[Proposal] World Definition Format
Mike Smith
***In the interest of protecting my email address from being scanned and
put on a Yellow Pages CDROM, please remove SPAM and click here
(mailto://shortc...@ntwrks.com) or use this newsgroup to reply. BTW,
Mike Smith is my alias.***
This is merely an outline of a new standard I would like to see. In my
opinion, IF is a dimishing pasttime, and has some profound learning
potential for people of all ages, if not fun. With IF, one could explore
history, or live out portions of a religious text, or learn the follies or
successes of time travel or science, or simply find delight in killing a
grue. With IF, people could learn to touch-type in a new and fascinating
way. With IF, young children could learn concepts of logic. With IF
programming, one could learn an even more advanced concept of logic and how
to write. With IF, physically-challenged individuals could participate in a
way that might not need quick response like with a 3D action game and
joystick. In order that we might expand IF development, if not make a
comeback, I propose a world-wide public domain standard.
I ask nothing from the general public for this standard. I, myself, cannot
write it, although I may participate on its construction. It needs an
organizing IF standards body to formulate its design. None that I know of
exists as of yet.
PROPOSAL: WORLD DEFINITION FORMAT (WDF)
Tenets:
A. That WDF has two forms--an encrypted text file (WDFe) delivered to
players using the toughest encryption tactic in use today (balanced with
speed), and as a readable text file (WDFu) used by developers. The only WDF
file that needs to be distributed to end users should be the WDFe file.
B. That WDF files be run against an interpreter similar to a web browser,
but may have the options of:
1. Being compiled with the executable into a single file.
2. Being compiled separately and run against a separate interpreter.
3. Being a plug-in to a web browser where games can be played over the
Internet with a web server.
C. That WDF preserves the format of a textual adventure game with:
1. No support for graphics. (In order to preserve the pictures we form in
our minds.)
2. No support for buttons. (In order to preserve the responses we must
learn and formulate on our own as we play.)
3. Anything else the standards body considers to be "standard practice"
with a text adventure, which may be the "STORE", "RESTORE", and "INVENTORY"
verbage, as an example.
D. That WDF be an international, public domain file format standard with
an organizing IF standards body.
E. That WDF has a goal of trying to serve the interest of creating
sophisticated, fascinating, and innovative puzzles without having to resort
to using common programming constructs like goto, for/next, do/while, etc.
(In order to promote interactive fiction design among those commonly not
considered "developers".) This may not be completely possible, but would be
a good design goal. In this sense, WDF does not seek to be a "language"
file, but a format, similar to a questionnaire where you complete with
essay answers.
F. That WDF be a format supported on all platforms because the design spec
for the interpreter would be public domain. ANSI C appears a common
language, so initially the public domain interpreter should be written in
that.
G. That WDF may also support these extra features:
1. Looped music/sounds for rooms or results of actions. (Which would
require separate files stored in a relative directory from the location of
the WDF file similar to GIFs to a web page.)
2. Non-looped music/sounds for rooms or results of actions. (Which would
require separate files stored in a relative directory from the location of
the WDF file similar to GIFs to a web page.)
3. Display of parameters and settings chosen by either commands typed at
a console, or selections on a GUI dialog box. (The responses of which would
be stored in a separate file.)
H. That WDFe/u files be read-only, and a separate but standardized and
encrypted database file (WDFdb) be used for storing preference settings,
scores, states/conditions placed on objects (i.e., "the lunch has been
eaten"), condition of characters including the player, and other necessary
things as one sees fit. The WDFdb file should be created automatically by
the interpreter and not need to be distributed.
I. That WDF contain description of everything used in a text adventure,
including, but not limited to, desired implicit response verbage, phrasing,
visible/invisible characters, visible/invisible objects, rooms, planets,
worlds, scenes, universes, time, sound direction, time limits, etc.
J. That although WDF is public domain, its interpreters can be derived
from public domain source and can be made proprietary similar to how the
Netscape web browser evolved from a public domain source. In this sense,
the "plug-in" mentioned in B3 (above) can be a Java applet, an ActiveX
control, a standard COM-object plug-in for a browser, or any other means
necessary.
K. That WDF not be possible to be trademarked or copyrighted, but the WDFe
and WDFu files may be copyrighted source files and trademarked and
copyrighted applications can use these.
L. That WDF support all languages of the world, such as Greek, Italian,
French, German, Chinese, English, etc. In this sense, I mean that the WDFe
files that are distributed could come in only a German version, or may come
in only French version, or may support only 3 languages, but that it be
purely up to the developer, and not the WDF format or WDF interpreter to
support the other languages.
