Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
This argument is useless. Both the team method, and the one person method, have their ups and downs.
Doing a TC style plugin, alone , can be very difficult. With Nova it is even harder. There are thousands of resorces that need to made, tested, and maybe debuged. Thats a lot of work for one person, or even two. But then again, if you are working on a TC alone, all of the ideas in it will be your own. there won't be conflicts because somebody in the team think that your idea for a ship, or government is cruddy. On a team, that sort of thing can happen. But a team can get alot more work done in less time. They can also advise the designer as to whether or not a certain ship should look different, or as to which ship should be used for a certain government. Of course, like I said, if to many people give their opinions, a heated argument can be caused by such advice.
I think that the fate of a plugin being made by a team can be decided by the team that is picked. Choosing somebody who has never played EV/O/N just because they are your best freind isn't a good idea. on the opposite side, choosing somebody you have never heard of before, just because they know everything there is to know can cause problems. Having to many members on a team, especially if they only comunicate through email is a bad idea too.
I've never had experience working with a team, but I've talked with people who have. They would agree with me. Besides, just looking at a the matter logicaly will get you some of the same conclusions. Nobody is really wrong in this debate. Its a matter of conflicting opinions. There is nothing wrong with doing a plug with a team, and there is nothing wrong with doing it yourself, each plan can be ruined by doing things wrong, and each plan can produce awsome stuff. the outcome of a total conversion depends more on the people, than the idea used.
EDIT-sorry if this looks just like Matrix's post. He must have posted while I was still typing this. ------------------ Cmon people, the (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=20&SUBMIT;=Go")Chronicles(/url) are worth looking at.
(This message has been edited by Captain Phillips (edited 03-14-2004).)
I suppose, now that I think about it, the development cycle for Polycon would have been quite different without the presence of the RPG. Even though I had to make up a bunch of the material on the spot to flesh out governments for which their was little background information, I already had a pretty good grasp of the star map and the motivations of the different governments from playing the role playing game. In fact I probably would have sat down beforehand and drawn up at least some sort of map, I placed most of the systems in resedit, and I imagine it would have been much more difficult had I not had a picture sitting in front of me to use to estimate what the coordinate values would be.
------------------ 68K Mac Liberation Army-- 22 Macs Liberated. (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/anubis/index.html")Polycon EV(/url), a total conversion for EV Nova. (url="http://"http://www.ev-nova.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=20")Polycon EV Fourm(/url)
Zhouj, my thoughts in a nutshell:
If anyone is doing any lecturing, it's you
My point is that there is not a one size fits all way of doing it. I'm sure your system is fine for you. Just don't try to generalise it into a guide for everybody else
and
Finally: I'd prefer it if you i) didn't try to tell me about my own plugin. Your information is, in any case, incorrect. 99% of the FH universe was not in the novel. I'd prefer it if you don't get sarcastic with me. I'm British, and I know how to do sarcasm. However, I think we'll all get on a lot better in this multicultural environment if we just stick to gentle irony.
------------------ M A R T I N T U R N E R (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evo&category;=plugins&display;=downloads&file;=FrozenHeart104.sit.bin")Frozen Heart(/url) (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evo&category;=plugins&display;=downloads&file;=FemmeFatale.sea.bin")Femme Fatale(/url) (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/dl-redirect.pl?path=evo/plugins&file;=Frozen Heart - the No.hqx")Frozen Heart - the Novel(/url)
Quote
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **Zhouj, my thoughts in a nutshell:
**
Instead of assuming that you concede those points that are unaddressed (which is what would happen in a true debate), Ill assume that you simply want this debate to end given that nothing much is going to come out of it.
However, there are some issues I wish to address especially the lecturing part. I dont see any of my posts starting off by digressing on the illusion of art as if the other person was so ignorant to not know it.
Im not saying that a single method works for everyone. If you had bothered to read any of my posts, youd noticed that Ive explicit said it to be a guide and not a code.
Again, you fail to address my example and instead choose to make a blanket statement.
I may be in high school but I can recognize condescending tone and snide remarks. Ill tone the implications when you choose to stop being so pompous. My remarks werent really that sarcastic, especially given what Ive used before and I only matched your bombastic tone.
