[Alan/Hugo/Inform/Quest/TADS...] Request for assistance
Roger Firth
the relative difficulty in getting started as an IF author, due to the
variety of authoring systems and the lack of a simple way to compare
and contrast them. In an effort to make this easier, I've started a site
at http://homepages.tesco.net/~roger.firth/cloak/ which, if developed,
would make it easier to make this comparison.
What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
your
assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
implementations
in the other languages which currently enjoy a reasonable amount of
popularity. Take a look at what's currently in place, feel free to
comment,
and especially feel free to contribute the alternative versions which
currently
are so clearly missing.
Thanks for your help, Roger
========================================================================
Roger Firth (roger...@tesco.net)
SteveG
<roger...@tesco.net> wrote:
[snip][snip]
>What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
>and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
>your assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
>implementations in the other languages
I think its a great idea, Roger. Great website too.
I've sometimes thought it would be nice to have the sort of source
code comparisons you're implementing. But, unlike you, I've never done
anything about it.
I'd be happy to do an Alan version of the sample game for you.
--
SteveG
(Please remove erroneous word from address if emailing a reply)
Todd Nathan
Let me know if this is okay with you.
\t
--
Please remove dot nospamski dot from the return address.
----------
In article <37E52FDD...@tesco.net>, Roger Firth
<roger...@tesco.net> wrote:
> One of the bees in my bonnet (quaint English expression, huh?) is
> the relative difficulty in getting started as an IF author, due to the
> variety of authoring systems and the lack of a simple way to compare
> and contrast them. In an effort to make this easier, I've started a site
>
> at http://homepages.tesco.net/~roger.firth/cloak/ which, if developed,
> would make it easier to make this comparison.
>
> What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
>
> and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
> your
> assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> implementations
meni...@pixi.com
s...@erroneous.xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:47:57 +0100, Roger Firth
> <roger...@tesco.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> >What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in
Inform,
> >and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for
is
> >your assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> >implementations in the other languages
>
> I think its a great idea, Roger. Great website too.
I'll try a version in Hugo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Roger Firth
an Alan version of "Cloak".
Cheers, Roger
SteveG wrote:
> [snip]
> think its a great idea, Roger. Great website too.
>
Roger Firth
"Cloak" is now down to you.
Cheers, Roger
Alex Warren
> What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
>
> and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
> your
> assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> implementations
> in the other languages which currently enjoy a reasonable amount of
> popularity. Take a look at what's currently in place, feel free to
> comment,
> and especially feel free to contribute the alternative versions which
> currently
> are so clearly missing.
I'll volunteer to do the Quest version, which will blow your mind away with its
amazing simplicity (at least, that's the plan). Hopefully you'll get a version
quite soon, once I've stopped procrastinating from doing all my other more
important things and got a chance to sit down and get a working version ready.
Then I'll send it to you, if I remember. If I don't remember I will feel very
silly.
--
Alex Warren, Axe Software · al...@axesoftware.co.uk · ICQ: 4043750
http://www.axesoftware.co.uk - including Quest, the IF system for Win95
David Glasser
> What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
> and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
> your assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> implementations in the other languages which currently enjoy a reasonable
> amount of popularity. Take a look at what's currently in place, feel free
> to comment, and especially feel free to contribute the alternative
> versions which currently are so clearly missing.
My first reaction to your message was "But the major differences between
the authoring systems are not petty syntax but the ability to do
complicated extension, and that won't be shown in a very simple game!
This is a waste of time! Why? Why?"
Then I actually looked at the site and was quite impressed. It has a
little too much JavaScript for my web-ascetic tastes, but it's full of
content (which is sadly rare on super-javascripty sites). Good job.
--
David Glasser | gla...@iname.com | http://www.davidglasser.net/
rec.arts.int-fiction FAQ: http://www.davidglasser.net/raiffaq/
"So what's the story with Tetris? Block meets block, block loses block,
block meets another block?" --Russ Williams
Roger Firth
represented. Don't worry, I'll nag you if nothing is forthcoming in a week
or so.
