IF & Conservatism
steve....@gmail.com
(neo)classical. (If you want to read that discussion, you can find it
here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/b2e75bd42a1a99e0
Bellwether I am not, for at that time, I argued that classical IF is a
dead-end (though it can, even in its dead-end expression, also be very
rewarding). Four years later, I would still say that RtDD is the best
example. Perhaps this says something about that dead-end decay, and
perhaps it says something about the logic underlying the predicted
decline.
Clearly, we have had far better competitions than the present one.
Predictably, the art follows the culture. The culture is essentially
increasingly poorer, so the decline of the art is almost a given.
Develop the community, and we will develop the form. But if community
leaders are encouraging hateful speech amongst the community, we're
going to have a great deal of difficulty making general progress of
the genre. I strongly believe that the decline of the genre is a
direct reflection of a failure of leadership, a failure of
communication between people who know better.
Breaking the rules is the primary things which artists are supposed to
do. Artists are supposed to be interested in developing their genre,
producing new ideas, not applying new text to old forms. Developing
the form.
Conservatism is doing the same thing over and over, sometimes in a
slightly different way, but in a way which always very gladly affirms
the normative. But it is also more than this. Conservatism seems to
require a dissatisfaction with alternatives, and it seems strongly
opposed to novelty and development. It is not explicitly anti-novel,
but whatever comes along novel is judged harshly, against the norm.
Along with this there comes a very strong emotional assumption that
the norm carries an intrinsic value, over and above its manifest
virtues. Often criticisms leveled at avant garde works could be
equally applied to conventional works. This is frequently unrecognized
by the conservative critic, as failures of the conventional are
passively accepted and ignored.
--
With neither envy or scorn, we can say that I7 is not so much a
programming system as it is an IF development system, and of its
nature defines and limits IF to the conventional, conservative sense.
This means that it will be successful for producing mediocre/medial
works, but it will not contribute to any development of the genre.
As a theoretical exploration, it could have contributed, and may yet
still, but it remains conservative in a critical way, which prevents
the discussion.
--
In his Sunday column for the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19rich.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
...Frank Rich today wrote:
"[I]t isn’t just his flip-flopping on some of these and other issues
that turned him into a Bush acolyte. The full measure of McCain’s
betrayal of his own integrity cannot even be found in that Senate
voting record — 90 percent in lockstep with the president — that Obama
keeps throwing in his face.
The Bushian ethos that McCain embraced, as codified by Karl Rove, is
larger than any particular vote or policy. Indeed, by definition that
ethos is opposed to the entire idea of policy. The whole point of the
Bush-Rove way of doing business is that principles, coherent
governance and even ideology must always be sacrificed for political
expediency, no matter the cost to the public good."
This represents the clearest modern image of conservatism, better
known as Machiavellinism: throwing over responsible discussion for
political domination. The good news -- it seems to be coming to an
end!
Maybe Sarah Palin, after being publicly scorned for her cruel
propaganda, and her ethical failures -- maybe she has learned to stop
and step in, when a supporter shouts something which degrades the
entire discussion to horrific levels. Maybe Emily Short will learn to
do the same!
Then again, maybe that's the only way that a bad policy can hope to
dominate. If domination is the name of the game, then don't expect
fair discussion!
Watts Martin
> With neither envy or scorn, we can say that I7 is not so much a
> programming system as it is an IF development system, and of its
> nature defines and limits IF to the conventional, conservative sense.
> This means that it will be successful for producing mediocre/medial
> works, but it will not contribute to any development of the genre.
While I've been lurking here enough to note that you relish your role
as an agent provocateur of the IF community, this is dazzling even by
your own previous records.
You are clearly an accomplished TADS programmer and it's fine that for
you it's a much better programming language than Inform is. But I've
been lurking here for a while and watching these TADS-vs.-Inform
threads and I can't help but think of fellows who endlessly insist
that no *real* programmers would ever use Python because significant
white space makes it all but useless.
Programmers -- or writers, or designers -- are going to use whatever
environment makes them feel more comfortable. There's going to be
tradeoffs no matter what they choose. Do you prefer Python's list
comprehensions or Ruby's iterators? Partisans can probably find cases
where one is a better choice than the other for a given value of
"better"; but they haven't definitively proven the superiority of Ruby
to Python or vice-versa. I happen to prefer Python, but that doesn't
make those who disagree with me misinformed, let alone stupid.