M. That WDF be designed to be open to a broader audience than developers
to support fiction writers, poets, mathematicians, social critics, etc.
N. That, in order to make its scope obtainable as quickly as possible, WDF
does not serve the purpose of supporting multi-player environments similar
to MUDs, but as single-user environments like most IF in use today is.
Mike McKee
Raleigh, NC, USA
Wonder Boy
On 9 Feb 1998, Mike Smith wrote:
> In my opinion, IF is a dimishing pasttime...
I feel compelled to state my opinion on this... I, personally,
disagree with that. I think that IF has already seen its darkest hour,
which I would describe as the time span between the fall of Infocom and
the discovery of the r*if newsgroups and the gmd site for a good number of
us. I know that in my case, I didn't find out about all of this until
Masterpieces came out last year. I think we're past the point where most
people remember Infocom and IF fans are being created from the new works.
The growth in IF popularity can be seen in the growth of yearly releases
and competition entries. I'd also imagine that IF shareware games are
making more money as time goes on; Neil DeMauss's (sorry if I mispelt
that) Lost New York probably beat the socks off of the Unkuulian Adventure
series and all that, and while no one can get rich off of IF, I'd like to
imagine that it will only grow more profitable. The idealistic side of me
would like to see IF games in the stores again one day, even if they're
relatively cheap to their graphics and sound game counterparts.
Well, I guess my only point is that I think that IF is only
increasing at the moment.
-jon
"I come not to praise Caesar, but to bust a move." -mamster,
Adventurer's Lounge
(Text game fan? Check out http://fovea.retina.net:4001)
Paul Connors
In article <01bd3527$1b180e80$0f4c9ac0@station>, "Mike Smith" and Mike
McKee say...
> This is merely an outline of a new standard I would like to see. In my
> opinion, IF is a dimishing pasttime, and has some profound learning
> potential for people of all ages, if not fun. With IF, one could explore
> history, or live out portions of a religious text, or learn the follies or
> successes of time travel or science, or simply find delight in killing a
> grue. With IF, people could learn to touch-type in a new and fascinating
> way. With IF, young children could learn concepts of logic. With IF
> programming, one could learn an even more advanced concept of logic and how
> to write. With IF, physically-challenged individuals could participate in a
> way that might not need quick response like with a 3D action game and
> joystick. In order that we might expand IF development, if not make a
> comeback, I propose a world-wide public domain standard.
Hang on now. There's *already* what is effectively a worldwide
standard -- Graham Nelson's Inform. Anyone can freely write a program
in Inform, compile it, and run it on numerous platforms. And, come
to think of it, there's also TADS -- and others. Multiple
usable standards exist today.
What you are trying to propose is a better, more unifying standard.
So, would a single standard benefit *users*? Now if TADS and Inform
were conflicting in some way, there might be some value to this. But
they don't conflict -- I can happily run both TADS and Inform games
on multiple platforms, and barring some extraordinary circumstances,
they don't get in each other's way, and I rarely care which system a
particular game uses. At best, it's mildly annoying to have to
install two different interpreters.
Or, would such a standard benefit *game developers*? A single standard
would certainly make some code sharing more easily achievable. It
might make game development 5% easier.
Or, would such a standard benefit *interpreter writers*? Quite
certainly, since there would be one less set of ports to be made.
If we were compelled to flip a coin, and (say) proclaim Inform the
new universal standard, what would we lose as compared to switching
to a hypothetical new standard? Very, very little, so far as I can
see.
Can I imagine a better standard? Definitely. But I can't imagine a
very much better standard without some people doing a great deal of
work in areas that this WDF proposal doesn't even talk about.
> I ask nothing from the general public for this standard.
Coincidentally, that is just what the public will offer you.
> PROPOSAL: WORLD DEFINITION FORMAT (WDF)
>
> Tenets:
> A. That WDF has two forms--an encrypted text file (WDFe) delivered
to
> players using the toughest encryption tactic in use today (balanced
with
> speed), and as a readable text file (WDFu) used by developers. The only WDF
> file that needs to be distributed to end users should be the WDFe file.
What is the purpose of *encryption*? Encryption is used to
prevent unauthorized people from being able to read a file -- but in
this case, every interpreter certainly needs to be able to read and
comprehend the file, right? Do you just mean that the WDFe file
should be *shrouded*, so that it is difficult to reverse-engineer the
WDFe file to produce a usable WDFu file?
