doing vs. talking

doing vs. talking

[Brandon J. Van Every]

From: Jakob Ilves [mailto:illvilja@yahoo.com]
>
> Seriously, you appear to be very focused and ambitious which
> is good. That's the attitude I have
> towards software development (mine and others) when I'm at
> work.  However, when I get into the
> Xconq world, I don't want to "get to work" again.  I don't
> want that "life and death" kind of
> attitude towards software development which I have at my job,
> I want to have a software project I
> can have a relaxed attitude to.  And therefore, I don't take
> Xconq _THAT_ serious and I think many
> other people on the list feels the same.

I'm sure they do.  But after a time it becomes difficult to distinguish
Doers from Talkers.  Are there 10 people working on Xconq, or 3?

I'm also coming from a newsgroup discussion culture that's more slanted
towards commercial than hobbyist development.  comp.games.development.*
certainly has all kinds, but the dominant ethic is that ideas are a dime
a dozen.  People who implement ideas are what counts.  The newsgroup has
FAQs on that sort of thing.  Of course, those FAQs presuppose a desire
to Have A Career [TM] and Get Things Done [TM].

> Sure, Xconq would in a way benefit if we made all the right
> decisions and never went down the
> "wrong tracks" and analyze things carefully before every step
> and so on.  But that would be
> _BORING_ because we would not do any experimentation, no "we
> try this out and if it don't work we'll scrap it".

Why do you think I'm gunning for Python?  It's a prototyping language.
But I'm not gunning for XML / SVG because nobody's going to get that
done.  I'm plenty happy if you do it, but you said you ain't gonna do
it.  Maybe I can goad you into doing it....

> Xconq has been developing slowly in a sense and I can see
> that if you're impatient, that can be
> frustrating to see other people reluctant to force the
> development pace.

I don't see that as an issue.  You said up front that you're not going
to contribute to the development pace at all, so I'm not worried about
what pace you'd like to see things go at.  I haven't really heard, one
way or the other, what people who actually code intend to do.  I figure
I'll judge them by what they code.  I saw someone check in a non-trivial
piece of pathfinding code recently, so I'm encouraged that there are
Doers around here.

> Another intresting thing, given that Xconq don't develop at
> the speed of light is that the Xconq
> project actually can monitor other, not ready, projects for
> useful tools to use in a year or two.

Fine, but I don't need a year's worth of lead time to crank up
Sourceforge.net.  I don't make plans on the basis of "Oh, wow, I could
do that a year from now!  Let's hurry up and wait!"  I make plans based
on what I can do today.  Maybe I get hit by a truck a year from now.
Maybe they haven't gotten their act together a year from now.

> But who knows, I might have time in February next year to do
> some sabotages by infecting Xconq
> with XML/SVG...  "XML Batik? xpat?

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!!  I knew you were too enthusiastic to be all talk.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Re: doing vs. talking

[Jakob Ilves]

Hello!

 --- "Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com> skrev: > From: Jakob Ilves
[mailto:illvilja@yahoo.com]
> >
> > Seriously, you appear to be very focused and ambitious which
> > is good. That's the attitude I have
> > towards software development (mine and others) when I'm at
> > work.  However, when I get into the
> > Xconq world, I don't want to "get to work" again.  I don't
> > want that "life and death" kind of
> > attitude towards software development which I have at my job,
> > I want to have a software project I
> > can have a relaxed attitude to.  And therefore, I don't take
> > Xconq _THAT_ serious and I think many
> > other people on the list feels the same.
> 
> I'm sure they do.  But after a time it becomes difficult to distinguish
> Doers from Talkers.  Are there 10 people working on Xconq, or 3?

Let me guess, you view Xconq as a tool with potential to become useful for you as a prototyper
when you create commercial games.  If so, I see why it's important for you to to understand how
many ppl actually are working on the game.  I treat some other open source projects similarly
myself, that is, those I depend on in my job.  But there I'm confident that the doers are
sufficiently productive and that the talkers are sufficiently encouraging/informative/contributing
in an indirect manner so I don't worry that much (maybe because I'm one of the doers myself ;-). 
But sure, there are a few quirks with the tools I'm gonna bring up with the designers.  They have
some holy cows I would like to slaughter...

The bad news is that I think it will continue to be difficult to identify doers from talkers on
the Xconq list.  One reason might be that people turn into the doer role or leave the doer role in
a rather unplanned manner.

