From: potter@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Robert Potter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.xtank.programmer
Subject: Re: some gripes about 1.3d
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:23:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Apr17.062337.22053
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

In article <1992Apr15.054211.18312@sura.net> lidl@sura.net (Kurt J. Lidl) writes:
>Jeez Robert, didn't your mother ever let you go watch Bambi?

Hey, I CALLED them gripes, didn't I?  Can't somebody express a negative opinion
around here without getting booed?  You're seeing flames where none exist.


>>Just tried 1.3d for the first time.  Compiling it went relatively smoothly,
>>other than the #$%&^@ include-order "feature" in the Imakefiles (really,
>>guys, if so mamy systems are "installed wrong", can't you just put in a
>>workaround?!?).
>
>What can I say?  I didn't screw up your system.  You fix it.

That's a wonderful attitude for an "official" maintainer to have.  I figured
you'd care more about making the program generally useful than about spreading
the gospel of Correct System Installation.


>>Oh, yeah, gnat failed to compile (on SPARC):
>>
>>/: write failed, file system is full
>>compiler(iropt) error:  write_irfile: No space left on device
>
>Yeah, configure your system with more temp space next time.  Again,
>your system is broken, you fix it.  Anyone could read the man page
>for "cc" and notice the glaring "-temp=/some/big/partition" flag
>there...

Calm down.  Did I say it was your fault?  No.  Should I be treated like a jerk
because gnat needs more than the 2 meg I have free in /tmp?  No.  Should a note
mentioning this possible problem be part of the distribution?  Probably.
Should gnat's author be aware of this possible problem?  Yes.


>>Other first-blush gripes:
>>
>>	Show/Pictures is broken.  Layout blown by new additions, and it only
>>	animates when you move your mouse.
>
>Yup -- I noticed this the day after we released it.  Haven't tracked it
>down yet.

The layout problem is because of the additional items.  The animation problem
is a side effect of the removal of polled X event input (probably).


>>	Panzy bitmaps need fixing.  Trike bitmaps STILL need fixing (badly).
>
>Feel completely free to send in new bitmaps.
>
>>	Lots of half-baked features.  By that I mean poorly documented,
>>	incompletely implemented, and game imbalancing.  I include my own new
>>	skidding code in this category (because of the bugs, mea culpa).
>
>Well, oddly enough, Xtank is a beta system.  You want to fix things
>fine.

Now wait a minute here.  Why should I be burdened with fixing things that I
don't think should be there in the first place?  If you guys add a feature to
Xtank, shouldn't I be free to say I don't like it?

As "official" Xtank maintainers you guys are doing a great service for the rest
of us, and I really do appreciate that.  But don't forget that you also have
some responsibility to the rest of us (namely not to break Xtank).  You should
be making some effort to make sure the changes you implement are improvements,
and not just toss in every random patch that somebody sends you.  I'm just
voting for a little more conservatism when you guys make your judgements about
what features are worth including.

I know I'm free to go off and support my own version of Xtank, but I think
you'll agree that there's a heavy cost to that (for everybody, not just me).
Look at all the divergent versions of Xtrek.  Remember the useful features from
MIT Xtank that were lost when UMD Xtank became the "standard".


>Don't just gripe, do something.  I know that you have contributed in the past.
>Part of the new thing in the next release is a major re-hash of the
>documentation, to docuement new features and caveats about the code.

I have already rewritten some of those documents twice, and I'm tired of it (as
I'm sure you are too).  All I'm saying is that those who WRITE the code should
DOCUMENT the code.  I'd rather have a simple game that I can use than a
feature-laden one that I can't.

Sorry if I sound flaming again.

	-Robert