> C. That WDF preserves the format of a textual adventure game with:
> 1. No support for graphics. (In order to preserve the pictures we form in
> our minds.)
> 2. No support for buttons. (In order to preserve the responses we must
> learn and formulate on our own as we play.)
> 3. Anything else the standards body considers to be "standard practice"
> with a text adventure, which may be the "STORE", "RESTORE", and "INVENTORY"
> verbage, as an example.
C.3 seems to imply that the WDF format will also constrain the kind
of interactive-fiction games that are writeable in WDF. For example,
exactly *what* would a standard say about the word "INVENTORY"? Would
it be a required word? It could be a *recommended* word, but what on
earth would a standard be trying to achieve by defining a vocabulary?
> E. That WDF has a goal of trying to serve the interest of creating
> sophisticated, fascinating, and innovative puzzles without having to
resort
> to using common programming constructs like goto, for/next, do/while, etc.
> (In order to promote interactive fiction design among those commonly not
> considered "developers".) This may not be completely possible, but would be
> a good design goal. In this sense, WDF does not seek to be a "language"
> file, but a format, similar to a questionnaire where you complete with
> essay answers.
This is a terrible idea. I believe that those common programming
constructs you denigrate are exactly and precisely how
*interesting* games are implemented, and that interesting games
(and especially puzzles) *cannot* be implemented without programming.
Almost every single interesting interactive fiction game that exists
today is *stuffed to the gills* with programming. Those games that
have no programming might conceivably have some literary value, but
they are usually too simple to have any *game* value.
If you are arguing that programming should be simpler -- well, sure.
But it's always going to involve those common programming constructs.
They're here to stay.
Programming is the bread and butter of such things. Education will
increasingly turn out people to whom programming is as natural as
being able to read and write. In a hundred years time, the level of
incapacity and resistance of people today to programming will seem
primitive, naive, and pointless.
> G. That WDF may also support these extra features:
> 1. Looped music/sounds for rooms or results of actions.
(Which would
> require separate files stored in a relative directory from the location of
> the WDF file similar to GIFs to a web page.)
> 2. Non-looped music/sounds for rooms or results of actions. (Which would
> require separate files stored in a relative directory from the location of
> the WDF file similar to GIFs to a web page.)
The WDF is to explicitly have no support for graphics (C.1), but it
will for sounds? Why such an arbitrary choice? To the extent that
graphics spoils text adventures, won't sound do much the same?
> H. That WDFe/u files be read-only, and a separate but standardized and
> encrypted database file (WDFdb) be used for storing preference settings,
> scores, states/conditions placed on objects (i.e., "the lunch has been
> eaten"), condition of characters including the player, and other necessary
> things as one sees fit. The WDFdb file should be created automatically by
> the interpreter and not need to be distributed.
Again with the "encryption". I do not think it means what you think it
means. And whatever you do in this area, it will be crackable quickly.
It's not worth trying too hard in this area.
> J. That although WDF is public domain, its interpreters can be
derived
> from public domain source and can be made proprietary similar to how
the
> Netscape web browser evolved from a public domain source. In this sense,
> the "plug-in" mentioned in B3 (above) can be a Java applet, an ActiveX
> control, a standard COM-object plug-in for a browser, or any other means
> necessary.
This is just a statement of a legal issue. By its very definition,
you can do anything you like with public domain source, including
derive copyrighted source from it. This is nothing to do with the
WDF, and any public domain source would not be under its control.
> K. That WDF not be possible to be trademarked or copyrighted, but the WDFe
> and WDFu files may be copyrighted source files and trademarked and
> copyrighted applications can use these.
This might or might not be a good idea. Someone could come out with
an improved WDF (WDF++), and make it really good, but proprietary
(perhaps "Microsoft WDF"). Whoops, there goes your standard.
> M. That WDF be designed to be open to a broader audience than
developers
> to support fiction writers, poets, mathematicians, social critics, etc.
A wonderful goal, but I have no idea *exactly* what a WDF would do to
promote this.
Paul F. Snively
[Original message elided for brevity]
First, I must apologize to the group for not contributing on a regular
basis. On the other hand, it's not clear what I'd have to contribute. I
have not taken Inform/TADS/Hugo/et al and cranked out even a poor entry
into the annals of IF, let alone a good or brilliant one. I used to have
dreams of creating a world-class IF authoring language, but guess what?
Inform/TADS/Hugo/et al already are.
