Print

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

[Phmcw]

The simplest and best argument against the freeing of the source is that DF is a work of art, and that working collaboratively at df would make as much sense as working collaboratively at making a Picasso.

The real reason is that toady don't want and probably could not work collaboratively. Everyone is not Linus Torsvald, no matter how good a programmer you are, project leading skills are very important.

But none of that was asked by op.

[dizzyelk]

That version number reminds me of an allegedly learn'ed[1] professor on a documentary the other day who was reciting out loud some figures he was reading and saying "three point fifty-two, seven point nine, eight point ninety-one", or similar.

(As a confusing example, is eight point eleven more or less than eight point nine?   i.e. 8.11 vs 8.9 or 8.09.  That's why you say "eight point one one" and either "eight point nine [oh]" or "eight point oh nine".)

Anyway, version numbers are often different and tied to two digits ("oh <whatever>") across two separate sub-decimalisations.  But...  when the likes of 0.99.54 majors up, I wouldn't put past someone[2] to makethe next version 0.100.01.





[1] Sorry, but I can't think of any other way of not making it read like plain-old "learned".  Although he didn't sound fitting of the title anyway.

[2] Probably not Toady, in this case...

Its my understanding that nine point nine is 9.9 which would be more than nine point eleven (9.11) which is more than nine point oh nine (9.09)

[Starver]

Indeed, but when people say "nine point eleven", you can never trust them not to consider (say) "nine point six" as being five hundredths less than "nine point eleven" (or whole tenths! ...I've seen that too!), or whatever problems you might get from the actual/perceived values.  And even if you can trust the first level of communication, do you also know that the situation will not arise whereby only the decimals are being recorded, initially, (it's all the same whole numbers, for example) and someone else makes the error from the incomplete transcription?

But, really, I just find it sloppy.  Consider it the way I was taught, and obviously not everyone is taught the same, but it just sounds...  not very scientific to say it this other way.

Spoiler: Only related to the above point, definitely off-topic (click to show/hide)

I'm involved in a sport, where timings are taken to the second, where even the hours are important (as in, in some cases we're talking about a range of <4 hours to >6 hours, although in all cases the times-of-day of arrival are a precursor which could be spread across two, three of four hours'-worth of time).  For events whose nature means times spread across the one-hour boundary (and rarely get anywhere near two hours) you can generally shortcut to saying "fifty-nine oh-five" for [0h]59m05s and "[one] two thirty-four" for 1h02m34s, with the hours being optional in this particular example (but only because an exception would be so utterly exceptional that it'd be of special note), but you've got to start having a system when dealing with times like 1h00m05s, because "one oh, oh-five" can be ambiguous if the gaps, pauses and such are not properly conveyed to the other party.

Of course, nobody mistakes 20 seconds for .2 of a minute.  Well, they do, but that's when people complain that their average times have been worked out wrong, because they just typed it into a calculator without apparent awareness of its sexagesimal nature.  Nobody who matters makes that mistake...  (Well, they shouldn't, and they generally get picked up on it fairly quickly.  )

[sirinon]

The simplest and best argument against the freeing of the source is that DF is a work of art, and that working collaboratively at df would make as much sense as working collaboratively at making a Picasso.

The real reason is that toady don't want and probably could not work collaboratively. Everyone is not Linus Torsvald, no matter how good a programmer you are, project leading skills are very important.

But none of that was asked by op.

+1000000

Today has his Vision, and I love what Ive seen so far.

From what ive seen He is very protective of his code and you cant blame him, alot of gaming companies would love to monopolize on the success of DF, this is why I make sure to give a Bi-annual donation to toady so that hopefully sometime in the next 15 years V1.0 is released.

[Josephus]

alot of gaming companies would love to monopolize on the success of DF

Yes, Electronic Arts and Ubisoft are offering bushels of cash for even a fragment of the source code, and the nefarious Notch ever lurks in the sidelines, waiting for a moment when Toady leaves the code unguarded.

[Putnam]

alot of gaming companies would love to monopolize on the success of DF

Yes, Electronic Arts and Ubisoft are offering bushels of cash for even a fragment of the source code, and the nefarious Notch ever lurks in the sidelines, waiting for a moment when Toady leaves the code unguarded.

Toady has had huge deals offered for the Dwarf Fortress name.

[Jake]

Isn't toady going to release the source code on version 1.0 or something ?