Cheer, Roger
Alex Warren wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:47:57 +0100, Roger Firth pondered:
>
> > What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
> >
> > and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
> > your
> > assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> > implementations
> > in the other languages which currently enjoy a reasonable amount of
> > popularity. Take a look at what's currently in place, feel free to
> > comment,
> > and especially feel free to contribute the alternative versions which
> > currently
> > are so clearly missing.
>
> I'll volunteer to do the Quest version, which will blow your mind away with its
> amazing simplicity (at least, that's the plan). Hopefully you'll get a version
> quite soon, once I've stopped procrastinating from doing all my other more
> important things and got a chance to sit down and get a working version ready.
> Then I'll send it to you, if I remember. If I don't remember I will feel very
> silly.
>
> --
> Alex Warren, Axe Software · al...@axesoftware.co.uk · ICQ: 4043750
> http://www.axesoftware.co.uk - including Quest, the IF system for Win95
--
========================================================================
Roger Firth
Roger Firth
> Roger Firth <roger...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> > What I've done is to specify a VERY simple game, implement it in Inform,
> > and provide an annotated version of the source. What I'm asking for is
> > your assistance in fleshing out the picture, by creating equivalent
> > implementations in the other languages which currently enjoy a reasonable
> > amount of popularity. Take a look at what's currently in place, feel free
> > to comment, and especially feel free to contribute the alternative
> > versions which currently are so clearly missing.
>
> My first reaction to your message was "But the major differences between
> the authoring systems are not petty syntax but the ability to do
> complicated extension, and that won't be shown in a very simple game!
> This is a waste of time! Why? Why?"
At the end of the day, you're quite correct; you require industrial-strength
tools to build large complex games. However, that need really is quite a long
way down the track, and my guess is that most authors don't start out
by choosing a system on the basis of its infinite expandability, but much
more mundanely on whether they feel comfortable with its look'n'feel.
And, as I've hypothesised, that selection is usually made after sampling
only one or two of the authoring systems on offer. My goal is to make it
really easy to inspect the whole IF range, to walk round the showroom kicking
the tyres. Having done that, you're surely in a much better position to
decide that, for your tastes, something like Inform (say) looks too much like
a 4x4 pickup truck, whereas that nifty little Quest sportster is worth taking
for a test drive?
> Then I actually looked at the site and was quite impressed. It has a
> little too much JavaScript for my web-ascetic tastes, but it's full of
> content (which is sadly rare on super-javascripty sites). Good job.
Well thank you. JavaScript, frames, style sheets - it's a regular DHTMLfest
(and not at all my style, to be honest). And it probably needs a version 4
browser, which is another go-stand-in-the-corner transgression. However, 'twas
the best way I could find of handling the annotation in a non-intrusive manner.
Ok, and apologies to you, David, for the typo in your name. Careless,
careless...
Cheers, Roger
Andrew Plotkin
> David Glasser wrote:
>
>> My first reaction to your message was "But the major differences between
>> the authoring systems are not petty syntax but the ability to do
>> complicated extension, and that won't be shown in a very simple game!
>> This is a waste of time! Why? Why?"
>
> At the end of the day, you're quite correct; you require industrial-strength
> tools to build large complex games. However, that need really is quite a long
> way down the track, and my guess is that most authors don't start out
> by choosing a system on the basis of its infinite expandability, but much
> more mundanely on whether they feel comfortable with its look'n'feel.
I have a bit of a problem with this, because I've found that you need
*tiny bits* of industrial-strength programming power to produce even
*small, simple* games.
Halfway through writing your first IF game, you hit something that the
standard library/parser/definitions/whatever just doesn't handle. That's
the test of the development system.
(For some systems, you then have to read through the whole manual twice,
and then triple your development time estimate. Those, unfortunately, are
the good ones. :-) The bad ones, you read through the whole manual twice,
quintuple your development time, and then it doesn't ever work right
anyway.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Roger Firth
even think about using one of the 'weaker' systems? I'd hesitate to give that
advice to somebody who founds Inform or TADS a bit heavy going. I think
I'd rather offer encouragement to get off the ground using whatever tool
felt most comfortable, while also trying to make the industrial-strength guys
seem a little less intimidating.