Hearing rumors of your running for Parliament, I would think youd have participated in a debate of sorts. If thats true, I would have expected more rhetorical courtesy from you.
Summarized, well both disagree but Id prefer you not imply that the ideas of others are utterly useless and that your own work.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.zhouj.net/days/")Days of Glory(/url), Upcoming TC for EV: Nova
Cool, you're in high school.
Me, I worked in the arts for 3 1/2 years.
You mistake my tone - I wasn't being condescending or pompous. I was making a point about art which is important to me. You may believe that everyone knows this. I personally believed it was a point worth making. We can all do with more art. Specifically, we can do with more art in plugins.
You think we're having a debate? Since when? Who made that rule up? This is a discussion board about EVx plug-in development. My number one concern here, and on the FAQ board, is that we help each other to make better plugins. I personally believed that your 3000 word dissertation was a wrong direction. I'm not asking you to agree with me. But if you want to prove your point, release a TC. That's the proof everyone is waiting for.
If you think that I just rubbish other people's work, then do a search for my previous posts in this forum. Or ask around.
Again, please don't make assumptions about who I am or what I am doing. If you want to have a political debate, contact me on private email and we can talk about world hunger and human trafficking.
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **Cool, you're in high school.
I am not concerned about the point you were to make. I am referring to the statement: I know this may be spoiling the illusion somewhat which implies that I am somehow unaware of the fact that its an illusion. I believe you can figure out the implications of that statement.
I think the issue is that a plug-in will never truly be art. Its a game and people will take that attitude when they play it. The Mona Lisa cant inspire conflicts or world peace and a single plug-in certainly cant. I think this is one of the points of where we disagree. I think a plug-in is just a game and you feel that it is something greater.
We are in the process of arguing and debating over a topic, which certainly could be termed as a debate. If your #1 concern is truly to help people better plug-ins, you would realize that debating an idea helps me people better understand it and recognize it. Being evasive is not at all conducive to discussion and hence the process of creating better plug-ins.
I frankly believe that I was being thoroughly with my supposed dissertation. I personally feel that dissertations are much longer and more thorough. Im interested in hearing why you feel that its the wrong direction though?
I will release my TC in due time. Im sure you of all people know that inspiration comes with time and rushing my TC to prove my method is certainly not a good idea and not fair to the other developers of it. However, Im more inspire to enhance it though, if only to prove a point.
What do I see about your posts? A consistent streak of anti-TC commentary and a tone that many would consider condescending or arrogant. And Ive asked around and it may surprise you as to the response.
I am not making assumptions about who you are and what youre doing. Im not saying that its true and I made it quite evident that Im not sure but I do recall you in the past (a few years ago when I was a relative newbie to these forums) that you indeed were at least intending to run for parliament.
The principles of debate hold from the high school level to the political level, from the newbies to the experienced debaters, and at every skill level. Its a matter of etiquette and ensuring that a debate is productive.
Ill take you up on the offer of a private email-based debate on those issues, just not now. Schoolwork has been quite heavy. The joys of being an Asian overachiever.
But your debating style doesn't take you anywhere.
You're absolutely right that I'm not a big fan of people launching into enormous projects because, having been on this board, its predecessor, and the predecessor discussion list, I've seen hundreds of big promises that never became anything.
A question: why do you feel it necessary to make personal attacks? Who benefits from this?
At the start of this topic, you said you'd written a dissertation and you wanted to know if you were on the right track.
I gave you my personal answer, and other people gave you theirs. You've since tried to defend your original ideas by attacking their answers. People were giving you honest feedback.
If you didn't want the answer, why did you ask the question?
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **But your debating style doesn't take you anywhere.
Thats what you say and most people would certainly recognize your bias the instant they realize that youre the one debating against me.
Im not sure if you dont understand this or dont care, but Id find it polite for you to please respond to the points that other people present and especially respond to the questions others pose to you. I explicitly asked you why you feel that a dissertation is going in the wrong direction and I get no response. This has become a question of basic civility and manners. It is considered globally polite to respond to people when they ask you a question. If you simply skipped over the question, please ignore the last few sentences and respond to my inquiry.