In my defense, I put my money where my mouth was years ago: I was project
leader on Déjà Vu II: Lost in Las Vegas at ICOM Simulations, and I was one
of two programmers who ported "Spycraft: The Great Game" to the Macintosh
at Activision.
Now, there's been a surprising amount of discussion lately about
implementation and delivery vehicles. Surprising, I suppose, because as has
been pointed out by many who are much more articulate than I am, this is an
old conversation that inevitably degenerates into a) much well-intentioned
pleading by those who would like to see non-programmers able to author IF,
and/or b) much not-so-well-intentioned posturing, not to say
chest-thumping, by those who seem to believe that _their_ vaporous
authoring environment will prove the Second Coming and usher in a
renaissance of IF creativity.
While the goal of making IF authoring more accessible is certainly
laudable, I feel strongly that it's worth pointing out that there is no way
to author IF without programming. Without programming, you have no
behaviors other than those provided the author by the developer of the
authoring tool, which can't help but impose some extremely serious limits
on the expressive power of the authoring tool and, by extension, on the
creative flexibility of the author. I would go so far as to suggest that,
to be truly useful for authoring IF, a "language"--textual, visual,
imperative, object-oriented, functional, whatever--needs to be Turing
equivalent. Thankfully, that's not a particularly onerous requirement, but
it does give you enough rope to hang yourself (consider, for example, that
the version of Microsoft Basic built into every TRS-80 Model I computer
ever sold and ANSI C++ are both Turing equivalent. Or, perhaps more
dramatically, 8080 assembly language and Smalltalk-80 are both Turing
equivalent).
Both as a sometimes-professional-author of IF and as a programmer in
general, I'm always concerned with the ratio of expressive power in a
language to the complexity of using that language. Déjà Vu II was written
in a language of our own creation that was specifically suited to the
creation of "that kind of graphical adventure game," and we ported its
runtime from the Mac to Amigas, Atari-ST's, and IBM PC's (OK, it was a long
time ago...), and I enjoyed using that language fairly much, although it
was never intended for use as a language in itself but rather as the
intermediate stage for a "real compiler" that was never written (it was
stack-oriented with no local variables and used RPN a la Forth or
PostScript). The point is that I didn't have to deal with the bookkeeping
of keeping track of stuff like windows, menu selections, etc.--all the
programming was at a much higher level of abstraction than that. Spycraft,
on the other hand, involved two things: an ostensibly "portable" game
engine written in C++ and the title-specific code, also written in C++.
That was an exercise in frustration, partially because the original code
was very poor, being the authors' first C++ effort, and partially because
the authors attempted to impose the semantics of a scripting language that
they were familiar with from another company onto C++. Ironically, this was
how Activision's story games _used_ to be developed, but that was because
they were written in a bytecode-compiled Lisp-derived scripting language!
It wasn't at all clear what the value of rewriting in C++ was. If we'd had
the opportunity to use that engine for any other titles, it might have
become apparent what the value of having to develop in C++ was, but I doubt
it--it's much more likely that we'd have evolved a better sense of what
code was title-specific and what code wasn't, but fundamentally we'd still
be bit-fiddling in the same language people write operating systems in
nowadays.
Among the principal reasons that it's worth using a tool like Inform or
TADS is because some very intelligent people have already dealt with the
platform specifics of creating a window, putting text into it, getting text
from the user, managing memory, etc. as well as things that are more
specifically oriented to IF such as an English-parsing strategy (a
non-trivial feat in itself, as any student of computational linguistics
will gladly tell you. "A year spent in Artificial Intelligence is enough to
convince anyone of the existence of God," quipped the late Professor
Emeritus of Computer Science Alan Perlis of Yale University). That is, if
you write for Inform's or TADS' compiler, you're already working very close
to the proper level of abstraction for the realm of IF. Even if I started
with the single most parsimonious Turing-equivalent language for the task
at hand (e.g. Scheme), I would have to recreate a stupefying amount of work
just to break even with respect to where Inform or TADS are today. If I
were hell-bent on doing it visually, I'd probably feel compelled to start
with the only genuinely visual programming language I know, Prograph... and
I'd never wish Prograph on "non-programmers." If I seriously wanted to
advance the state of the art in allowing non-programmers to be authors, I
would somehow have to take the entirety of what we've learned about
computability, about representing functions, about data structures, about
algorithms, and craft a way to allow someone who has studied none of those
things to express as many aspects as they wished about all of them.