I'd guess that if, halfway through writing your first IF game you hit such a
barrier, you'd probably revamp your idea (lower your aspirations) in order
to keep going. It's only on the SECOND game that you realise that you
shouldn't need to compromise. But I could perfectly well be wrong.
Cheers, Roger
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
--
========================================================================
Roger Firth
Robert Goudie
>
> Can't argue with your experience, Andrew. But what's the message: don't
> even think about using one of the 'weaker' systems? I'd hesitate to give that
> advice to somebody who founds Inform or TADS a bit heavy going. I think
> I'd rather offer encouragement to get off the ground using whatever tool
> felt most comfortable, while also trying to make the industrial-strength guys
> seem a little less intimidating.
I was a little bothered by the concept myself and I haven't even
authored a game yet. I chose Hugo as my first system because I thought
it offered the right balance for me between "ease of use" and "power".
I knew that Inform or TADS would offer more power. I knew Quest, AGT,
and a few others would be very easy to use but I'd have to make bigger
concessions with my game concepts.
However, I think that if this is all presented in the right context, no
one will select a system based solely on how a simple the code looks.
Another way to approach this is to present a hypothetical concept for an
object and/or character and show how Inform could implement it exactly
as you envisioned it, how some minor sacrifice might need to be made to
your vision with Hugo (or more difficult to implement it exactly than in
Inform), and how more significant changes to your original vision would
need to be made with something like Quest.
--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Marnie Parker
>From: Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net
>Date: Thu, 23 September 1999 02:00 PM EDT
>> Can't argue with your experience, Andrew.
>Another way to approach this is to present a hypothetical concept for an
>object and/or character and show how Inform could implement it exactly
>as you envisioned it, how some minor sacrifice might need to be made to
>your vision with Hugo (or more difficult to implement it exactly than in
>Inform), and how more significant changes to your original vision would
>need to be made with something like Quest.
OTOH, I choose Inform BECAUSE of the way the code looked as much as anything.
I immediately understood it. Further burrowing into the subject then disclosed
it had the flexibility I wanted too.
So "the look" is a good starting place for newbies. From there they can move
on.
Doe :-)
-----------------------------
doea...@aol.com
The Doepage - http://members.aol.com/doepage/index.htm
IF Art Gallery - http://members.aol.com/iffyart/gallery.htm
"I can live for two months on a good compliment." Mark Twain
Roger Firth
> I was a little bothered by the concept myself and I haven't even
> authored a game yet. I chose Hugo as my first system because I thought
> it offered the right balance for me between "ease of use" and "power".
> I knew that Inform or TADS would offer more power. I knew Quest, AGT,
> and a few others would be very easy to use but I'd have to make bigger
> concessions with my game concepts.
>
> However, I think that if this is all presented in the right context, no
> one will select a system based solely on how a simple the code looks.
>
> Another way to approach this is to present a hypothetical concept for an
> object and/or character and show how Inform could implement it exactly
> as you envisioned it, how some minor sacrifice might need to be made to
> your vision with Hugo (or more difficult to implement it exactly than in
> Inform), and how more significant changes to your original vision would
> need to be made with something like Quest.
I agree that picking a system PURELY on its syntax is unlikely to be a smart
move. But I'm hoping that the examples will convey rather more than than -
specifically something like a comfort factor with the language, a feeling that
you can see what's happening, you can appreciate what's been included or
excluded, that (as Doe says) you think that the system is right for you, and for
the sort/scale/style of game that you're hoping (one day, one day) to craft.
As for other approaches, sure. I'd be delighted if we could advance the idea
to embrace more complex problems. But surely we need to start simply if
there's any hope of getting it all off the ground? At this stage I'll be ecstatic
if we achieve half a dozen equivalent "Cloak" implementations.
Cheers, Roger
Alex Warren
> Another way to approach this is to present a hypothetical concept for an
> object and/or character and show how Inform could implement it exactly
> as you envisioned it, how some minor sacrifice might need to be made to
> your vision with Hugo (or more difficult to implement it exactly than in
> Inform), and how more significant changes to your original vision would
> need to be made with something like Quest.