Id appreciate it if you could point out where I explicitly made a personal attack. Ill respond with a question of my own: why do you feel the need to be so evasive? If you dont have a response, say it. Were mature people on this board.
My personal opinion is that you should judge the individual or team who starts the project and not the project itself.
In the event of directly contradictory viewpoints, it is absolutely necessary to refute the opinions of the other individual. I am not attacking their viewpoints, I giving logical arguments about why I feel that they are incorrect. That is the nature of a discussion: people questioning ideas and then improving them. If everyones responses in a discussion were immune to criticism, what is the point of the discussion? Nothing will change.
As for the question of semantics, I explicitly modified dissertation with of sorts. I did indeed ask if I was on the right track and you said I wasnt, and since this is a discussion, I am entitled to defend my opinion. What am I supposed to do? Just sit there hoping people dont just assume that my opinion is wrong and that I am incapable of defending it.
Are you so arrogant to think that you know me better? I am certainly happy with the answer since provoked an intellectual discussion on the topic of plug-in development. Quite the opposite seems to have happened; you dislike the fact that I am defending my argument and would prefer that I just concede to you. Dont we all wish that our opponents would just concede. Unfortunately, one cannot always be right.
Ok. You want me to show specifically where you are making personal attacks? In your posts you have accused me of being arrogant, pompous, lecturing, and determined to rubbish other people's view points. In fact, you use the word 'arrogant' in your very last post. These are personal attacks.
Second, you are quite wrong about the nature of debate. In debate, you get a limited amount of time to make your case. You do this by presenting your case, not by going through the other person's points one by one.
I don't actually see you asking me any questions. You use the form of questioning as a rhetorical device, but you don't seem to be after any new information. I've already given my opinions, and I know that you don't like them. Why do I need to repeat them again? But, in any case, where is it written that the universal law of civility is that every question asked must be answered?
If you really want to know why I disagree with your approach, then you are going to have to put up with what you will probably call a lecture. If you don't want a lecture, just skip the next bit.
Your approach fits into what Strategists refer to as the 'Planning School' of strategy. There are more or less ten schools of strategy, and the best discussion of them is found in Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel's 'Strategy Safari', or in the condensed article at the start of the FT/Prentice Hall's 'Mastering Strategy'. You can find both of these books on Amazon. For the record, the ten schools as defined by Mintzberg are Environmental, Cognitive, Entrepreneurial, Power, Positioning, Cultural, Planning, Emergent, Design and Configuration. As well as defining these schools based on academic studies of strategy over the last 90 years, Mintzberg also critiques each school, and shows that no single school can give us the answer to 'what is strategy'.
The planning school is very much about laying everything out in detail and working through a defined process. There are some situations where the planning school is appropriate. The construction phase of a building project is one example. On the other hand, the school has been widely critiqued because in most situations it creates more problems than it solves. The Planning School is widely credited for the failure of the Schlieffen and Falk plans which plunged Europe into the first World War. Most especially, the Planning School is generally considered to be a failure when it comes to creative projects, unless it is mixed in with elements of the other schools. I spent last Thursday working through 21 tender documents about strategies for redeveloping the image of a town in the West Midlands. All of them included elements of the Planning School, in that they had GANTT charts or equivalents. However, they all took a broader approach, some favouring the Cultural schools, some the Design, and some the Environmental. We would in fact have rejected any that merely adopted one of the schools of strategy at the expense of all the others.
As far as plugin design is concerned, I personally feel that a planning approach doesn't reflect the way most of the classic plugins were made. I think it's too mechanical and can stifle creativity. I would much rather take a leaf out of the Cognitive School book. Cognitivists are much more interested in brainstorming, lateral thinking, and generally finding as many different perspectives on the problem as possible. To the cognitivist, there isn't one 'correct' approach, there are thousands of approaches which are worth trying. Often an unpromising approach will yield surprisingly good results.
Strategy lecture over. Probably just better to get Mintzberg's book.
For the rest, I wish you well in your plugin design, and I look forward to playing it when it's ready.
well, you're both arrogant. Get over yourselves and just agree to disagree (cliche, but still good advice ).