To me, that sounds like a very worthwhile interdisciplinary Ph.D. project
in Computer Science, Philosophy, Psychology, and/or Logic. It does _not_
sound even remotely feasible for delivery within my lifetime. Now, this
just begs the question as to whether we need the expressive power of full
Turing equivalence in IF authoring, and here I can only appeal to personal
opinion: I believe that we do. I believe that the best IF falls firmly into
the realm of discrete event simulation. I believe in the Naive Physics
Manifesto. Further, I believe that to adequately implement the Naive
Physics Manifesto requires Turing equivalence. I suspect the latter point
is even provable, but to do so would also probably make a nice Ph.D.
exercise.
I think we're stuck with programming being a necessary component of IF
authoring. To me, this doesn't mean that "non-programmers can never author
IF;" it means that we'd better work harder on making the activities of
programming more accessible. Alan Perlis also pointed out that "You can't
procede from the informal to the formal by formal means," and I agree, so
we'll probably have to construct systems that take a very informal approach
to "iterative specification," if you will: first, you describe how to solve
a problem in English. The computer takes a stab at translating your
description to pseudocode, asking questions of you along the way. You then
provide feedback as to "Yeah, that sounds like what I said" or "No, I
meant..." until you're satisfied with the pseudocode... which is close
enough to what the computer wants to be able to generate real code from.
Perhaps there are interactive pseudocode tutorials for you, and perhaps the
computer starts to "learn" about your idiomatic, idiosyncratic approach to
English, to say nothing of your problem-solving style!
It's still programming. It's just not programming the way we do it today,
as if we were still typing out FORTRAN on 80-column punch cards to
batch-feed into some IBM mainframe, praying to God we didn't make a typo so
the whole blasted stack of cards gets rejected--and all of this before
finding out whether we expressed our solution to the problem correctly!
We're not there yet. In the meantime, would-be IF authors at least don't
have to start with assembly language, Basic, C, C++, or even Common Lisp,
Scheme, ML, or Smalltalk: we have Inform, TADS, et al as well as some very
nice libraries for them. We have good (excellent, in some cases)
documentation for them, and perhaps most importantly, we have a supportive
community (although, true to the entirety of my experience as a programmer,
the "support" does frequently require the wearing of asbestos undies).
There are also excellent resources for anyone who bites the bullet and
decides "I'm gonna be a programmer." It's worth pointing out that more
different kinds of people are capable of it than most think. A good friend
and former coworker with at least three serious strikes against her in
terms of "who can be a programmer" stereotypes--she was a graphic artist,
29 years old, and a woman--is learning to program in C. Programming is,
after all, a creative endeavor, contrary to the popular perception of what
it means to be "a science." Programmers write, and people who read what
they write can often tell who wrote it without being told--that is,
programmers have individual styles and techniques that provide a
"signature" to their work. There is an aesthetics of programming (in fact,
I would argue that there are more aesthetics of programming than there are
of, say, painting).
So while I would encourage research into making programming more
accessible, in the meantime, I would encourage the creative community that
finds itself drawn to IF as a medium to dig in, pick up Inform or TADS or
Hugo or AGT or whatever strikes your fancy, and have at it! Crib liberally
from the libraries of others: you can't learn to be a good writer without
reading a lot, and that goes for computer code as surely as for English.
Start small--just as a first-time writer can't reasonably expect to write
War and Peace, a first-time IFer can't reasonably expect to create the Zork
trilogy.
So welcome, writers, one and all. Grab a compiler; sit down around the
fire. There are war stories to swap and probably one or two grumpy old men
or women to act as a mentor. The next thing you know, you'll be one of the
old hands.
Paul Snively
<mailto:ch...@mcione.com>
Julian Arnold
In article <01bd3527$1b180e80$0f4c9ac0@station>, Mike Smith
> ***In the interest of protecting my email address from being scanned and
> put on a Yellow Pages CDROM, please remove SPAM and click here
> (mailto://shortc...@ntwrks.com) or use this newsgroup to reply. BTW,
> Mike Smith is my alias.***
>
> This is merely an outline of a new standard I would like to see. In my
> opinion, IF is a dimishing pasttime,
Precisely the opposite. Now its popularity may not be increasing as fast
as you'd like, and the increase is certainly not unrestrained, but it's
not diminishing.
> C. That WDF preserves the format of a textual adventure game with:
> 1. No support for graphics. (In order to preserve the pictures we form in
> our minds.)
What is it with you and graphics?
> 2. No support for buttons. (In order to preserve the responses we must
> learn and formulate on our own as we play.)