Which is rather the point of the original assertion made in another
thread here: "Great IF has nothing to do with which platform you
choose." One can argue that the platform one chooses makes writing
"great IF" easier or harder. In finished products, one can probably
point to aspects that aren't features as much as side effects of the
implementation, and one can debate whether implementing in a different
language or with a different library would have given things more
polish or flexibility. But you know what? In the three-going-on-four
decade history of computer games, I think you'll find a vanishingly
small number of cases where the general critical consensus was, "It
would have been a classic if only he'd written it in Objective-C
instead of C++."
steve....@gmail.com
> I can't help but think of fellows who endlessly insist
> that no *real* programmers would ever use Python because significant
> white space makes it all but useless.
That seems an exceptionally poor comparison. I've probably said a few
dumb things in my life, but I never made so stupid a complaint as "too
much whitespace makes a language useless."
> Programmers -- or writers, or designers -- are going to use whatever
> environment makes them feel more comfortable.
Ok, uh, thanks for that smashing insight, I guess, and... it was
interesting talking to you!
Back to the original point. I can't but think that, if Emily had taken
a leadership role and quelled (rather than fed) the rising tide of I7
righteous-defenders, against the hoarde of TADS-3 barbarians (*looks
around, not sure where they actually are*), then we wouldn't be
hearing such idiotic chatter years later, and instead we'd actually be
able to talk about design strategy.
Jim Aikin
> I strongly believe that the decline of the genre is a
> direct reflection of a failure of leadership, a failure of
> communication between people who know better.
I'm going to tiptoe past the political aspects of your post.
(Comparing Emily Short to Sarah Palin -- the mind boggles.) But I
would like to comment on the passage above.
The decline of the genre, if there is a decline (a separate question),
is due quite simply to the shortage of great new games. This has
little or nothing to do with leadership, it seems to me, because
authoring a game is ultimately an individual creative act. An artist
with a vision is not going to be slowed down by the misfeasance of
alleged leaders. Anyway, it's very questionable that there _are_ any
leaders in IF. There are a few influential authors ... but so what?
Given the existence of adequate authoring systems (and we have
several), the genre will flower when more people write great games. If
no one writes great games, it will flounder and die. I just don't see
where leadership comes into it.
> Breaking the rules is the primary things which artists are supposed to
> do. Artists are supposed to be interested in developing their genre,
> producing new ideas, not applying new text to old forms. Developing
> the form.
This is a very 19th/20th century European/American view of what
artists do. It would not necessarily apply well to Chinese painting in
the 15th century. I know almost nothing about the latter field, but I
have the vague impression that reverence for tradition was valued more
highly, and innovation not so highly, as in the overheated arts
climate in which we live today.
> With neither envy or scorn, we can say that I7 is not so much a
> programming system as it is an IF development system, and of its
> nature defines and limits IF to the conventional, conservative sense.
This thesis is _highly_ suspect. To me, it's a lot like saying, "You
can't write a great novel with a Remington typewriter. If you want to
write a great novel, you need an IBM Selectric."
It's probably true -- I'll accept the testimony of the experts on this
point -- that producing certain rather esoteric effects (such as sense-
passing) would require a lot more effort in I7 than in T3, because it
would have to be coded by hand. But so what? A great game is not
defined by its usage of esoteric effects! A great game is one that has
a great story, great writing, great characters, and great puzzles. All
the rest is window-dressing.
--Jim Aikin
P.S.: Anyway, IF isn't a genre. It's a medium. Games written in the
medium fall into various genres -- horror, science fiction, fantasy,
romance, and so on.
Bert Byfield
> taken a leadership role and quelled (rather than fed) the rising
> tide of I7 righteous-defenders, against the hoarde of TADS-3
> barbarians (*looks around, not sure where they actually are*),
> then we wouldn't be hearing such idiotic chatter years later, and
> instead we'd actually be able to talk about design strategy.
