ENIGMA Development Environment

 

Freezway, shut up. Josh was only arguing because he came up with tiers and didn't come up with components, and that's usually the only reason why he ever chooses any method over another. The argument ended because Rusky realized that trying to convince Josh that there are better methods than the first one he thinks of was completely futile.

ma name is miky an i liek to attack ppl bcuz I'm so fiercely loyal to one side that I can't really consider that the other side may have benefits all its own.

I mean, come on. I have been reading over this topic back and forth the past few couple of days, and honestly, all that has been happening in this thread is Russky living up to his status as a troll:

Josh: Argument
Russky: Misinterpretation of argument; red herring;
Josh: Counterargument to red herring, thus contorting the argument

Russky: Profit!!!

I mean, come on, you can waltz around it all you want, but for Russky, this is just "Let's see how long Josh participates in this Argumentum ad Nauseum."
I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what color you paint it, a red herring is still red; you can chase around the point for days on end, but you're not furthering anything.

For instance, let's look at something that really has no relevance, and something that, honestly, wasn't your idea to begin with:

I guess not, since you don't seem to care about readable or organized code.

What relevance does readable or organizable code really have in the endgame? I mean, I understand that it's easier for developers to go through, who doesn't get that? That's simple, that's good, but the point is, the endgame ideology isn't "how many developers are going to be working on this code?," it's something more along the lines of "what can I do to make the system more friendly to the end-user?" Granted, it could be debatable, the effects either of these systems could have on the end user (except for the fact that via the Tiering system, data is carried over in a more efficient manner, and all data necessary is guaranteed to be there, and can be easily located based on one tier, not hard-coded behaviors). Point in case is, the code functions, and it's not the end-user's job to care about how it actually looks.

Just as well, I found this funny:

You're the one pretending. You've dropped nearly every criticism you've had of the component system and now you're just yelling at straw men, contradicting yourself or just flinging out vague, angry sentences.

I wouldn't say he's yelling at straw men, so much as trying to express his point and getting frustrated at all of the straw men you are creating. It's sort of a null point now, as the argument has really descended into chaos due to your constant irrelevant posts, and the assumptions you make. I mean, we all make assumptions, but is it really fair to assume that your code is the best for the scenario? I'm not here to debate whose code is better, that's not what is happening right now, I'm just here to ask: who here actually thought about what they said? Who actually CONSIDERED their argument, and didn't just throw together some bullshit that came up on the spot? I have a strong feeling it wasn't Russky!

Also, just saying:

The code in this thread has none of the issues I brought up; comments on its readability are irrelevant.

Comments on the readability of your code is irrelevant, but comments on the readability and organization of Josh's code are? That's really odd!

Also, just a question on relevance (going back a bit here):

Nope. But it is a suggestion as to why you have so few developers.

Relevance? All I see here is a very blatant ad hominem. My curiousity is: why would you call into mind the character of the person you're arguing with, when your character and general persona could easily be put up to debate as well?

Oh, this assumption right here, it makes me smile:

You can't know what members will exist at compile time anyway

yea, ok.

Moving on:

Your example code doesn't include as much as mine does, thus it is shorter and more readable at a glance. Put some sample tiers in there and I'm not sure you'll get the same results.

Also, put the debug code in there and then people saying it's readable will be relevant to the issues I brought up. That was my point last post.

So, just because his code doesn't include as much as yours does, that means it isn't as functional as yours? I'm not saying that's what you said, but that surely implies that you believe yours is more functional because it's more granular in the specification of behavior. Have you ever considered that, you know, to begin with, there were some implications made as to how the code is actually expected to function? I don't know, maybe you've never argued before, maybe you aren't aware that there is such a thing as "expectations", such as "not everything has to be defined, some things can be assumed." If he were to put some sample tiers in there, I'm willing to bet that it would come out to be just as readable and functional as it was, and perhaps, you know, more readable than yours!

I also noticed: there was no expectation for debug code. You're sort of pulling ideas out of thin air to justify your assumptions. What if the debug code he were to add were to be clear and concise? I mean, I really don't get you. All you seem to be talking about is "mine is better, yours isn't readable (if you include all of this [which are of course assumed to be included, people should have an idea of what exactly is going on])" when the general consensus is that yours is not the readable code. Your code honestly just appears too bloated. That's just a personal thought, that's no judgment.

Separate debugging was part of my point. I explained that the component system allows much more high-level and useful debugging tools than inserting a function call or macro, and is more readable in that case because there is less, more focused code. Switching the debug behavior in a single place (the used component), rather than at every function the debugger affects, is simpler. Simpler solution wins.

Simpler solution wins.

It looks like you're misinterpreting a post that Josh previously made (known as Occam's Razor: all things being considered equal, what is simpler is generally better [entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem : entities must not be multiplied further than necessary]); but hey, you said it yourself: Not all things are equal.

They may be readable on their own, but less, more focused code is always more readable than more, unfocused code. Your code would be much longer, so you just omitted most of it and basically pretended the entire system. It's no wonder it's more readable here.

My code is coming on a request from you; yours is coming from a long-standing plan. You've thought about the dependencies more, you can reorganize the components if you feel like. Put coordinates in the collision component and pass it the other way. I already showed how to resolve those dependencies.

Josh's code is coming from a long-standing plan with plenty of expectations and ideas built up behind it, whereas your code is something new that other people don't really understand. Perhaps you might consider that Josh is asking you to provide more in order to give other people an expectation of exactly the working mechanism behind your code? And again, it seems that you are interjecting your own feelings into your arguments; where is the major consensus that any of the code given is either focused or unfocused? Perhaps I've missed that, wouldn't be the first time; and again, what is the relevance? Functionality is functionality, no matter how it is presented. Josh is asking you to present your functionality; it is assumed that people understand the functionality of his system as it has been around for a while.

You're continuously missing the point. I'm talking about the code being focused on what its main purpose is, without having debug code mixed in. You can't claim your code is more readable when you're comparing it to its non-equivalent. Components are highly redundant structure-wise as well, but I didn't omit them or the debug code that would be in them.

bytheway oh yeah where's your debug code m8? r8 irony innit.

I'm not being vague, you're just not reading my posts.

Definition of Projection from Webster: "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; esp. the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety"

That being said, I haven't been focusing on the technical side of this argument, so I cannot make a good judgment as to which system would be more preferable.  I don't see why Russky seems to take so much offense to someone disagreeing with him; Josh has made many attempts to consider Russky's points, whereas Russky just assaults Josh at the first "weakness" that he spies. I guess it's just how some people are. I suppose at least he has miky sitting behind him, participating in their perpetual two-man circle jerk. But hey, that's just me. Evidently there's something wrong with having your own thoughts on something. That seems to be all Russky has to say. "My way is better than yours, so I don't even have to consider yours." Don't you think it would be just a bit fair to have at least somewhat considered the Tiering system as Josh considered your Component system? I suppose I may just be insane to suggest, you know, being fair.

Just because you stop reading arguments when a person gets circumlocutory and periphrastic doesn't mean everyone else does, chief.

I can't really make any further statements. Well, I could, but who wants to hear them? 

also, I am aware I spelled Rusky wrong.

I should also make aware: I may have made the statement that I don't really understand the technicalities of the systems at hand, but, as it is becoming obvious, one would be able to easily assume that I am starting to take an interest. Please don't hone in on the fact that I'm focusing on something different, Russky. We all know how you love to do that.

what is a question
!

hi
i answer questions for a living