Zhouj is trying to do something good for the community. Maybe instead of arguing over it, Martin could write something for the guide too. That way there would be multiple opinions on different approaches in there. It would definetly improve the guide and help the community a lot more than this pointless argument.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.adventuredog.net")Adventure Dog(/url): Everyone's favorite little black and white dog. In a fight for peace, you must fight for equality, not revenge. "I am against evolution being taught in schools. I am also against widespread literacy and the refrigeration of food." - The Onion
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **Ok. You want me to show specifically where you are making personal attacks? In your posts you have accused me of being arrogant, pompous, lecturing, and determined to rubbish other people's view points. In fact, you use the word 'arrogant' in your very last post. These are personal attacks.
Heres a little information on debate and rhetoric.
There are two general types of debate in the US: Lincoln-Douglas and Policy. Both involve extensive rebuttals. You present your case, someone else so, and then the rebuttals and counter-rebuttals begin. (url="http://"http://www.uoregon.edu/~forensic/affirmative_html.html")http://www.uoregon.e...ative_html.html(/url) (url="http://"http://www.uoregon.edu/~forensic/LDValue.html")http://www.uoregon.e...ic/LDValue.html(/url) (url="http://"http://www.urbandebate.org/impact_policydebate")http://www.urbandeba...ct_policydebate(/url) (url="http://"http://www.bethel.edu/college/dept/comm/npda/npdarules.html")http://www.bethel.ed.../npdarules.html(/url)
Mr. Turner, please note the format of both of those debates and the fact the both involve extensive rebuttals. Now what does a rebuttal entail, addressing the specific points of an opponent. I believe that directly contradicts your statement. There is indeed a limited amount of time to make your case but that is for the sake of keeping the debate relevant.
You may argue that these examples are of American forms of debate but the essence of debate is universal. Heres a nice little link of the nature of rhetoric in the Greek context: (url="http://"http://www.acadjournal.com/2002/v7/part5/p1/")http://www.acadjourn...02/v7/part5/p1/(/url)
Again, the process of rhetoric mentions periods of argumentation and responding to objections, or in more concise terms, a rebuttal.
What am I after when I question? I am after the truth and to strengthen my argument which I feel is correct. If youre not willing to have your opinion criticized, you should not be presenting it to the general public. Its not a matter of representing your arguments, it about refuting mine which require additional thought and evidence. You seem disinterested in that but as I said before, you seem highly interested in maintaining the sanctity of your opinions and protecting them from any criticism.
First off, Id like to note that my strategy does not advocate completely the Planning School as you portray it. What your description provides is the extreme example of what it is, which is exactly what a book should do: provide an extreme description to better contrast the differences between various strategies. However, for applications in real life, it is not accurate given that most philosophies of that school will fall into a moderate range, something that likely combines the traits of that school and many others.
I also have an issue with your historical analysis. The Schlieffen and Falk plans were not the cause of World War I. The war and the plan were the products of German militant nationalism and desire to gain more power and land. At the time, German had few colonies and foreign protectorates. With the advent of militant nationalism and imperialism, German leaders very strongly wanted to gain more of those resources they lacked. Then we had the more immediate causes of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and the pan-Slavic nationalism.
I am posting this in a double post for emphasis.
I was writing my rebuttal when I decided to refresh this topic and I saw sparkys post. I thought for a while about what she had said and I became to realize that this argument is as much about our egos as it is about the truth and benefiting the plug-in development community. I think, below all the ulterior motives and arrogance, both of us are attempting to help the community, despite the potential side effects of the process. In addition, if anything, history has taught us that the moderate option is usually more productive than the radical ones. So lets just take up sparkys proposal to agree to disagree over design philosophy and attempt to cooperate.
Martin : My guide is intended to help people create plug-ins and I realize that there other design philosophies such as yours. I would be pleased if you could write a detailed write-up of what you feel is the design process of a TC is and a version for a smaller add-on. In addition, Id welcome any help in proof-reading my guide after its done; strictly grammar and diction, nothing about philosophical issues.
AnubisTTP : Since youre the only person who has completed a Nova TC so far, Id appreciate it if you could perhaps write a section or two on your experiences, what difficulties you faced, programming tips, and anything related to the development of a TC.