"Significant changes to your original vision"? What exactly would that entail?
What can be thought of that is *completely* impossible when using the Quest
system? Not a lot, I reckon - I believe Quest's capabilities are pretty much
unlimited if you just use a few simple coding tricks. Even complex series of
events should be able to be catered for in a relatively simple way - at least,
that was always the plan. Certainly there's nothing that I can think of that
cannot possibly be done when using Quest - does anybody know of any serious
limitations?
Kent Tessman
new) suggestion that neither Hugo nor Inform nor TADS is any more
"powerful" overall given a general idea of what performance is
necessary and desirable in an IF design language. They each have their
strengths and weaknesses; it all depends on what you're looking for. I do
like to think that I've attempted with Hugo to bridge the "power" vs.
"ease-of-use" gap, but I'm sure that there are things that either
other language does better than Hugo, and of course vice-versa.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Todd Nathan
--
Please remove dot nospamski dot from the return address.
----------
In article <37EA6AAD...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Roger Firth wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with your experience, Andrew. But what's the message: don't
>> even think about using one of the 'weaker' systems? I'd hesitate to give that
>> advice to somebody who founds Inform or TADS a bit heavy going. I think
>> I'd rather offer encouragement to get off the ground using whatever tool
>> felt most comfortable, while also trying to make the industrial-strength guys
>> seem a little less intimidating.
>
> I was a little bothered by the concept myself and I haven't even
> authored a game yet. I chose Hugo as my first system because I thought
> it offered the right balance for me between "ease of use" and "power".
> I knew that Inform or TADS would offer more power. I knew Quest, AGT,
> and a few others would be very easy to use but I'd have to make bigger
> concessions with my game concepts.
>
> However, I think that if this is all presented in the right context, no
> one will select a system based solely on how a simple the code looks.
Right and wrong. First impressions are the only lasting impressions.
Ask someone about imprinting as a child, and it is indeed one of the
most important things that occurs in a child of any species. True
for the first time seeing IF code, that is for sure. I think it is
the MOST important thing when deciding on a IF authoring system. Was
for me, and almost everyone that I know in the IF world. As for
staying with said system, well that is TBD as our knowledge grows.
I saw BASIC (moderately difficult), Super/Pilot (easy), Assembly 6502 (hard)
and C (really hard for me at the time) all at the same time in 1982 on
the Apple //e. I chose BASIC and within 3 months was doing Assembly
fulltime (with BASIC interfacing) and moved to C 8 years later on the
Mac fulltime. All because of functionality, but I started with BASIC
mostly because it was accessable and looked easy comparatively.
I suspect using HUGO may be your choice today, but likely will not be
tomorrow mostly due to your comfort level with how the code looks.
That is my take on this, and it would be true for me. I chose TADS
9 years ago due to my exposure and familiarity with C/ObjC. It
also does what I want, speaks the way I think. HUGO does that for you
today, what do you need it to do tomorrow and what it can do are likely
two different things.
>
> Another way to approach this is to present a hypothetical concept for an
> object and/or character and show how Inform could implement it exactly
> as you envisioned it, how some minor sacrifice might need to be made to
> your vision with Hugo (or more difficult to implement it exactly than in
> Inform), and how more significant changes to your original vision would
> need to be made with something like Quest.
>
>
Richie Adler
> I knew that Inform or TADS would offer more power. I knew Quest, AGT,
> and a few others would be very easy to use but I'd have to make bigger
> concessions with my game concepts.
There is another issue with the "less powerful languages", for non-
English game writers.
I'm forced to put aside other IF developing systems, maybe simple and
elegant (ALAN comes to my mind, I liked a lot of things when I tried
it), because of lack of mechanisms to change messages depending on
gender, number or attributes of my own mother tongue. Very sad.
--
o-=< Richie Adler >=-o
(Sometimes, Kilroy at ifMUD ...and trying to write Spanish Inform games)