From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13553 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2003 09:30:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13456 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 09:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outbound28-2.lax.untd.com) (64.136.28.160) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 09:30:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 18948 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 09:30:51 -0000 Received: from 66-52-240-9.sttl.dial.netzero.com (HELO vangogh) (66.52.240.9) by smtpout03.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 09:30:51 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "xconq" Subject: RE: Managing "Designers disgust". RE: cheating Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031121090234.34227.qmail@web40901.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00892.txt.bz2 From: Jakob Ilves [mailto:illvilja@yahoo.com] > > So, as a hobby hacker, by strongly handling future concerns > one gets a win ONLY if one has strong > immunity against the "designers disgust". That is, being > very (extremely?) patient and persistent. I had 9 months' worth. Then I broke. At least the code I wrote is solid - overengineered really. It'll be there for me when I resume a year from now. But man, what a lousy way to handle one's morale. > But what levels of patience is appropriate for a > project is pretty much dependant on > the people working on it, at least in the hobby programming > area. I think you have to provide exceedingly quick rewards to developers in any arena where they're not getting paid. > Some folks prefer to invest in > managing multiple future concerns simply because they can > afford it without running into > "designers disgust". They're patient enough. In such > environment, it's tough to make them change > their minds to shift more of their focus on today's fetures > because their current allocation of > work on between current and future concerns are working for _them_. "Masters of DOOM" by David Kushner is illustrative in this regard. John Carmack put his developers through *hell* as he was perfecting his engine. It was working for John's technological needs, it wasn't working for other people's game design needs, and it tore the company apart. > If one isn't that patience an extreme solution for a hobby > hacker can be to ignore future concerns > alltogether in order to speed up short term development. > That can lead to a horrible product > implementation which is rewritten over and over again but it > might on the other hand be written by > a very amused developer. > > For that "pentahexahepta" thing I've lately been considered > to do the latter. Take all virtues > like structured programmed, OO design, security and _LOCK > THEM IN SOMEWHERE IN A CLOSET AWAY FROM > ME_. Yeah, if you *can* succeed in barfing out code in this way, it's a good idea to do so. Any working scaffold, however heinous, is better than sitting around methodically planning without really cutting code. The risk of course is when the project does in fact require highly structural discipline to pull off. Some neato technologies, you can just pull out of your ass by shoveling them. Others, you really do have to sit down and be an Architect / Disciplinarian. I think Python is the right language for people who want to barf. It's a dynamically typed language, you don't get any more flexible than that! In contrast, people who do C++ tend to "wax architectural" and get sucked into optimizing their code. They end up missing the forest for the sake of the trees. It's a disease I've had as a 3D graphics optimization jock, and I've learned the very $$$$$ hard way to get away from it. I can't even fathom people willingly using plain C in 2003 without pay. That mentality is utterly alien to me, there are far better and more interesting programming tools available out there for free. Python is merely a common one that has nascent market momentum behind it. I think library, tools, community support, and proven real world use are all valuable, so that's why I champion it. > Just merrily produce that vomit of Perl code. Yes, Perl is also an appropriate vomit language. It's just that, I don't think you can turn Perl into non-vomit afterwards. But maybe Perl is a moving target that I'm just not up on. > Could be an intresting experience. And likely to be a crime > against all programming ethics ;-). There are no ethics, only tradeoffs. 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.