And here you ought to give a positive criterion. Something about how the
main method of input must be textual. Parser.
> 3. Display of parameters and settings chosen by either commands typed at
> a console, or selections on a GUI dialog box. (The responses of which would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't this contradict C.2?
> M. That WDF be designed to be open to a broader audience than developers
> to support fiction writers, poets, mathematicians, social critics, etc.
Wow, from specific to general. How?
Jools
--
"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from
ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Jeff Hatch
Paul F. Snively wrote:
>
> [Original message elided for brevity]
> implementation and delivery vehicles. Surprising, I suppose, because as has
> been pointed out by many who are much more articulate than I am, this is an
> old conversation that inevitably degenerates into a) much well-intentioned
> pleading by those who would like to see non-programmers able to author IF,
> and/or b) much not-so-well-intentioned posturing, not to say
> chest-thumping, by those who seem to believe that _their_ vaporous
> authoring environment will prove the Second Coming and usher in a
> renaissance of IF creativity.
There's also
c) well-intentioned boasting by those who believe that _their_ vaporous
authoring environment will be a nice small step up from Inform and
TADS. ;-)
[snip]
> I would go so far as to suggest that,
> to be truly useful for authoring IF, a "language"--textual, visual,
> imperative, object-oriented, functional, whatever--needs to be Turing
> equivalent.
I imagine that many years ago, people gave some of these same arguments
against databases and spreadsheets. If you really want a computer to do
your payroll, or to keep track of the value of your comic book
collection, or track demographics for your mailing list, you'll need to
learn to program anyway, they said. Databases were created anyway--but
the most successful databases are all Turing-equivalent!
Yes, I hope it may someday be possible to write good games without no
programming skills. But I don't think any system will ever catch on if
it's not Turing-equivalent. (A "Turing-equivalent" system is one that
can be programmed to do just about anything, even if the system's
designer didn't think of it.)
Mike, even if your system becomes so simple and elegant that a
non-programmer can effortlessly port Zork I to it with no effort, most
of the people in the current IF community won't use it unless its
capabilities can be expanded somehow for any given game. And that
probably means there'll need to be some way to create if statements and
for loops.
If you want to create your own authoring system, I wish you the best of
luck! But I myself didn't dare bring my ideas up in this newsgroup
until I'd implemented if statements and for loops...and while loops,
local variables, multiple inheritance, dynamic recompilation,
incremental Undo buffers...well, you get the idea.
My first post back in September was much like yours; I claimed that
Inform and TADS were "good" but not "great" authoring systems because
they weren't easy to use. Perhaps I overstated my case. I didn't
realize I was rehashing an old, tired debate. But when I made those
claims, my system was better than TADS and Inform in a couple of ways,
and just as good in most ways, and theoretically capable of doing almost
anything they could. I thought my system was 90% complete, but it
turned out to be more like 75%, because the skeptics soon convinced me
my first release would have to be at least as good as TADS and Inform in
almost every way.
You have a long road ahead of you.
-Rúmil
The Glassers
Paul Connors <pcon...@lucent.com> wrote:
> In article <01bd3527$1b180e80$0f4c9ac0@station>, "Mike Smith" and Mike
> McKee say...
>
> > PROPOSAL: WORLD DEFINITION FORMAT (WDF)
> >
> > Tenets:
> > A. That WDF has two forms--an encrypted text file (WDFe) delivered to
> > players using the toughest encryption tactic in use today (balanced with
> > speed), and as a readable text file (WDFu) used by developers. The only WDF
> > file that needs to be distributed to end users should be the WDFe file.
>
> What is the purpose of *encryption*? Encryption is used to
> prevent unauthorized people from being able to read a file -- but in
> this case, every interpreter certainly needs to be able to read and
> comprehend the file, right? Do you just mean that the WDFe file
> should be *shrouded*, so that it is difficult to reverse-engineer the
> WDFe file to produce a usable WDFu file?
I think what he is trying to say is that it will be difficult to get the
source from a game. For instance, you won't be able to feed your
zmachine game into a program that gives you the source. (Though TXD and
disinform will help that way...)
Of course, most langauges make that difficult, and it is nearly always
possible, given interpreter source, to get at least low level code.
--David Glasser
gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com
The Glassers
Mike Smith <sup...@remedy.com> wrote:
> PROPOSAL: WORLD DEFINITION FORMAT (WDF)
[snip]
Oh, the z-machine.