> I'm also coming from a newsgroup discussion culture that's more slanted
> towards commercial than hobbyist development.  comp.games.development.*
> certainly has all kinds, but the dominant ethic is that ideas are a dime
> a dozen.  People who implement ideas are what counts.  The newsgroup has
> FAQs on that sort of thing.  Of course, those FAQs presuppose a desire
> to Have A Career [TM] and Get Things Done [TM].

Ok, so a desire to Get Things Done is enough?  Then I'm qualified!  The only issue is that I just
can't get the time needed for accomplish any of those things I want.

I peeked into comp.games.development.design.  A good group but I had abandon reading it.  Too much
to read for a person like me who design games on hobby basis.


<offtopic>
Attitude in discussion forums are a fascinating thing in itself.  If you want an intresting still
very friendly group I recommend rec.games.design.  If someone asks really basic questions there
(on the verge of silly) they still get constructive responses.  It's the only group where a mail
with 40 responses actually is a normal discussion, not a flame war.  The discussions are usually
quite intresting, both for commercial as well as hobbyist game designers.

rec.games.empire is also fun (to satisfy my dream of playing empire, it was 12 years since last
time) but ask silly questions there and you attract some really sarcastic responses, written by
people being awfully good at ripping others apart. (But yes, it's amusing to watch ;-)

rec.games.pbm is usually quite good (but ouch, the flame wars popping up there occasionally are
unfortunate).

Then the countermoves list is fun and friendly too (http://countermoves.sourceforge.com/).  Purely
hobbyist, focused on general game design.  Actually produces an game design fanzine, download the
PDFs and print out.  On the mailinglist they are discussing some generic game server framework
right now.  Sounds familiar ;-).  Maybe I should hint them about this list...
</offtopic>

Ideas dime a dozen, true and attempts to realize ideas are also dime a dozen.  Well, just watch
all those dead projects out there (of which you've already identified a few for us scavengers to
investigate for goodies) where people has tried to invent their special kind of a wheel.  That's
why I bug people on this list (and a few others) with my ideas.  Better put my ideas into an
existing program than to reinvent the wheel AGAIN (and fail, I know myself ;-).

Actually, I think in general it is more productive to try to look up existing projects and enhance
them so they suits ones own needs than to create own projects doomed to die.

> > Sure, Xconq would in a way benefit if we made all the right
> > decisions and never went down the
> > "wrong tracks" and analyze things carefully before every step
> > and so on.  But that would be
> > _BORING_ because we would not do any experimentation, no "we
> > try this out and if it don't work we'll scrap it".
> 
> Why do you think I'm gunning for Python?  It's a prototyping language.
> But I'm not gunning for XML / SVG because nobody's going to get that
> done.  I'm plenty happy if you do it, but you said you ain't gonna do
> it.  Maybe I can goad you into doing it....

Oh my God, don't tempt me :-)!  It would be fun trying and I might get an attack of bad discipline
and start hacking Xconq/SVG/XML stuff instead of "all those things I need to do" (TM).  I mean, I
say that I'm not likely to develop stuff to Xconq because I'm not amused by it.  I avoid
committing to contributing to Xconq simply because I'm too dissillusioned by my own availability
(or rather lack thereof) of time for things like this.

But I feel my discipline starts to crackle so beware ;-).

> > Xconq has been developing slowly in a sense and I can see
> > that if you're impatient, that can be
> > frustrating to see other people reluctant to force the
> > development pace.
> 
> I don't see that as an issue.  You said up front that you're not going
> to contribute to the development pace at all, so I'm not worried about
> what pace you'd like to see things go at.  I haven't really heard, one
> way or the other, what people who actually code intend to do.  I figure

Well, perhaps they don't know themselves what they intend to do.  Could easily be the case when
doing hobby programming.  Also, the reason people hasn't written down yet what they think can be
that it takes time to structure up ones thoughts into an email and get it done.  And if they for
this moment cannot get together enough a chunk of time for that, then they will not send their
email.

Seriously, give'm a week or two more to respond before assuming they don't have a plan for the
development.  Things can be that slow.  When doing hobby programming, a "run out of time"
situation is often a HARD run out of time and during that situation (which can be for months)
there is _no_ way to contribute to the project neither by code, design or by participating in this
list.