RAIF is itself a melodrama, a morality play, with damsels tied to the
railroad tracks and villains and heroes, and wicked opposing cabals
pulling strings to pull the unwashed masses toward I7 or TADS3, sort of
a real-life *Lord of the Rings*.
That's why I do Hugo. I may even finish something in it one day. ;-)
Watts Martin
> > Programmers -- or writers, or designers -- are going to use whatever
> > environment makes them feel more comfortable.
>
> Ok, uh, thanks for that smashing insight, I guess, and... it was
> interesting talking to you!
Touche. :)
The real "smashing insight" I was trying to get across is the same one
Jim Aikin made, I'm sure far more elegantly. The tools aren't the
issue. I'm noodling around with both T3 and I7 at the same time now,
and despite my previous needling of you, I think I'm understanding
some of the points you've been making in your comparisons -- but the
two systems are both good enough at what they do that it's simply hard
to credit your apparent thesis that I7 severely limits what can be
done with IF in a way that T3 doesn't. Some things may be easier in T3
than I7, but that's rather a different argument -- and in large part
that seems to be due to the different approaches to libraries (i.e.,
include only top-level world entities and make you download additional
extensions, versus a "batteries included" approach).
And yes, I know that's not a very smashing insight, either. :)
> Back to the original point. I can't but think that, if Emily had taken
> a leadership role and quelled (rather than fed) the rising tide of I7
> righteous-defenders, against the hoarde of TADS-3 barbarians (*looks
> around, not sure where they actually are*), then we wouldn't be
> hearing such idiotic chatter years later, and instead we'd actually be
> able to talk about design strategy.
But I'm fairly sure we could be talking about design strategy now
anyway, couldn't we?
pfshec...@gmail.com
Goddamn, look at all them words.
Adam Thornton
Jim Aikin <midig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway, it's very questionable that there _are_ any
>leaders in IF. There are a few influential authors ... but so what?
Jim, Jim, Jim. You have missed the point entirely. Steve's world view
is crucially predicated on the axioms that a) The Man Is Keeping Him
Down, b) The Man is Graham Nelson, and c) I7 is The Tool by which The
Man Maintains His Oppression.
Adam
S. John Ross
> I know almost nothing about the latter field, but I
> have the vague impression that reverence for tradition was valued more
> highly, and innovation not so highly, as in the overheated arts
> climate in which we live today.
And beyond the reverence for innovation, we also have a pretty
constant issue with the conflation of innovation (in the sense of
doing something that breaks new ground that can be constructively
cultivated) and novelty (in the sense of breaking new ground out of a
vain desire to have broken new ground).
For my money, the word "innovation" has become so abused and
threadbare that it's _almost_ as tattered as the word "art" :)
Pete Chown
> With neither envy or scorn, we can say that I7 is not so much a
> programming system as it is an IF development system, and of its nature
> defines and limits IF to the conventional, conservative sense.
What specifically is Inform stopping you doing?
I can see that the various VMs have limitations compared to general
purpose languages. For example, suppose one room of your game is a
library. Theoretically, you could put the Project Gutenberg books in
that library, which would make it more realistic. Rather than having a
generalised description of books, the player could get Alice in
Wonderland off the shelf, open it at page 123, and start reading.
In practice, you can't do this, because the VMs don't have the facility
to download material from the Internet and process it.
Is this the kind of thing you mean?
Pete
JDC
> [various odd things about Inform, conservatism, and Sarah Palin]
Look, all I really want to know is: What IF language would Ron Paul
use?
-JDC
James Jolley
Could someone point me to this thread about the "deathmatch" or
whatever Em is meant to have said?
--
Best
-James-
Conrad
> Jim, Jim, Jim. You have missed the point entirely. Steve's world view
> is crucially predicated on the axioms that a) The Man Is Keeping Him
> Down, b) The Man is Graham Nelson, and c) I7 is The Tool by which The
> Man Maintains His Oppression.
And here I had the impression that it was the woman who was keeping
him down...
C.
mikegentry
> Could someone point me to this thread about the "deathmatch" or
> whatever Em is meant to have said?
> --
Always glad to shed more light on Breslin's credibility.
John W Kennedy
In Breslin-Arda, Emily plays Sauron,
doing the will of Graham's Melkor, called Morgoth.