Other Developers : If your plug-in has become vaporware, it would be nice if you could write something on what you felt was your downfall and how people can avoid it, and anything else that you feel could help someone actually complete their plug-in.
If your plug-in is still going strong and has much progress (namely Uncle Twitchy and Masamune), Id appreciate anything you could write on how to keep a plug-in on-track as you have and how youve gone through the design process.
Thanks. Best of luck to everyone.
On another note: this thread consists of 16800 words, averaging around 541 words per post. Wow.
(This message has been edited by zhouj (edited 03-14-2004).)
Originally posted by sparky: **well, you're both arrogant. Get over yourselves and just agree to disagree (cliche, but still good advice:) ).
Zhouj is trying to do something good for the community. Maybe instead of arguing over it, Martin could write something for the guide too. That way there would be multiple opinions on different approaches in there. It would definetly improve the guide and help the community a lot more than this pointless argument. **
I'm with sparky on this one. You're both being arrogant, and you both have asserted that your view is "right" and the other's is "wrong." The thesis and the antithesis has been presented. What needs to emerge is synthesis. Perhaps if a guide is to be written, it should be co-written by the both of you so as to provide not a single viewpoint, but two opposing viewpoints to the theory of writing and producing large-scale plugins. That way, readers can come to their own conclusions and synthesize their own style based on the information that you both provide.
Matrix
------------------ "Interestingly, according to modern astronomers, space is finite. This is a very comforting thought -- particularly for people who can never remember where they have left things." - Woody Allen
(url="http://"http://htf.mondominishows.com/valentine/main.asp?seed=7375&serial;=214877")The funniest valentine I've ever gotten.(/url)
(This message has been edited by what_is_the_matrix (edited 03-14-2004).)
Wow. Incredibly long and pointless debate that I do not have the time to read. Everybody has their own style. No one method is correct. No one method is wrong either. And people have the right to be sarcastic or hate working in groups or to express their opinions, you know. Some people might find Nova like writing a book and others might find it like trying to draw a zoomed square inch of the Mona Lisa with those thick crayons.
You may or may not know that I am "unofficially" working on a TC (2478 :)).
Personally, I believe there is no point going, just go. You either finish something or you don't. There is no "try". There is no right way to approach plugging. 2478 (my only point of reference, for those of you getting tired of those 4 numbers) started as a way to put my ideal government (the United Planetary Association) into Nova. It has grown into something more.
The question is:
"How far are you willing to go to get your TC complete?" "I've been working on it for the past two months non-stop. (my reply ;))" "Oh, okay, good then."
"How far are you willing to go to get your TC complete?" "I'll work on it when I have the time." "Vapourware."
------------------ When viewing a Terrapin for the first time, I realized that anything flies-if you throw it hard enough!
Originally posted by Zzap212: **Wow. Incredibly long and pointless debate that I do not have the time to read. Everybody has their own style. No one method is correct. No one method is wrong either. And people have the right to be sarcastic or hate working in groups or to express their opinions, you know. Some people might find Nova like writing a book and others might find it like trying to draw a zoomed square inch of the Mona Lisa with those thick crayons. ... **
The one response I've always disliked when help is asked for is the ambiguous response. We're trying to develop something that helps people get a start and they're sure as hell not going to succeed by trying it out the entire time. This is what the argument is about: which method is a better guide? A method or many methods need to to be presented in order to help the newbies or relative newbies to TC development.
On another note, if you find it pointless, don't comment on it with a pointless comment. It obviously has a point to some people and they're not going to stop just because you tell them it's pointless. In addition, I think we've derived a bit of value from this debate. My method has matured more as I think of the details when defending my ideas and decided to include Martin Turner's viewpoint on this.
And the one response I always hate to see is the blind one-sided opinionated side. Everything is ambiguous. Nothing is for certain. If you want to help someone, don't tell them "this is the right way" and don't tell them "this is the right way, but this works for others". Say "this works for me, this works for others, this works for even more people, this one is easy, this one is hard" then compare and contrast them. You will never find a definitive answer in a topic as broad and complex as plugin making.
And Zhouj, I don't find the topic pointless, I find the debate. What does it matter if one person doesn't want to work in a team and who the hell cares? That's his decision. It doesn't matter if (s)he bases his logic on personal experience or the add on the back of a cereal box.
