Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!destroyer!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!neilg
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: Design of a New Language: 2
Message-ID: <neilg.752984748@sfu.ca>
Sender: news@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <CG96Mq.1xs@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <1993Nov10.035723.28537@labtam.labtam.oz.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 02:25:48 GMT
Lines: 47

philip@labtam.oz.au (Philip Stephens) writes:

>  Flexibility and extensibility is important; however, from what I've seen of
>TADS, it relies far too much on library support to implement even the most
>basic of IF concepts.  This is a disadvantage, IMHO, not so much because it
>requires a large library to run, but because it forces programmers to extend
>that library on a frequent basis in order to achieve what they want.  Witness
>the continual stream of TADS related articles for improving on the standard
>library.

 Personally, I think this is one of the strengths of TADS! TADS ships
with a pretty basic set of useful features, to which you can add your
own stuff if you want. Or, if you can't be bothered, you don't have
to. I enjoy having the choice. After all, who decides what's important
in a game and what isn't? Ultimately I think it should be the author
of the game, not the developer of the system upon which the game is
built. Besides, how can the developer possibly imagine all the useful
things that might be included in a game?

 As for this "continual stream of TADS-related articles," I think this
is good too. TADS was written by one person, not a huge company. Mike
Roberts can't possibly implement everything for everyone, and what
better source of ingenious ideas than the Internet?

>  In comparison, Alan has quite a good range of inbuilt features, but as you
>say it is too inflexible to be generally useful.  As I see it, there is a great
>need for an IF language that can provide a balance between in-built features
>and extensibility.

 Perhaps. I've never used ALAN - I've only gone through the
documentation. But it seems to me I'd very much prefer a sound
platform I can build on rather than wanting everything in a box. It'd
have to be a pretty big box to satisfy everyone. For example, some
people like writing hack and slash adventure games. I don't. I'd
rather have extensive code that permits the player to use telephones
and ride trains. What adventure system will have all three features?

 For me, customizability of *everything* is very important.

>     e.g. pour some water from the bucket into the sink.
>          write my name in the book using the pencil.

 This would be neat! It would require a fair bit of work, but I think
it would be interesting. Whether it's worth the work or not I don't
know - I find writing i-f a very time-consuming laborious activity.

 - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)