> I'll judge them by what they code.  I saw someone check in a non-trivial
> piece of pathfinding code recently, so I'm encouraged that there are
> Doers around here.
> 
> > Another intresting thing, given that Xconq don't develop at
> > the speed of light is that the Xconq
> > project actually can monitor other, not ready, projects for
> > useful tools to use in a year or two.
> 
> Fine, but I don't need a year's worth of lead time to crank up
> Sourceforge.net.  I don't make plans on the basis of "Oh, wow, I could
> do that a year from now!  Let's hurry up and wait!"  I make plans based
> on what I can do today.  Maybe I get hit by a truck a year from now.
> Maybe they haven't gotten their act together a year from now.

Well, I studied three months at the university, being 18 years old, when I understood that I was
going to become a father.  Things went well, me and my wife are still a couple after 15 years and
our now two kids hasn't decided to run away.  But this had an impact on my hobby hacking.  Instead
of a timescale in weeks to accomplish things I use a timescale of years.  So for me it's natural
to keep an eye on stuff and think "Gee, that thing will be cool in two years, I can use that
then!".  Actually, as my kids are 10 and 14 years so I'll start to have some more time for hobby
activities.

> > But who knows, I might have time in February next year to do
> > some sabotages by infecting Xconq
> > with XML/SVG...  "XML Batik? xpat?
> 
> THAT'S THE SPIRIT!!  I knew you were too enthusiastic to be all talk.

Yes, that the scary part.  I cannot really stay away from it even if I should.  It's like when I
duct taped together that windows binary of Xconq in January 2001...  It was cygwin stuff (a messy
development environment but it was at least free) but I managed to get it working.  THAT effort
was done at a moment I really hadn't time but it was too fun to resists.  But the lack of time is
the reason I never maintained that Windows binary distro (as well as problems doing CVS
checkouts).

> 
> Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA
> 
> Taking risk where others will not.

/IllvilJa the Orbiter


=====
(Jakob Ilves) <illvilja@yahoo.com>
{http://www.geocities.com/illvilja}

Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor på adressen http://se.docs.yahoo.com/travel/index.html

RE: doing vs. talking

[Brandon J. Van Every]

From: Jakob Ilves [mailto:illvilja@yahoo.com]
> >
> > Of course, those FAQs presuppose a desire
> > to Have A Career [TM] and Get Things Done [TM].
>
> Ok, so a desire to Get Things Done is enough?  Then I'm
> qualified!  The only issue is that I just
> can't get the time needed for accomplish any of those things I want.

I suppose I could have said "serious desire."  If you are not willing to
make time, you are not serious.  Of course, you said you don't take
Xconq very seriously, you're here to relax and unwind.  That's fine, but
it means you're not really interested in Getting Things Done [TM].

> Ideas dime a dozen, true and attempts to realize ideas are
> also dime a dozen.

I'd say they're worth a dollar.  You know the expression, "If I had a
dollar for every time X happened, I'd be rich!"

> Actually, I think in general it is more productive to try to
> look up existing projects and enhance
> them so they suits ones own needs than to create own projects
> doomed to die.

Except that, when you finally do abandon Not Invented Here, and really
look for partnerships with others to reach common agendas, you discover
wide variances in quality.  For instance, the number of people in a
given group that are Doers rather than Talkers.  Or the current state of
the code base.  Or the game designer sensibilities.  Or the political
and strategic objectives of the group.  Or maybe their driving problems
simply aren't your driving problems.

I've been on an "other project hunt" for probably 3 months now.  Xconq
is the last port of call.  I've run a lot of equations about what saves
work vs. what creates it, and working with others is a definitely a Loss
in a lot of cases.  And, you find out that there aren't that many good
projects to pick from.  At some point you either settle for less, or
sigh and realize that "to do it right" you'll have to do it yourself
after all.  Then you either do it, give up, or reassess what exactly it
is you think you need to do.

> > But I'm not gunning for XML / SVG because nobody's going to get that
> > done.  I'm plenty happy if you do it, but you said you
> > ain't gonna do it.  Maybe I can goad you into doing it....
>
> Oh my God, don't tempt me :-)!  It would be fun trying and I
> might get an attack of bad discipline
> and start hacking Xconq/SVG/XML stuff instead of "all those
> things I need to do" (TM).

Give in, give in.  You know you want to!

> I mean, I
> say that I'm not likely to develop stuff to Xconq because I'm
> not amused by it.

Meaning, you are not amused by Xconq itself, or not amused by developing
stuff for Xconq?

If the latter, that's a situation I hope to address with Python.
Everyone tells me it's far less painful to program in than all the other
languages, that's pretty much its raison d'etre.  And I'm sure it'll be
more pleasant than either C or C++.  Really, what most needs to happen
for volunteer projects like Xconq, is that the sheer drudgery has to be
taken out of the projects.  Nobody cares to spend their free time on
unpleasant programming tasks when they've already been doing unpleasant
tasks at work for 8 hours or more.

