machine.
It isn't quite the same sense that TADS is Turing-complete, but
interesting nonetheless.
Mark J. Tilford
See the last item of the string functions.
> (I'm not guaranteeing no off-by-one errors here)? (Note: I haven't
> worked in Adrift and haven't really studied the manual, so I freely
> grant that I may have just asked a stupid question.)
>
> If so, then it is possible to write an Adrift Turing machine.
> It isn't quite the same sense that TADS is Turing-complete, but
> interesting nonetheless.
>
> --
> David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
> da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
> http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-