This is baseless speculation.

I believe it's been stated somewhere that he's not averse to the idea, but I get the impression that his post-v1.0 business model is still to be determined because v1.0 is about twenty years away, and nobody really knows what the computer game market will look like by then.

Besides, isn't it also rumoured that the source code is so mind-buggeringly complicated and idiosyncratic that nobody else except Toady can really understand it? He is after all a mathematician by training rather than a software engineer. By the time the thing's actually finished it might be impossible to release the source code because anyone else trying to read it will be left babbling incoherently in Ancient Sumerian.

[Putnam]

Most programming projects that only one person works on end up like that.

[Urist_McArathos]

We can presume that "cleaning up" the code is something that would be done at the very end of the project's completion, as a final sort of bugfixing, if Toady does intend to release the source code at that point (he has, in the past, been nothing if not very supportive of the modding community).

Of course, as the final version is at least a couple decades off, there's no point in worrying.  Far more worrying to me is the fact that Toady's new features and depth in the game is outstripping the speed of processor development.  I fear that in five years or so the game will be too powerful and sophisticated to run on even the mightiest of home computers.

[Phmcw]

But saying that "releasing sources" would somehow suddenly turn into forks nightmare and chaos is totally another matter.

Considering all of the DF-likes and people making rival DF games and people reverse decompiling DF to do all of that (and all of the people being banned from the community for that sort of drama), there is more evidence that it will happen than it not happening.  This makes arguing from that point of view totally justified.

Really, no. That, at least is not justified. FOSS have a long history of sucess, and experimented programmers would probably flockj to the game, ready to rally under Toady's banner.

The answer is : toady don't want to work in a community of programmers and want everything to be done his way, hence by him. And in such an artistic endeavor, it totally make sense.

The aim of dwarf fortress is not only to "get the work done" but to convey Toady's vision of the game.When this vision is complete, he said he may possibly release it.

[HiEv]

We can presume that "cleaning up" the code is something that would be done at the very end of the project's completion, as a final sort of bugfixing

Ha-ha-ha-ha-hah!  Oh God no!  You really aren't familiar with the software industry, are you?  That never happens on anything but the simplest of projects, primarily because attempting to do so inevitably introduces more bugs as you try to untangle the delicately interwoven code.

(Nothing personal there, just the idea that anyone would attempt this is hilarious to me after several years of helping people debug their own code.)

[Finn]

Besides, isn't it also rumoured that the source code is so mind-buggeringly complicated and idiosyncratic that nobody else except Toady can really understand it? He is after all a mathematician by training rather than a software engineer.

Don't underestimate the ability of software engineers to also create mind-buggeringly complicated and idiosyncratic code.

[Urist_McArathos]

We can presume that "cleaning up" the code is something that would be done at the very end of the project's completion, as a final sort of bugfixing

Ha-ha-ha-ha-hah!  Oh God no!  You really aren't familiar with the software industry, are you?  That never happens on anything but the simplest of projects, primarily because attempting to do so inevitably introduces more bugs as you try to untangle the delicately interwoven code.

(Nothing personal there, just the idea that anyone would attempt this is hilarious to me after several years of helping people debug their own code.)

I'm sure, I just figured since this a personal project rather than a part of the software industry, Toady might ACTUALLY do it, or at least try to.

[Jake]

Don't underestimate the ability of software engineers to also create mind-buggeringly complicated and idiosyncratic code.

Oh, I know; I used to read The Daily WTF avidly until I realised the forum and the comments were full of dicks. It's just that Toady's is probably... Well, more so. And dwarfier.

[vidboi]

Don't underestimate the ability of software engineers to also create mind-buggeringly complicated and idiosyncratic code.

Oh, I know; I used to read The Daily WTF avidly until I realised the forum and the comments were full of dicks. It's just that Toady's is probably... Well, more so. And dwarfier.

I'd like to think of it as comparing your average artifact to something like planepacked. Sure - with your average programmers work there are some menacing spikes of steel and images of dwarves making plaintive gestures on a microcline throne, but it seems to work and comes out looking good in the end. Dwarf fortress on the other hand gets less understandable the more you try and understand it, until the final, inevitable result occurs:

Urist McProgrammer cancels admire code: too insane

Seriously, if Toady for some reason ever decides to release the source code, or even a small fraction of it, it should come with a health warning "may cause permanent physical and/or psychological effects including but not limited to Fun"