From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25642 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2003 17:13:52 -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 25623 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 17:13:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO garm.central.cmich.local) (141.209.15.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 17:13:44 -0000 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:13:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826957001B for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:13:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:24:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: xconq Subject: Re: growth agendas and OO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2003 17:13:41.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5221340:01C3AF89] X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00857.txt.bz2 On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > Do you understand why Xconq won't get any bigger without certain > infrastructural layouts? The C infrastructure is pretty good (as Peter points out in a later message); in fact, it is good enough that Xconq has gained 2 developers in the past 5 months. Not bad.... As far as building the game goes (since that is actually the question at hand), the answer is: sure, it would be nice to have some additional infrastructure. You seem to have this "me vs. them" mentality though. When I suggested that _you_ could contribute your VS project, you became rather defensive, thinking that I somehow doubted your efforts. It would be nice if you would understand that, within the open source community, there is a kind of "altruism", that if you accomplish something positive then you share it with others. I didn't build this particular piece of infrastructure because I didn't *need* it. >But... some have a growth agenda, and others don't. I have a personal growth agenda for Xconq. It goes something like this: Pre-7.5: (1) Fix all known stability issues and crashing bugs. (2) Verify documentation correctness and add more exposition where necessary. Possibly spiff up the HTML version of the manuals. (3) Make sure that all the test cases pass muster. Possibly enhance the testing system. (Although the normal use of skelconq is to be invoked with arguments, it should probably not assume that this is the case, as you pointed out and as I also noticed some time ago.) Post-7.5/Pre-7.6: (1) Make a badass AI. (2) Do some work with the tasking/planning system (related to AI work, but some make-user-life-easier things also). (3) Possibly extend GDL. (4) Possibly extend the standing orders syntax. (5) Possibly work on SDL/? interface. > I am willing to contribute to the OO-ification of Xconq, if you want to > pursue that agenda. If you think that agenda is misguided, then it's > best to find out now. I don't think that this is necessarily misguided in the long term. But the C infrastructure works pretty darn good at present. We even have some "polymorphism" due to nifty macro magic.... Xconq currently attempts to be at a C89 compliance level to make sure that we are supporting as many platforms as possible. If you say that we should just ditch those platforms, then you are simply stating an opinion which is not even all that pragmatic. I actually did put out a feeler a while ago, to see about moving the compliance level to C99; the conclusion I reached is that the time is not right yet. Eric