Code center > Darwinbots3
Command Shortcutting
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: spike43884 on April 04, 2015, 08:11:33 AM ---You see, Im a person who solidly hates Lua. Its just not really very simple or understandable to me
--- End quote ---
Wow, you're so wrong haha :P Lua is one of the most elegant languages I've ever come across, because it's managed to create a very expressive language from a very simple set of rules, and it embeds very cleanly in other code. I was thinking as a long finger project there could be a version of Lua for the DNA language (over, say, Python) because it maps pretty well to things like codules.
What don't you like about Lua? Just syntax around how you define tables and metatables? Or something more foundational?
...
For DRY, it's about repetition (or rather, the lack of it), not simplicity or primitiveness or whatever else. The choice of language is completely orthogonal to not repeating yourself, so I'm not sure what you're getting at around binary. (Also, no one programs binary, that's so 1952. You'd program in Hex. Way more compact :P)
--- Quote ---Finally to my statement that not all of the organisation things can/are implemented in DB2/DB3 is quite clear because we can't make an external file which is referenced to store X part of data, a bit like how you have a seperate CSS in HTML.
--- End quote ---
You mean like #include or Import or etc. that other languages have? Sure, we could add that. I'll think through what makes the most sense and set up a todo item on it.
spike43884:
--- Quote from: Numsgil on April 04, 2015, 02:47:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: spike43884 on April 04, 2015, 08:11:33 AM ---You see, Im a person who solidly hates Lua. Its just not really very simple or understandable to me
--- End quote ---
Wow, you're so wrong haha :P Lua is one of the most elegant languages I've ever come across, because it's managed to create a very expressive language from a very simple set of rules, and it embeds very cleanly in other code. I was thinking as a long finger project there could be a version of Lua for the DNA language (over, say, Python) because it maps pretty well to things like codules.
What don't you like about Lua? Just syntax around how you define tables and metatables? Or something more foundational?
...
For DRY, it's about repetition (or rather, the lack of it), not simplicity or primitiveness or whatever else. The choice of language is completely orthogonal to not repeating yourself, so I'm not sure what you're getting at around binary. (Also, no one programs binary, that's so 1952. You'd program in Hex. Way more compact :P)
--- Quote ---Finally to my statement that not all of the organisation things can/are implemented in DB2/DB3 is quite clear because we can't make an external file which is referenced to store X part of data, a bit like how you have a seperate CSS in HTML.
--- End quote ---
You mean like #include or Import or etc. that other languages have? Sure, we could add that. I'll think through what makes the most sense and set up a todo item on it.
--- End quote ---
See you see Lua as nice to program in, for me its overcomplicated. >PROOF< of my point. And im talking about binary because if were going to take DRY really seriously, lets start programming in binary again, nothings wrong with it. Its fast and efficient. I mean DRY wants you to only have one way to do something, so in binary you could make a big 'A' but instead you choose to use a second system by using C# to make a big 'A' appear on the screen, or maybe you'll use Lua to make a big 'A' on the screen...But thats using a 2nd, or 3rd method and not the original. Thus, you are violating the principles of DRY.
DRY is just a mere little idealism which only works if all humans were completely, to a genetic level identical and experienced exactly identical experiences. Currently cloning technology for humans is unavailable, so DRY isn't going to be at all successful yet. Theres over 2000 different programming languages (ONLY INCLUDING HIGH LEVEL ONES). Its complete proof of my point, stop being like a politician and throwing silly little puns and jokes to skirt around that you are merely, and completely wrong. DRY, does not work - at least in the present day. Now we wouldn't need many alternatives, maybe one full set of alternatives.
Heres some even more major proof of how majorly wrong DRY is, now don't get me wrong im not the biggest fan apple macs but this is just proof that DRY is wrong. Apple has become one of the biggest computer manufacturers, and apple macs sell incredibly fast...Yet they don't use your standard shortcuts that are tried and tested, for example on an apple mac i've used theres a ctrl key, but for shortcuts you need to use the cmd key instead.
