Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xgamer4]

I liked that little segment. It was really cool. But, and no offense meant, they're right about it distracting from what was being said. I'd recommend having the "art pauses" someone mentioned earlier if you want to add more segments like that in.

[Neonivek]

I put a lot of love into that small segment, so needless to say its discouraging that nobody liked it.

I liked it somewhat but WOW does Toady speak SLOWLY!

I am assuming you edited it so Toady had huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge pauses between his words... or he temporarily became the most boring person alive for a whole minute.

Though if I remember correctly the part I REALLY didn't like about that segment is because it infolded predictably and was often hard to hear

[Rainseeker]

I put a lot of love into that small segment, so needless to say its discouraging that nobody liked it.

I liked it somewhat but WOW does Toady speak SLOWLY!

I am assuming you edited it so Toady had huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge pauses between his words... or he temporarily became the most boring person alive for a whole minute.

Though if I remember correctly the part I REALLY didn't like about that segment is because it infolded predictably and was often hard to hear

Yes, there was major editing.  I created major "art pauses," as someone suggested.  My influences for editing like this are not unfounded; listen to shows like "Radio Lab" or "This American Life," on NPR.  Now what may have happened was I did a bad job balancing out the sound, and if that's the case, then that's why it didn't work.  What Toady was doing in the segment is known as "dramatic narration," although it wasn't planned on the spot. 

Can we drop this topic now for goodness sake?

[Neonivek]

Yes your enjoying one of my most hated games: "Everyone blame *Person* Time"

[mallocks]

I enjoyed it Rainseeker, without qualification.

Also the transcript is almost done and will be with Toady by Monday, update fans.

Edit: It's sent. Also it's worth noting that I've gradually been moving further and further away from transcribing verbatim. It's still the case that more than 99% of the words in the transcript were spoken in the podcast, but I've increasingly removed certain repetitive rhetorical flourishes, half-started but never completed sentences, and in a few cases inserted the correct information rather than transcribe the verbal correction. The hope is to make it more readable than it otherwise could be, and prevent the ellipses overload that has blighted some of the previous transcriptions.

[Neonivek]

Well Mallocks if I wasn't so concerned with my work ethic, Id help you transcribe for the next release.

[mallocks]

Well Mallocks if I wasn't so concerned with my work ethic, Id help you transcribe for the next release.

Thanks Neonivek but things are fine at the moment.

[TBeholder]

DF's great. But.
I downloaded it recently, and i'm very, very far from a "legendary" programmer, but even i already noticed its main (and nearly fatal) flaw. Why it manage to combine awesomeness and half-bakedness in such a strange way. And why the last version is September 6, 2008 even though you work on it constantly. And one glance at dwarffortresswiki.net confirms this.

In the designation mode i can use mouse on both menu and map, in stockpiling i can't. Trap weapons got full-profile material token, main weapons don't, but have CRIT_BOOST, and ammo doesn't. Then there's armor with its different sets of tokens for each category.
So, it's painfully obvious. You managed to write it without using unified functions even for the blasted interface!    Everything is made one-by-one. This way, of course fixing and adding half as much as you want will take forever - in the best case. More likely, even two forevers will not be nearly enough.
It's absolutely puzzling.  No, wait, i have one guess. Did you made it this way for a bet?

[Neonivek]

TBholder you posted in the wrong location, DFTalk is a discussion on the official "Fortress Talk" audio program.

Also interface improvements are their own development item interestingly enough

[Footkerchief]

TBeholder, maybe you were looking for the "What turns you off about DF?" thread?

[Rainseeker]

Why is Beholder classified as an "Escaped Lunatic?"  ...that might explain a lot.

[Neonivek]

Why is Beholder classified as an "Escaped Lunatic?"  ...that might explain a lot.

Because he joined less then 7 days ago and has only made 2 posts

[TBeholder]

Oops! It seems i pressed "reply" in a wrong tab.
But point is, it's not just the interface. Everything's like this. As far as i can see, he slowly replaces this (e.g. reactions' tag [SMELTER] obviously hints it's the prototype for the one way to describe any production). But until it's done, he'll have to scramble through this bramble to do anything at all.

TBeholder, maybe you were looking for the "What turns you off about DF?" thread?

Something like that. But it doesn't as much "turn off about", as it's just bewildering why such a good programmer started to walk in three directions at once to begin with, and then why this concept wasn't washed out forever after the second attempt to apply it.

Why is Beholder classified as an "Escaped Lunatic?"  ...that might explain a lot.

I'd quote Cheshire Cat, but i think on DF forum it's inappropriate. Because he's a cat.

[Footkerchief]

But point is, it's not just the interface. Everything's like this. As far as i can see, he slowly replaces this (e.g. reactions' tag [SMELTER] obviously hints it's the prototype for the one way to describe any production). But until it's done, he'll have to scramble through this bramble to do anything at all.

Something like that. But it doesn't as much "turn off about", as it's just bewildering why such a good programmer started to walk in three directions at once to begin with, and then why this concept wasn't washed out forever after the second attempt to apply it.

The two best explanations are probably 1) he's not a professional programmer and 2) DF wasn't originally envisioned as a long-term project.  And yeah, this has necessitated a few scrambles through the bramble, like when he spent a couple months reworking the decrepit material system for the upcoming release.  I suspect he's writing much better-designed code at this point.

[TBeholder]

The two best explanations are probably 1) he's not a professional programmer and  2) DF wasn't originally envisioned as a long-term project.

 Again, i'm even less of a "professional programmer" (learned C via QuakeC, for one), but still do any little ugly python script without more dangling bits than needed - out of lazyness: it's easier to debug or improve one piece than two and i know who's going to do it. Things like proper procedural programming and simple optimizations don't require any special training or goals, only desire to do less work to the same end or to do more with the same work (aside of cases like limited resources of a calculator or z80). This reasoning is what puzzles me.

  And yeah, this has necessitated a few scrambles through the bramble, like when he spent a couple months reworking the decrepit material system for the upcoming release.  I suspect he's writing much better-designed code at this point.

Naturally. By the way, i even suspect it's the true reason why DF isn't opensource and isn't going to be in near future. The only theory that survives 30 seconds of thinking. It's simple: by now, Toady got things to be proud of as a programmer. So even assuming he's sure it got no semi-proprietary pieces (e.g. copypasted examples), no way he'll publish DF source as it is now, complete with pile of old %fertilizer% at its bottom. He'd sooner walk up the street naked.