The whole nature of plugin design is individualism. The idea is to promote creativity and open thoughts and, yes, ambiguity, not do "determine" the best and most helpful method for people to follow when making plugins.
I agree with those people who said you should work together. maybe zhouj should give a basic outline for each method of plug development. Keep his own idea's and add other's. It is this sort of argument that causes teams to break up.
zhouj, go ahead and put up that guide, It could be really usefull to people statrting plugins. But make it quite clear that this isn't the only way to do it.
------------------ Cmon people, the (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=20&SUBMIT;=Go")Chronicles(/url) are worth looking at.
I'll just throw in my own point of view into the mix. I didn't actually read all the posts here, but I did read some of it and some of the ev-nova.net stuff.
Personally, I am very much against teams. I think that most are doomed to fail. I refuse to even give people more than the tiniest hints about what my TC is about (even inventing elaborate code-names and the like). The reason for this is that I want absolute control and power. Nobody is going to tell me what to do, and only I know the full depth of the backstory. I would hinder myself and my creativity by allowing any outsiders into my TC. The only problems I will have with this plan is graphics and sound. However, such things are relatively easy to acquire from helpful experts once everything else is in place.
What it really comes down to is that some people can do it and some people can't. I can't do teams, but the solo thing is working out great. Others might have the opposite experience. I don't think that there can possibly be any set way of doing a TC.
------------------ Moderator- (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=9&SUBMIT;=Go&mrxak;=cool")EV Developer's Corner(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=69SUBMIT=Go&mrxak;=cool")Uplink Web Board(/url) | (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/viewforum.php?f=18")mrxak's Assorted Webspace Forum(/url) | (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/viewforum.php?f=48")Starcraft Forum(/url) | | (url="http://"http://directory.uroboricforms.org/profile.php?id=00008")My Profile(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/postdisplay.cgi?forum=Forum10&topic;=007599-2&whichpost;=mrxak11-06-200203:22PM")mrxak(/url) (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com")mrxak.com(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com/haikus/haikuarchive.html")The Haiku Archive(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com/EV/N/amtc/amtc.html")A mrxak TC(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com/EV/N/challenge/thechallenge.html")The Challenge v1.0.3(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com/EV/TmC/TmC.html")The mrxak Challenge(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.mrxak.com/chess/chesstournament.html")Chess(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/mrxak/")mrxak's Assorted Webspace(/url) | (url="http://"http://blog.evula.net/mrxak/")The mrxak Blog(/url) (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/search.cgi?action=intro")Search First(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.macgamer.net/games/uplink/")Uplink Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum69/HTML/000061.html")Install Uplink Add-ons(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/survival_guide/")EV/O/N Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=31&SUBMIT;=Go")Plug-in Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003196.html")Plug-in Developers(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003091.html")Plug-in Testers(/url) | (url="http://"http://davidarthur.evula.net/mc.php")Mission Computer(/url) "When you burn your bridges, just make sure they aren't in front of you." -mrxak
Originally posted by Zzap212: **And the one response I always hate to see is the blind one-sided opinionated side. Everything is ambiguous. Nothing is for certain. If you want to help someone, don't tell them "this is the right way" and don't tell them "this is the right way, but this works for others". Say "this works for me, this works for others, this works for even more people, this one is easy, this one is hard" then compare and contrast them. You will never find a definitive answer in a topic as broad and complex as plugin making.
You have just produced a blind, one-sided opinion by saying the debate is pointless. The need to make such obvious statement is non-existent and the fact of the matter is that we base our decisions on relativity. Take our justice system for example, its based on reasonable doubt. Were not telling the developer whats the right way, were debating whether either method is better. However, the attitude taken by many is Dont argue about it. Everyone can be right. Let everyone just try everything. What the hell is the point of a guide that tells me people to just go try everything? A guide is supposed to be relatively definitive at the very least.