While T. S. Eliot is Fëanor,
and he, poor thing! is tortured Maedhros,
all others in r.a.i-f, a mob
of Awful Orcs with Edmund Wilson's face.
--
John W. Kennedy
...who can't imagine why reading Ruskin's "Praeterita", of all things,
has put him in this mood.
Jerome West
> Look, all I really want to know is: What IF language would Ron Paul
> use?
He'd insist that it wasn't his place impose a choice of IF language on
the community, but that real men write everything in assembly language
anyway.
vaporware
Also, that all the trouble with IF today can be blamed on the
community's abandonment of the "uppercase standard" in favor of tiny,
worthless "fiat letters".
vw
S. John Ross
> Conrad wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 12:37 am, a...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
> >> Jim, Jim, Jim. You have missed the point entirely. Steve's world view
> >> is crucially predicated on the axioms that a) The Man Is Keeping Him
> >> Down, b) The Man is Graham Nelson, and c) I7 is The Tool by which The
> >> Man Maintains His Oppression.
> > And here I had the impression that it was the woman who was keeping
> > him down...
>
> In Breslin-Arda, Emily plays Sauron,
> doing the will of Graham's Melkor, called Morgoth.
> While T. S. Eliot is Fëanor,
> and he, poor thing! is tortured Maedhros,
> all others in r.a.i-f, a mob
> of Awful Orcs with Edmund Wilson's face.
Oooh. Can I be Barliman Butterbur?
Paul J. Furio
> The decline of the genre, if there is a decline (a separate question),
> is due quite simply to the shortage of great new games.
And with respect to your arguments, I'd posit that perhaps the number
of great games produced on an annual basis is due to the fact that
this is largely the domain of individual contributors rather than
teams. IF is more theater than literature, and while the latter can
succeed for a single author, I am hard pressed to find great single
person plays by author-actors. Likewise with music, there are plenty
of singer-songwriters doing solo acts, but I think the proportion of
quality songs by these compared to those by bands or collaborations
between musicians is skewed towards the group efforts.
I think that when we have real, interacting entities that work
together to polish and refine titles, even titles largely produced by
individual authors, we'll see the overall quality of the genre rising
again. These could be as shallow as the equivalent of writers circles
or as formalized as corporate organizations that do daily
brainstorming and project review meetings, but I think the important
aspect is that they be face-to-face and the feedback is in-depth and
rapidly iterated.
A team of three people, each working on their own titles yet
interacting regularly and giving feedback on each others work would
produce, on average, higher quality titles than three authors writing
in isolation. I've seen this work in several other creative and
technical genres, and I think it can work for IF, it's simply a matter
of commitment, locale, and dedication.
As for the programming language, they're all just tools. At the root
of Inform, one can just write assembly to the interpreter, which is
the true limit of what can be accomplished. I guess (wildly?) that
TADS is the same. Don't blame the tools for the quality. "A Day In
The Life" is as brilliant on solo piano as it is in the full band
setting, and modern works on a word processor are arguably no better
nor worse than those written with ink and quill.
John W Kennedy
I do not have the ordering of his fancy,
Of that, Breslin alone can be the master,
Breslin the master works, and up it goes,
Then shrinks again whene'er the master bates.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton
Andrew Plotkin
> On Oct 19, 7:43 pm, Jim Aikin <midigur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The decline of the genre, if there is a decline (a separate question),
> > is due quite simply to the shortage of great new games.
>
> And with respect to your arguments, I'd posit that perhaps the number
> of great games produced on an annual basis is due to the fact that
> this is largely the domain of individual contributors rather than
> teams.
Are you trying to argue that the greatest IF games were produced when
IF was written by people working in teams?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Don't you think McCain looks tired?
Cindy "MiWi"
No, I think his point is: teams are more likely to make a better work
at a given time. Three people are more likely to make one good game
per year, but when you work alone you usually let other things come
first, like work and studies and writing IF falls back, waiting for
your moments of inspiration. In teams you usually have some "momentum"
so you don't stop writing so easily.
Also, the IF comunity is rather small, so it's hard to expect always
NEW AND GOOD AND INOVATIVE IF...