How many more hundred examples do I have to give you before you give up.
Shadowgod2:
ok so i've read the DRY link just enough to understand what's going on with it. now i'm going to ask, what in your own mind does DRY mean?
can you both do this without using any links nor in any way target one another in your descriptions please.
i only ask this because there is a misconception or miscommunication somewhere and often times there needs a 3rd neutral party to help solve the issue.
spike43884:
--- Quote from: Shadowgod2 on April 05, 2015, 07:55:56 PM ---ok so i've read the DRY link just enough to understand what's going on with it. now i'm going to ask, what in your own mind does DRY mean?
can you both do this without using any links nor in any way target one another in your descriptions please.
i only ask this because there is a misconception or miscommunication somewhere and often times there needs a 3rd neutral party to help solve the issue.
--- End quote ---
DRY, to me from the link and from numsigl's description is pretty much, there should only be one way to do something.
Im just arguing with many examples showing that virtually nobody in the world actually uses DRY properly. Because to the very core level, then we should always be doing every bit of programming in binary, because using various programming languages is secondary, and tertiary methods of doing these things, especially high level languages. And thus my point that multiple methods is better, even if it be a few methods its much better. And with my point of command shortcutting, alternative commands aren't a different system, just a different...domain? Whereas the current alternative which DB2 uses which is inline conditioning is an alternative, certainly harder to read and write, yet its still used. Plus, he's pointing out that it'll be harder to read, but im not suggesting completely ridiculous alternatives which you really need lots of technical knowledge to understand like those in inline conditioning, you'd just have to quickly check which name its partnered with in the wiki. Reading thus stays the same difficulty as without alternative commands, and writing becomes easier...and quicker.
Heres another example, im a keen player of "minecraft" which you may have heard of, its got many plugins to add commands...and one of these plugins lets you use colours in chat and signs and names, but the standard command to access the infomation on the colours is /info colors which is the american way of spelling it, but when im typing I generally use my native language, which is UK english...so I kept typing /info colours by accident, and so did some other people on the server...Now this was only a few people making the mistake, in a over 200 player network, but the owner still introduced the shortcut /info colours...both are understandable when you read it, whatever version of english you use, but yet the /info colours is much easier for us british people and the /info colors was much easier for the americans...Its a simple example, which is very relevant and proves my point.
Panda:
--- Quote from: spike43884 on April 05, 2015, 08:06:25 AM ---And im talking about binary because if were going to take DRY really seriously, lets start programming in binary again, nothings wrong with it. Its fast and efficient.
--- End quote ---
It can be fast and efficient (but not always) to run the code but not to write it. This is one of reasons you have different languages.
--- Quote from: spike43884 on April 06, 2015, 06:43:16 AM ---whatever version of english you use, but yet the /info colours is much easier for us british people and the /info colors was much easier for the americans...Its a simple example, which is very relevant and proves my point.
--- End quote ---
This argument is relying on the new commands making sense. I would argue that this is something that with the command "colour", it is something which is a lot more instinctive for users and is "built in" for them (and would probably just give a piece of mind to the server admin because people would have been complaining about it). However, once you learnt that "color" is correct, you can just learn to use it.
In the case of DarwinBots3, having multiple commands for the same thing would create a lot of extra work for the developers, us. It may be easier for you but it requires extra documentation and code. This increases the cost of development and maintenance and gives a higher probability for mistakes (e.g. dx representing 31 and aimdx representing 32, accidentally), as two examples of problems with doing this. If there's fewer commands, there's fewer things to look up for people who understand the original system, making it difficult for them to learn the code. If the documentation is good (which it hopefully will be) then you can just read the documentation.
Developers have to weigh up the usability for different users; what you're suggesting decreases usability for most other users, especially newer ones, and would likely only improve your experience.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version