Message-ID: <3D21AF23.2020706@csi.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:48:19 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: [TADS3] Just another scripting language?
References: <pan.2002.06.28.02.22.19.118619.1345@fuckspam.hetdigitalegat.nl> <665b644a.0206301159.53f85d10@posting.google.com> <pan.2002.06.30.21.40.46.93919.1345@fuckspam.hetdigitalegat.nl> <qtRT8.522$0W4.50278768@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> <3d20479c@excalibur.gbmtech.net> <zzaU8.702$q07.71013424@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1025617310 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (2 Jul 2002 09:41:50 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 108
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:105654

Kevin Forchione wrote:
> "John Colagioia" <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote in message
> news:3d20479c@excalibur.gbmtech.net...
>>I mean, I'm not trying to antagonize or discourage, as I hope
>>is obvious, but I can understand Wladimir's concerns, and they
>>would be very similar to my concerns, if I had not already all
>>but wedded myself to Inform (where I actually do have similar
>>issues with the Glulx machine).
> There will always be those who will favor Inform over TADS, or Java over
> Python.  The psychological aspects of the differing semantic inflections are
> analoguous to those experienced with natural languages. One can say the same
> thing in Russian, French, or English, but this doesn't make the language
> intrinsically boring or redundant. They fullfil a psychological as well as
> pragmatic value. And because they do, they have found a niche in the larger
> spectrum of human expression.

I actually disagree on that point.  French, English, and Russian
exist because they developed independantly, and have too large a
"userbase" (in industry parlance) to dismiss.  I can think of
precious few authors that make a conscious choice of language; by and
large, they write the language of their intended audience.

> The TADS language reflects more than just a familiar syntax or vitual
> machine in which to run the code. It encapsulates a particular philosophy
> concerning the modelling of IF. It's this perspective that transcends the
> merely syntactical elements of the language.

And that's precisely what I'm asking about, I believe.  *Is* this
philosophy (a) conspicuously present in TADS3, taking into account
the non-TADS-ian additions, and (b) significantly different than the
philosophy inherent to say, Python (making the TADS3lib analogous to
PAWS) that it *does* transcend the language syntax?

Again, I know nothing about the TADS state of affairs.  I'm simply
explaining the sorts of questions that I would be asking if I were
considering migrating to TADS3.

Considering the responses I've gotten, that's been a good idea, since
several people have found pretty satisfying answers to those
questions.

> That particular and unique
> vision isn't something that we, who pursue an artistic endevor that many
> would deem anachronistic, should simply dismisss. The creation of TADS 3 is
> as much a triumph of artistic and creative spirit as any game that will
> derive from it.

However, it does not stand to reason that the vision manifests itself
in the language.  I point directly to COBOL and Algol 68 as prime
examples of this sort of failure in the past.

> The answers to your questions must be answered in competition submissions.

Actually, that had better not be entirely true.  I'd expect any
language designer (except PERL, since that's sort of PERL's raison
d'tre) to think through and *test* every design decision long before
it makes it into the spec.  "It might be useful to someone" is not a
good enough motivation, in most cases.

> And concerns about the future of IF must be guided by the vision of authors,
> not the rigors of comparative academia. Critique is always after the fact.

Questioning design decisions had better not be left until the end, if
the "product" is to be "marketable."  Things are a hell of a lot
easier to fix, if they're found before the userbase has had to work
around everything.

Oh, and the fact that I teach hardly qualifies me as an academic...
them's be fightin' words, where I come from...

> Java, for instance, has been around for many years now. Has it been more
> than eight years since its creation? Legions of programmers are churned out
> of the universities every year, their fingers twitching to write those
> marvellous little games that every language promises. Yet why is there no
> Java game development system? Perhaps that language fails to capture the
> artistic imagination of game authors as TADS or Inform has?

But that wasn't the *point* of Java.  It *is* the point of TADS.  The
analogy doesn't quite work, any more than asking why people don't
fill their cars with water and use them as bathtubs.

> We'll have to wait and see. One game has already been written in TADS 3...

I'm sure it'll be fine.  If I haven't explicitly stated that, there
it is.  I have a significant amount of faith in Mike Roberts and his
various cohorts (including you, I might add).

But, that doesn't mean these sorts of questions shouldn't be
discussed.  People are asking things like "why not Smalltalk," and
"why not the JVM."  I'm sure they're not asking those questions
because they just happen to like Smalltalk/JVM/Python/PERL/COBOL, and
and think that all things should be written that way (OK, *some* of
them probably are...).

They have real concerns, and this is their proposed solution.  Since
this never helps--it just looks like the rabble staging a revolt, to
the designers, who can't see the question behind the question--it's
often a good idea to start asking specific questions so that (a) the
designers can get involved at a level beyond handwaving (which is
exactly what you should do when someone says, "you should scrap what
you've done and just use Java"), and (b) those with genuine questions
can take a better look and figure out what they're really trying to
ask.

That said, I think I'll take some time, this long weekend, and sift
through some of the TADS3 archives, since some of the analysis I've
seen does suggest a fairly interesting system.

