Message-ID: <3c8f9dbd_3@corp-news.newsgroups.com>
From: CardinalT <cardinalt@helpmejebus.com>
Subject: Re: parsers and cynics [was:  The pitfalls of skipping words in parsing]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:41:43 -0800
References: <7Tqj8.9467$JQ1.2105776235@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Lines: 44
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news4
X-Authenticated-User: 1001408008
X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support,  spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to <abuse@newsfeeds.com> You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!corp-news.newsgroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:101687

Adrian McCarthy wrote:

> But I'm disappointed with the tone of a few folks who say, in effect,
> "It's too hard of a problem to solve and the player should just learn our
> computer-like command language that's disguised as English (or other
> natural language), and even if we could have a more powerful parser, then
> the combinatorial explosion of concepts that the author has to face would
> be
> overwhelming.  So stop it.  We like our Infocom-style parsers."  Shame on
> these cynics!

I don't know if you're talking about me or not, but if so you're
misunderstanding my motivations. Nor did I, or anyone else that I read,
ever say "stop it," so you're not telling the truth, either. (Nor do you
seem to grasp the nature of the objections, which had nothing at all to do
with parsing being "too hard of a problem to solve.")

Having used it, I happen to like Kodrick's parser a lot. As I tried to say
several times, there's a lot there to like and I would even maybe favor it
at this point for smaller adventures and/or ones aimed at first-time or
casual players.

However, I know a thing or two about the parser game, and his parser has,
as Kodrick will admit, some limitations of its own, just as the grammar
parsers have limitations of their own. My question-and-answer with Kodrick
about it was to a) clarify exactly how his system works in my own mind, and
b) try to understand its drawbacks before I went diving head first into the
shallow end like some dumbass college graduate. If that's me being
negative, then I guess I'm just negative. Sorry.

But what really pisses me off is being called a reactionary. I resent being
called that when I was one of the first adopters of Hugo way back when,
when Hugo itself was considered an intruder and an "outsider" (it still is,
really, but people at least talk nice about it now). I jumped from the
Inform train at a time when that Just Wasn't Done, except maybe to go to
TADS. I've always evaluated, or tried to evaluate, each system on its
merits and demerits, and I'm not going to stop doing that. The shortcomings
of Kodrick's parser are real. So are its strengths, and when all is said
and done what you are going to find is that I'm one of Kodrick's strongest
and most vocal *supporters*, not detractors. So back off.

--
--CardinalT
  Archbishop of Frith and Funeral Barker to the Stars