We are a lot of (usually) lonely writers who like to express
themselves trought IF. We are artists, and artists aren't usually the
kind of people that attend to schedules and to "you must release at
least one good game per year"
I think we should discuss, and call more people, and spread the good
things about IF to call some new writers, so we always have some fresh
air in the comunity. I think we should try new things: good friends
who are IF writers could try writing an IF together, and telling other
people how was it.
(sorry if that didn't make much sense, I'm rather sleepy right now...
~_~)
Personman
> I am hard pressed to find great single
> person plays by author-actors.
I don't know how I feel about the overall thrust of your argument, but
that's ridiculous. Just to pick an example off the top of my head, the
one-woman (written and acted) show Bridge & Tunnel was on Broadway for
quite some time a few years ago; I saw it in San Francisco, and it was
wonderful. I have seen quite a number of smaller-scale one-person
productions before and since; solo performance is a thriving form of
theater with as high an incidence of quality as any other.
steve....@gmail.com
> Always glad to shed more light on Breslin's credibility.
>
Thanks. Chasing down another reference... In that post, the thread
which Emily maligned as
>the GRR RAR WHAT GOES ON WITH I7??? thread
is probably:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/browse_frm/thread/ba1abee7d527db3d#
("GRR RAR" etc. [complete with all-caps] is another wild and hostile
mischaracterization, coming from the same place as "steel-cage
deathmatch")
Conrad
> ("GRR RAR" etc. [complete with all-caps] is another wild and hostile
> mischaracterization, coming from the same place as "steel-cage
> deathmatch")
All right, Steve -- seriously, what is this? Fifteen years ago you
and Em started bickering while watching Mystery Science Theater 3000
and you're still torqued about it?
Conrad.
steve....@gmail.com
> I think I'm understanding
> some of the points you've been making in your comparisons[.]
Thanks, and sincere thanks for toning down.
> -- but the
> two systems are both good enough at what they do that it's simply hard
> to credit your apparent thesis that I7 severely limits what can be
> done with IF in a way that T3 doesn't.
Well you're obviously a programmer, so I think this explanation will
make sense: you can write a Tetris program in TADS-3. As a programmer,
you realize that I'm not saying the future of IF is Tetris. You
realize that I'm saying that basic programming capability opens doors.
I7 is fine, if you want to stick with the standard. (You'll write a
lot more code for the same effect, and it's going to be a constant
pain, to figure out which English expression is Inglish-readable, and
the world-model is less robust, and the extensions fight with each-
other, and so on. But I7 is still "good enough.")
If you want to do something beyond standard -- that is, if you want to
develop the genre -- then chances are you'll want to actually
*program*. At that point, it will be useful to be working within a
programming language.
> [D]ifferent approaches to libraries (i.e.,
> include only top-level world entities and make you download additional
> extensions, versus a "batteries included" approach).
I agree with this concern. Back when TADS-3 was in development, I
suggested the same thing. Here's how that discussion played out:
http://lists.v-space.org/archive/tads3/200312/msg00063.html
and
http://lists.v-space.org/archive/tads3/200408/msg00072.html
> [W]e could be talking about design strategy now
> anyway, couldn't we?
You and me, sure. But we as a community? No, not unless Emily reverses
her rhetorical position, and campaigns in favor of open discussion.
Only then will we reopen the community-wide discussion.
steve....@gmail.com
> All right, Steve -- seriously, what is this?
Easily answered:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/dfe601ecba84f5f4
Paul J. Furio
> Are you trying to argue that the greatest IF games were produced when
> IF was written by people working in teams?
I'm arguing that the interpersonal environment, the weekly
"Implementors Lunches" and other face to face interaction that occurs
in team environments, produces better overall quality than that of
individuals working largely in isolation. I'd argue this is true for
almost all interactive and time-dependant works (theater, music, film,
video games).
I'm not saying there are zero great works by individuals, there
clearly are. But the ratio of great team efforts to great individual
efforts is clearly skewed in favor of the teams.
-paul
vaporware
[...]
> Well you're obviously a programmer, so I think this explanation will
> make sense: you can write a Tetris program in TADS-3. As a programmer,
> you realize that I'm not saying the future of IF is Tetris. You
> realize that I'm saying that basic programming capability opens doors.