--David Glasser
gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com
Paul F. Snively
> There's also
> c) well-intentioned boasting by those who believe that _their_ vaporous
> authoring environment will be a nice small step up from Inform and
> TADS. ;-)
Oh, sure... come along and play John the Baptist, will you! :-)
> [snip]
> > I would go so far as to suggest that,
> > to be truly useful for authoring IF, a "language"--textual, visual,
> > imperative, object-oriented, functional, whatever--needs to be Turing
> > equivalent.
>
> I imagine that many years ago, people gave some of these same arguments
> against databases and spreadsheets. If you really want a computer to do
> your payroll, or to keep track of the value of your comic book
> collection, or track demographics for your mailing list, you'll need to
> learn to program anyway, they said. Databases were created anyway--but
> the most successful databases are all Turing-equivalent!
As are the spreadsheets--isn't Microsoft Excel also scripted in Visual
Basic for Applications these days? Word definitely is. And the principal
database language, SQL is, as you pointed out, also Turing equivalent. So
you really aren't contradicting my primary point, which was that everything
we know about computing, computability, combined with everything we know
about simulation (and I urge everyone to think of well-written IF as a
class of simulations), strongly suggests that Turing equivalence is an
important quality of IF authoring tools. Again, that's not to say we
shouldn't attempt to create easier-to-use Turing equivalent languages. We
should. But that's an MIT/Stanford/Xerox PARC/Berkeley/etc. level
undertaking.
> If you want to create your own authoring system, I wish you the best of
> luck! But I myself didn't dare bring my ideas up in this newsgroup
> until I'd implemented if statements and for loops...and while loops,
> local variables, multiple inheritance, dynamic recompilation,
> incremental Undo buffers...well, you get the idea.
Yeah. It's funny how the feature-set of new IF authoring systems ends up
sounding a lot like EMACS. 1/2 ;-)
> My first post back in September was much like yours; I claimed that
> Inform and TADS were "good" but not "great" authoring systems because
> they weren't easy to use. Perhaps I overstated my case. I didn't
> realize I was rehashing an old, tired debate. But when I made those
> claims, my system was better than TADS and Inform in a couple of ways,
> and just as good in most ways, and theoretically capable of doing almost
> anything they could. I thought my system was 90% complete, but it
> turned out to be more like 75%, because the skeptics soon convinced me
> my first release would have to be at least as good as TADS and Inform in
> almost every way.
But look at the bright side: you took the input, went "hrm," went back to
your code, and decided to put forth the extra effort, as opposed to venting
your spleen at the community and insisting that their assertions were due
to their own lack of vision/flexibility/whatever. Kudos for that alone--I'm
now looking very much forward to seeing your system!
> You have a long road ahead of you.
Amen! Sing it, brother!
> -Rúmil
Paul Snively
<mailto:ch...@mcione.com>
Torbj|rn Andersson
ch...@mcione.com (Paul F. Snively) wrote:
> In my defense, I put my money where my mouth was years ago: I was project
> leader on Déjà Vu II: Lost in Las Vegas at ICOM Simulations,
Good game! A friend of mine bought it for his Mac, so I got to play it
quite a bit.
Torbjörn
Michael Straight
On 9 Feb 1998, Mike Smith wrote:
> IF is a dimishing pasttime
The gostak dimishes the doshes!
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
John Francis
In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.98021...@login6.isis.unc.edu>,
Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
well-read youngsters?
(For the sake of argument let's draw the line at over/under 30).
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Unsolicited electronic mail will be subject to a $100 handling fee.
Michael Straight
On 10 Feb 1998, John Francis wrote:
> In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.98021...@login6.isis.unc.edu>,
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >The gostak dimishes the doshes!
>
> Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
> placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
> by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
> well-read youngsters?
> (For the sake of argument let's draw the line at over/under 30).
*** YOU HAVE WON ***
Your age was 28 years out of a possible 30. That makes you an Extremely
Well-Read Youngster. Do you want to QUIT, REREAD, POST again, or see an
EXPLANATION of the joke?
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Dancer
John Francis wrote:
> In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.98021...@login6.isis.unc.edu>,
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 9 Feb 1998, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> >> IF is a dimishing pasttime
> >
> >The gostak dimishes the doshes!
> >
> >SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
> >
>
> Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
> placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
> by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
> well-read youngsters?
> (For the sake of argument let's draw the line at over/under 30).
