From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett)
Subject: Re: Game libraries...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.103211.57607@cc.usu.edu> sl859@cc.usu.edu writes:
>	Just because it is not feasible in your mind that these things 
>are possible, doesn't mean they aren't.  Throughout the years bright 
>people have been ridiculed and told they couldn't do something just
>because of the jealousy of others.

What are your credentials?  What are Josh's?  Throughout the years
people with no real experience have claimed all sorts of ridiculous
things that professionals have discounted.  I base my opinions on the
experience I've had co-writing a graphics game design system for the
Atari since around 1986, and on my extensive use of TADS to produce
full-length text adventures.  These things don't make me an end-all
be-all authority, but I do feel that working on them has given me a
fairly good understanding of game programming, as well as programming
in general.

I'm not going to claim that people with little real experience
shouldn't contribute in this forum -- that's obviously wrong since
beginners and hobbyists often do have good ideas.  But don't expect me
to believe things you say without any proof or credentials to back them
up.  (And *yes*, I would certainly listen to explanations (and
substatiations) of new techniques from people with even *no* real
experience.  If you work something out that's innovative I don't care
whether you've been working for Atari Games for the past 20 years or
whether you just sat down at a computer for the first time today.  Josh
has neither credentials (as far as we know) nor evidence to suggest
that he knows what he's talking about w.r.t. TADS or any other
substantial text adventure development system.)

And really, should anyone expect to come into an international forum
and make an incredible claim without being taken to task?  I'm still
waiting to see any evidence that Josh's claims are true -- it's easy to
toot your own horn without ever substantiating anything.

Furthermore, I *really* don't see why you think I'm "jealous."  I'm
perfectly happy with what I've accomplished and my capabilities in
general.   Just because I don't go spouting off about how smart I am or
how wonderful the things I've done are (or how young or old I am)
doesn't mean I don't have anything to back my claims up with.  For all
you know I could be 16 years old too.  For all you know I could have
written the texture mapping code for Ultima Underworld.  (No, neither
is true.)

Don't assume that just because you think someone's incredibly talented
that no one else could be as well.  What you eventually find is that
*lots* of people are incredibly talented. On a net with an estimated 5
million readers it should come as no surprise that lots of incredibly
talented people read rec.games.programmer.  For God's sake, the person
who wrote Marble Madness for the Sega posts here, and I'm sure he's not
alone here in making substantial contributions to the computer gaming
world.

So jealous, no.  Skeptical, yes.  Very skeptical.  Anyone can post a
message saying they've writen Ultima Undeworld in 18K, but don't expect
me to believe it without some kind of evidence; writing a system
similar to TADS in 18K and two weeks is equally ridiculous.  That's
something that I hope would be immediately obvious to anyone who's
even taken a cursory glance at TADS.

Which is *exactly* the point I was making before: that people have
totally outdated notions of what a game design system is.  If you say
"I can write an adventure in 100 lines" and you're talking about a
two-word parser and 10 rooms, we're not speaking the same language.
Similarly, if you tell me you've written a game design system like TADS
in two weeks, I *know* we're not talking about the same thing when we
say "game design system."  That was the *entire* point of my followup
to Josh.

>Stop your whining and bitching and just listen.  MAYBE you will learn
>something.  Isn't that what these news groups are about?

My, my, but aren't we getting personal.  I've been contributing to and
learning from the net for many years.  I have a good understanding of
what news groups are all about.  You're entitled to do whatever you
want in a newsgroup, but you're also entitled to get cheered, flamed,
or whatever other reaction your posts may provoke.

>I told Josh posting his ideas here would cause someone to freak out,
>and I was right.  Perhaps a second witness to the things he has done
>can help you believe that he is a credible programmer and has some
>valid points.

Or it could just be that you don't know what you're talking about either.
All I said was that a) I don't believe his claims, b) I'd love to be
convinced otherwise by seeing some real code and executables to back
the claims up, and c) I don't think Josh and I are on the same
wavelength when it comes to what we're talking about.

BTW, I'll gladly believe he's a credible programmer.  I never said
he wasn't, and wheter he is or isn't isn't ever relevant.

>	Josh is a really interesting person.  He tends to make things 
>sound simpler than what they are because to him they are.
>etc. etc. etc. ad nausuem.

It's great that you respect Josh so much and that you're such good
friends.  But guess what?  There are plenty of smart, hard-working
people in the world.  The fact remains that you won't convince anyone
of anything just on the basis of your intelligence.  Show me what
you've *done*, don't just talk about it.

I still don't see why I should accept anything as truth without any
evidence, particularly when the claims in question seem patently absurd
to me.  (Note: I never claimed he couldn't do a texture mapping
algorithm -- that was merely an example which he used as another
opportunity to toot his own horn.  I claimed that his adventure game
system could nowhere near approach what TADS is capable of if he only
spent two weeks on it.  I have yet to see any evidence to the
contrary.) Remember that the only reason I ever challenged Josh's
claims in the first place was because I sincerely thought he was using
a much simpler notion of "a game system" than I think should be the
norm these days.  (Just as I think he was using a much simpler notion
of "compiler" when he said "compiler's aren't that hard to write.")

>I am amazed at the stuff he puts out and the speed with which he does it.

Again, there are plenty of great programmers.  In _Accidental Empires_
Robert Cringely observes that some programmers are *orders of
magnitude* faster than others.  In my experience this does seem to be
true.  When I say that I don't believe anyone could write a TADS-like
system in two weeks (or months), *believe me* I'm taking the orders of
magnitude into account.  Josh is *not* 10,000 times faster or more
clever than Mike Roberts.

>He is completely self- taught and so at times he uses words which in
>the business are not the actual denotation.  He also is only 16 (as of
>August) years old!

Ah, well now we're getting down to it, aren't we?  These revelations
are no surprise, frankly.

>	Now in all honesty, some of the things Josh claims to have done may
>seem fanciful dreams but for the most part are pretty good assessments of 
>what he is doing.

...to someone who has a similar lack of experience.  Have you looked
at TADS either?  Really, that's what we're talking about.

>I know that my posting this may hamper your opinions to sharing
>material on the net, but I hope it doesn't.

I've shared information on the net for a long time, and I'll continue
to do so.  My original post was an attempt to get people thinking in
more modern terms about game design systems, or at least to challenge
the claims I'd made.  Unfortunately it seems to have done neither.  Too
bad, too; I thought it would make for a good discussion.

>I hope we can exchange ideas and have less flaming, although sometimes
>we just get into one of those flame war moods, and its so fun to flame!

Flaming is overtly attacking someone.  That's different from asking
them to support their claims.  Really, if I told you that I'd written a
game that uses real-time ray-tracing, wouldn't you demand to see the
code before you believed me?  Computer programming isn't magic!

Dave Baggett
dmb@wam.umd.edu