> I avoid
> committing to contributing to Xconq simply because I'm too
> dissillusioned by my own availability
> (or rather lack thereof) of time for things like this.

Well, when I'm working on my own codebases that I understand, it takes
me 4 hours to implement a new feature.  That's to implement, test,
debug, and check it into source control.  That's the average, typically.
If I really really screw up it takes 2 days, i.e. 16 hours, but that
happens infrequently because I'm such a micro-incrementalist testing
fanatic.

If it takes me longer than 4 hours to implement a feature in someone
else's codebase, then that codebase is a Loss.  It is not assisting my
productivity.  The codebase would have to have a lot of stuff in it
already that I definitely need for me to bother with it.  Anyways, the
point is to bring down the overhead of working on Xconq to the 4 hour
range.  That's what I think Python and "hodgepodge OO" can do for Xconq.

Can you allocate 4 hours out of your week or month to add something of
interest to Xconq?

> Seriously, give'm a week or two more to respond before
> assuming they don't have a plan for the development.

I don't need to "give" them anything.  My schedule is independent of
their schedule.  I wouldn't offer to embed Python into Xconq if it
didn't suit my purposes.  In the worst case, it's a resume skill I can
hawk to someone else.  In the best case, you all become happy little
Python programmers and achieve Xconq productivity nirvana.  I write a
big fat puff piece about it, post it on Gamasutra, and start charging
commercial game developers a lot of money for my Python conversion
skills.

> Yes, that the scary part.  I cannot really stay away from it
> even if I should.

"Should" is a pile of illusions.  You are in charge of your "should."

One of the most painful things I had to go through over the past 6
months, was deciding who I was really coding for.  The perceived needs
of game developers and Microsoft, so that I could get a decent paycheck
and pay off my crushing debts?  That leads me to lotsa industry
bullshit.  The list of things I despise about computers and the computer
industry is rather long.  It took me awhile to figure out that I do not
in fact hate programming, there's a short list of things about it I
actually like.  So, I resolved that in my own work, I will only do those
things.  To hell with anyone else's perceived needs or any I might
impose upon myself.  If it doesn't make me happy, I ain't doin' it.

So consequently, I'm still teetering on the edge of eviction.  I'm
supposed to have been hunting jobs the past 2 weeks.  Instead I've
mostly worried about kicking Xconq into shape, getting up to speed with
C# .NET Managed DirectX, and what Python's long-term marketing agenda is
going to be.

Now of course, because you have a family the stakes are different for
you.  You aren't free to play with the fire of losing the roof over your
head.  But, you are probably a lot more free than you've self-edited
yourself to be.  At some point there are legitimate constraints, and
then there are excuses and comfort zones.

If you want to code something, code something.  Commit a level of energy
to it that is sane for your current life.

And by that same token, don't code anything you don't actually want to
code.  For instance, you'd have to pay me to write Xconq-specific GUIs
right now.  It's too much of a chore.  A lot of OO stuff needs to happen
first.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

RE: doing vs. talking

[Brandon J. Van Every]

From: Jakob Ilves [mailto:illvilja@yahoo.com]
> >
> > Of course, those FAQs presuppose a desire
> > to Have A Career [TM] and Get Things Done [TM].
>
> Ok, so a desire to Get Things Done is enough?  Then I'm
> qualified!  The only issue is that I just
> can't get the time needed for accomplish any of those things I want.

I suppose I could have said "serious desire."  If you are not willing to
make time, you are not serious.  Of course, you said you don't take
Xconq very seriously, you're here to relax and unwind.  That's fine, but
it means you're not really interested in Getting Things Done [TM].

> Ideas dime a dozen, true and attempts to realize ideas are
> also dime a dozen.

I'd say they're worth a dollar.  You know the expression, "If I had a
dollar for every time X happened, I'd be rich!"

> Actually, I think in general it is more productive to try to
> look up existing projects and enhance
> them so they suits ones own needs than to create own projects
> doomed to die.

Except that, when you finally do abandon Not Invented Here, and really
look for partnerships with others to reach common agendas, you discover
wide variances in quality.  For instance, the number of people in a
given group that are Doers rather than Talkers.  Or the current state of
the code base.  Or the game designer sensibilities.  Or the political
and strategic objectives of the group.  Or maybe their driving problems
simply aren't your driving problems.