>
> I7 is fine, if you want to stick with the standard. (You'll write a
> lot more code for the same effect, and it's going to be a constant
> pain, to figure out which English expression is Inglish-readable, and
> the world-model is less robust, and the extensions fight with each-
> other, and so on. But I7 is still "good enough.")
>
> If you want to do something beyond standard -- that is, if you want to
> develop the genre -- then chances are you'll want to actually
> *program*. At that point, it will be useful to be working within a
> programming language.
Luckily, Inform 7 *is* a programming language, as the manual points
out.
If you want to argue that it isn't, then perhaps you could provide an
example of something "beyond standard" that can't be done in I7. What
"basic programming capability" is it missing? What sort of genre
development might be possible under some other system but not under
I7? Surely you must have something more relevant than Tetris in mind
(even though one could, in fact, write Tetris in I7).
As a programmer, I've certainly wanted to "actually *program*" in I7
-- in fact, judging by the meager amount of fiction I've written,
compared to extensions and other abstract works, it would be fair to
say that actual programming is *all* I want to do with I7. But so far
I haven't been prevented from doing that, nor found it to be any more
difficult than it would be in I6 or TADS. On the other hand, I'm not
blinded by a personal grudge or persecution complex, so maybe that's
working in my favor.
vw
Adam Thornton
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>You and me, sure. But we as a community? No, not unless Emily reverses
>her rhetorical position, and campaigns in favor of open discussion.
>Only then will we reopen the community-wide discussion.
When did Emily get veto power over RAIF?
I didn't get that memo. None of my pets have mysteriously disappeared,
either.
Adam
steve....@gmail.com
> Luckily, Inform 7 *is* a programming language, as the manual points
> out.
The manual makes a point of pointing out that I7 is a programming
language? Heh, how amusing. I would have thought that this is obvious
enough.
> If you want to argue that it isn't[...]
Nope, but thanks for the offer!
> [P]erhaps you could provide an
> example of something "beyond standard" that can't be done in I7.
Nope. We both know that is logically impossible. Thanks for playing!
> What
> "basic programming capability" is it missing?
As above, it qualifies under Turing, so it cannot possibly be lacking
in theoretical capability. It's just highly inefficient and
cumbersome. But this is entirely beside the point!
> What sort of genre
> development might be possible under some other system but not under
> I7? Surely you must have something more relevant than Tetris in mind
> (even though one could, in fact, write Tetris in I7).
Use your imagination. When that fails you, complain about it on RAIF.
Oh, wait...
If you have no concept of genre development beside what I7 is designed
to accomplish, then you're basically just fodder for my initial
thesis. But re-read it: I have no problem with conservative IF --
repeat: no problem; it's fine. In fact, I like it. You're arguing
against a number of idiotic points, none of which anyone has made.
vaporware
> vaporware wrote:
> > Luckily, Inform 7 *is* a programming language, as the manual points
> > out.
>
> The manual makes a point of pointing out that I7 is a programming
> language? Heh, how amusing. I would have thought that this is obvious
> enough.
I thought so too, but you implied it wasn't, so apparently this
obvious fact does need to be pointed out once in a while.
> > What
> > "basic programming capability" is it missing?
>
> As above, it qualifies under Turing, so it cannot possibly be lacking
> in theoretical capability. It's just highly inefficient and
> cumbersome. But this is entirely beside the point!
Then perhaps you could point out something that's so "inefficient and
cumbersome" as to be impractical.
Or perhaps you're just blowing hot air with these vague claims about
I7's unsuitability for tasks that you refuse to define.
> You're arguing
> against a number of idiotic points, none of which anyone has made.
Don't be so hard on yourself, Steve. You might not be a pillar of this
community, but you still count as "anyone".
vw
steve....@gmail.com
> [Y]ou implied it wasn't [obvious that I7 is a programming language],
> so apparently this obvious fact does need to be pointed out once in
> a while.
I really don't understand the hostility. All I said was that I7 faces
the problem of specialization. General programming becomes highly
inefficient and cumbersome.