The debate is not worthless. We are elucidating many issues while we argue about it. Martin Turner explains that the team concept causes many issues and I explain that many of those issues are caused by poor leadership and how to solve those issues. Tell me how that is not productive. I certainly would find it beneficial information if I needed to decide if I needed a team or not. As a member of this community and human, it is my ethical responsibility to help others and therefore I care about the decisions others make. My goal is to ensure that they are informed and bases their logic and decisions on sufficient information. This is provided when two sides both present their case and attempt to show the weaknesses of the opposing side and market their own strengths. A debate is certainly beneficial in exposing the pro and cons of both sides. Sort a reason we still have political debates.
Do you even know what individualism is defined as? It is a concept of where the individual is paramount. However, the nature of plug-in design is certainly not that. The idea is to promote creativity upon a focused goal and to produce the best product. Hence, the theory is indeed about producing the best method in general, whether it be a combination of methods or in this case, presenting two or more methods.
Again, you seem to fail to understand that a guide requires a certain amount of certainty. There is no use in having a guide that presents dozens of methods, then tells you to go try them since the only thing that would do is confuse people.
Originally posted by Zhouj **You have just produced a blind, one-sided opinion by saying the debate is pointless. The need to make such obvious statement is non-existent and the fact of the matter is that we base our decisions on relativity. Take our justice system for example, its based on reasonable doubt. Were not telling the developer whats the right way, were debating whether either method is better. However, the attitude taken by many is Dont argue about it. Everyone can be right. Let everyone just try everything. What the hell is the point of a guide that tells me people to just go try everything? A guide is supposed to be relatively definitive at the very least.
Again, you seem to fail to understand that a guide requires a certain amount of certainty. There is no use in having a guide that presents dozens of methods, then tells you to go try them since the only thing that would do is confuse people.**.
Okay, working my way from the top:
The guide isn't supposed to tell a user to go try anything. It's to explain all concepts, compare and contrast them and let the user decide. In general, guides explain , not tell. They say "this can be used for this and that can be used for that, but if you use this, your results may get better". Never have any guide I have ever read said "this is good, this might work and you might want to try that, but they all work, so choose."
The gist I got from Martin Turner is that he doesn't like to work in teams, but does not completely admonish them. To say so would be, yes, blind and one-sided. Rather (from his original post, I believe), he said that he finds working in teams hard because he works in focused teams all day and he wants to find his plugin development relaxing and fun, not structured with a goal and a purpose and a plan and a set way of doing things. Similarily, I believe that a guide should explain ways of doing things then tell pros and cons and make recommendations to the reader not biasing towards any one particular method. Oh, and if you're developing a TC, you know whether you need a team or not. Some people find that it's just overwhelming to make a TC and bring on boatloads of people to help, while others (citing mrxak as an example) find that its easier to work when the public has no clue what the hell you're doing (or if you're even doing anything). Personally, I prefer this, but, like I am implying, a guide should not reflect any one method of doing anything over the other unless it is genuinely a better way (i.e. making longer and more descriptive dëscs for your plug).
The idea that plugin design is supposed to be a way to "find the best method" is, strictly speaking, your idea. The fact is is that anything that speaks for plugin designers must speak for all plugin designers and not all plugin designers will find this method particularily appealing, just as some newbies may not either.
As I said earlier, a guide should not tell the user "here is your bread, here is the butter, butter it any way you choose." It should be more along the lines of "here is your bread, here is the butter, you may use a knife, fork, spoon, or your fingers, but I find that the knife is particularily suited for this task." Similarily, a plugin guide might read "While there are many differen aproaches to plugin design, no single method conforms to each person. Some like to work in teams, others like to work alone. Some like to broadcast their message at every chance the get and others wouldn't tell their mothers. The idea is that you know your preferences. Do you work well with other people? Then perhaps a team might work for you. If you are a solitary "do-it-yourselfer", then you may find the idea of operating with others as your equal particulary challenging. But don't let that get you down. Plugin design is a unique and challenging world. What is "good" to you might be yesterday's news to others, or you may come up with a never-implemented concept that influences hundreds of plugins after yours." You see my point? I'm not saying we should say "here is the concept, run with it", I'm saying give the poor fellow a chance. Let him have his cake and eat it too and realize that nothing is definite because humans (as a whole) aren't definite. You (as a person) are and therefore the concept of placing all ideas at an equal playing field and allowing the user to choose works because the user will always have a preference as to how he likes to do things. Always.