I've been on an "other project hunt" for probably 3 months now.  Xconq
is the last port of call.  I've run a lot of equations about what saves
work vs. what creates it, and working with others is a definitely a Loss
in a lot of cases.  And, you find out that there aren't that many good
projects to pick from.  At some point you either settle for less, or
sigh and realize that "to do it right" you'll have to do it yourself
after all.  Then you either do it, give up, or reassess what exactly it
is you think you need to do.

> > But I'm not gunning for XML / SVG because nobody's going to get that
> > done.  I'm plenty happy if you do it, but you said you
> > ain't gonna do it.  Maybe I can goad you into doing it....
>
> Oh my God, don't tempt me :-)!  It would be fun trying and I
> might get an attack of bad discipline
> and start hacking Xconq/SVG/XML stuff instead of "all those
> things I need to do" (TM).

Give in, give in.  You know you want to!

> I mean, I
> say that I'm not likely to develop stuff to Xconq because I'm
> not amused by it.

Meaning, you are not amused by Xconq itself, or not amused by developing
stuff for Xconq?

If the latter, that's a situation I hope to address with Python.
Everyone tells me it's far less painful to program in than all the other
languages, that's pretty much its raison d'etre.  And I'm sure it'll be
more pleasant than either C or C++.  Really, what most needs to happen
for volunteer projects like Xconq, is that the sheer drudgery has to be
taken out of the projects.  Nobody cares to spend their free time on
unpleasant programming tasks when they've already been doing unpleasant
tasks at work for 8 hours or more.

> I avoid
> committing to contributing to Xconq simply because I'm too
> dissillusioned by my own availability
> (or rather lack thereof) of time for things like this.

Well, when I'm working on my own codebases that I understand, it takes
me 4 hours to implement a new feature.  That's to implement, test,
debug, and check it into source control.  That's the average, typically.
If I really really screw up it takes 2 days, i.e. 16 hours, but that
happens infrequently because I'm such a micro-incrementalist testing
fanatic.

If it takes me longer than 4 hours to implement a feature in someone
else's codebase, then that codebase is a Loss.  It is not assisting my
productivity.  The codebase would have to have a lot of stuff in it
already that I definitely need for me to bother with it.  Anyways, the
point is to bring down the overhead of working on Xconq to the 4 hour
range.  That's what I think Python and "hodgepodge OO" can do for Xconq.

Can you allocate 4 hours out of your week or month to add something of
interest to Xconq?

> Seriously, give'm a week or two more to respond before
> assuming they don't have a plan for the development.

I don't need to "give" them anything.  My schedule is independent of
their schedule.  I wouldn't offer to embed Python into Xconq if it
didn't suit my purposes.  In the worst case, it's a resume skill I can
hawk to someone else.  In the best case, you all become happy little
Python programmers and achieve Xconq productivity nirvana.  I write a
big fat puff piece about it, post it on Gamasutra, and start charging
commercial game developers a lot of money for my Python conversion
skills.

> Yes, that the scary part.  I cannot really stay away from it
> even if I should.

"Should" is a pile of illusions.  You are in charge of your "should."

One of the most painful things I had to go through over the past 6
months, was deciding who I was really coding for.  The perceived needs
of game developers and Microsoft, so that I could get a decent paycheck
and pay off my crushing debts?  That leads me to lotsa industry
bullshit.  The list of things I despise about computers and the computer
industry is rather long.  It took me awhile to figure out that I do not
in fact hate programming, there's a short list of things about it I
actually like.  So, I resolved that in my own work, I will only do those
things.  To hell with anyone else's perceived needs or any I might
impose upon myself.  If it doesn't make me happy, I ain't doin' it.

So consequently, I'm still teetering on the edge of eviction.  I'm
supposed to have been hunting jobs the past 2 weeks.  Instead I've
mostly worried about kicking Xconq into shape, getting up to speed with
C# .NET Managed DirectX, and what Python's long-term marketing agenda is
going to be.

Now of course, because you have a family the stakes are different for
you.  You aren't free to play with the fire of losing the roof over your
head.  But, you are probably a lot more free than you've self-edited
yourself to be.  At some point there are legitimate constraints, and
then there are excuses and comfort zones.

If you want to code something, code something.  Commit a level of energy
to it that is sane for your current life.

And by that same token, don't code anything you don't actually want to
code.  For instance, you'd have to pay me to write Xconq-specific GUIs
right now.  It's too much of a chore.  A lot of OO stuff needs to happen
first.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.