Let's dump the under 30's. :) That would only about half our readership, I
should think :)
Or we can petition for the creation of new newsgroups:
rec.arts.int-fiction.thelostgeneration
rec.arts.int-fiction.30plus
You can pick whichever one you want according to your tolerance for grammar. (I
refuse to speculate as to which group might meet what criteria).
D
--
Did you read the documentation AND the FAQ?
If not, I'll probably still answer your question, but my patience will
be limited, and you take the risk of sarcasm and ridicule.
David J Wildstrom
In article <6bqbvl$2p...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.98021...@login6.isis.unc.edu>,
>Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>The gostak dimishes the doshes!
>Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
>placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
>by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
>well-read youngsters?
Well, I'm only 17, but even I know that the line is "The gostak _DISTIMS_ the
doshes". Incidentally, I'm cheating. The line resurfaced in a September '94
Analog (Starmind by Spider & Jeanne Robinson), which I still have around. It
was unusual enough to inspire a letter to the editor in a later issue citing
an obscure short story based around that line.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Coach
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980209...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu>,
Wonder Boy <jdb...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>On 9 Feb 1998, Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, IF is a dimishing pasttime...
>
> I feel compelled to state my opinion on this... I, personally,
>disagree with that. I think that IF has already seen its darkest hour,
>which I would describe as the time span between the fall of Infocom and
>the discovery of the r*if newsgroups and the gmd site for a good number of
>us. I know that in my case, I didn't find out about all of this until
>Masterpieces came out last year. I think we're past the point where most
>people remember Infocom and IF fans are being created from the new works.
May be true at that. I'd be curious to see what games IF fans play first
these days.
>The growth in IF popularity can be seen in the growth of yearly releases
>and competition entries. I'd also imagine that IF shareware games are
>making more money as time goes on; Neil DeMauss's (sorry if I mispelt
>that) Lost New York probably beat the socks off of the Unkuulian Adventure
>series and all that, and while no one can get rich off of IF, I'd like to
>imagine that it will only grow more profitable. The idealistic side of me
>would like to see IF games in the stores again one day, even if they're
>relatively cheap to their graphics and sound game counterparts.
> Well, I guess my only point is that I think that IF is only
>increasing at the moment.
I don't see how it couldn't. For what it's worth, I believe that text IF
has benefited greatly from running in modern graphical environments
anyway; all you need to do is look at MaxZip and its relations on other
systems to prove it.
/Brian
--
Brian "Coach" Connors conn...@bc.edu
Cinnte, ta fhios agam labhairt Gaeilge. Cad chuige?
Michael Straight
On 11 Feb 1998, David J Wildstrom wrote:
> In article <6bqbvl$2p...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
> John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
> >In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.98021...@login6.isis.unc.edu>,
> >Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >>The gostak dimishes the doshes!
>
> >Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
> >placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
> >by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
> >well-read youngsters?
> Well, I'm only 17, but even I know that the line is "The gostak _DISTIMS_ the
> doshes". Incidentally, I'm cheating. The line resurfaced in a September '94
> Analog (Starmind by Spider & Jeanne Robinson), which I still have around. It
> was unusual enough to inspire a letter to the editor in a later issue citing
> an obscure short story based around that line.
Yes, it's 'distims,' - someone accidentally typed 'dimishing' for
'diminishing' and it amused me, particularly when I realized it reminded
me of distiming, which is what the gostak does to the doshes. I think
you're supposed to brand me a heretic for suggesting that doshes might on
occasion also be dimished by the gostak.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Joe Mason
In article <6bqbvl$2p...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>>
>>The gostak dimishes the doshes!
>>
>>
>
>Alright - that does it. First we get somebody posting from
>placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
>by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
>well-read youngsters?
Just turned 20 last weekend, and caught the Placet reference. (Placet is a
crazy place. I like it.) I thank the big black book on the shelf downstairs
by the computer. (That'd be _The Golden Years of Science Fiction, Volume 2_,
edited by Isaac Asimov and Martin Greensberg <sp?>.)
Joe
(20? That sure looks different, seeing it in print like that... I feel old...)
LucFrench
>> >The gostak dimishes the doshes!
>>
>> placet, and now this! I thought most of r.a.i-f was populated
>> by youngsters. Was I wrong, are are they all just extremely
>> well-read youngsters?
>> (For the sake of argument let's draw the line at over/under 30).
>
>
>Your age was 28 years out of a possible 30. That makes you an Extremely
>Well-Read Youngster. Do you want to QUIT, REREAD, POST again, or see an
>EXPLANATION of the joke?
>
>SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
explanation
post
Thanks
Luc French