> > As above, it qualifies under Turing, so it cannot possibly be lacking
> > in theoretical capability. It's just highly inefficient and
> > cumbersome. But this is entirely beside the point!
>
> Then perhaps you could point out something that's so "inefficient and
> cumbersome" as to be impractical.
I should have thought that "inefficient and cumbersome" is a
reasonable definition of "impractical," but whatever. Again, this is
entirely beside the point.
> Or perhaps you're just blowing hot air with these vague claims about
> I7's unsuitability for tasks that you refuse to define.
>
> > You're arguing
> > against a number of idiotic points, none of which anyone has made.
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself, Steve. You might not be a pillar of this
> community, but you still count as "anyone".
Please, stop being "clever" and insulting. It's not helpful.
Jacek Pudlo, Esq.
news:5jb7t5-...@quicksilver.fsf.net...
> In article
> <ead8bc2c-fb9a-4e77...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You and me, sure. But we as a community? No, not unless Emily reverses
>>her rhetorical position, and campaigns in favor of open discussion.
>>Only then will we reopen the community-wide discussion.
>
> When did Emily get veto power over RAIF?
The comicality of an unintentional clown is all the more comical for its
unintentionality. Emily Short is to Steve what Dulcinea is to Don Quixote
while I7 is a windmill transformed by his unwell mind into a ferocious
giant. Steve is a man who wears a wash basin on his head fully convinced it
is a knight's helmet. We, who can see Emily in all her quotidian semi-obese
banality, can laugh at Steve's notion of her near-satanic powers, but to him
she is his all, his religion. Note how he implores her to "campaign" for
free discussion -- much like Don Quixote prays to Dulcinea for protection --
as though free discussion on Usenet was possible only with Emily's
benediction. The sad part is that our "Dulcinea" is nowhere near as
influential and cunning as Steve would have her be. She's a woman whose life
is so empty she spends most of it commuting between IFMUD and RAIF,
occasionally informing us how busy she is. When will our "Quixote" realise
that his ladylove is a homely farm girl? Will he ever be well? The original
Quixote regains his sanity only to fall into a deep melancholy, and die
shortly after. I don't think we'll ever see a sane Steve again. The moment
he regains sanity he'll stop posting and will never be heard from again.
vaporware
> On Oct 23, 8:10 pm, vaporware wrote:
>
> > [Y]ou implied it wasn't [obvious that I7 is a programming language],
> > so apparently this obvious fact does need to be pointed out once in
> > a while.
>
> I really don't understand the hostility. All I said was that I7 faces
> the problem of specialization. General programming becomes highly
> inefficient and cumbersome.
> I should have thought that "inefficient and cumbersome" is a
> reasonable definition of "impractical," but whatever. Again, this is
> entirely beside the point.
No, it goes straight to the point: you *claim* that general
programming is inefficient and cumbersome in I7, but you apparently
expect us to believe that claim just because you say so; you've given
no evidence that it actually *is* inefficient or cumbersome, and your
claim is contradicted by the experience of people like myself who've
actually taken the time to learn and use it.
vw
Andrew Plotkin
> > Are you trying to argue that the greatest IF games were produced when
> > IF was written by people working in teams?
>
> I'm arguing that the interpersonal environment, the weekly
> "Implementors Lunches" and other face to face interaction that occurs
> in team environments, produces better overall quality than that of
> individuals working largely in isolation.
First, you seem to have fallen off your segue from Jim's original
desire for *more* good IF works. Team game creation may be a more
efficient way to get works written, or it may not, but surely that's a
marginal change compared to the number of people *trying* to write IF.
You want to drop that and talk about quality now?
Second, you're saying that the Infocom era was the Great Era of IF,
the model we have to return to. I disagree. The best text adventures
in our canon are on the Archive. We've done better horror than Lurking
Horror, better SF than Starcross, etc, etc.
Infocom unquestionably produced more *consistent* quality than the
*overall* modern community. Their worst games were good, solid work.
Our worst games are tossed-off garbage -- as any IFComp judge knows.
Is this a surprise? No, it's because Infocom was a commercial
enterprise, made up of selected, talented people working full-time.
*We* are everybody we can convince to pick up a development kit.
Obviously this leads to a lot of non-g