Variant Project

[ekolis]

I'd say no to that, as I'd rather not see Angband get embroiled in Microsoft software patent disputes.

Not sure what you mean by that, as I'm not aware of any patent disputes going on with the .NET platform, and even if there were, unless the platform were ruled flat-out ILLEGAL, I can't see that affecting code written against it; it just might slow down future development of the platform itself :P

Besides, I was being kinda facetious... I know not everything is gonna be written in C#, that's just in my dream world that it is

edit: oh, by the way, if someone does take this seriously, there is Cryptband

[Nick]

I seem to recall that you have solved the "description too long to fit in an 80x24 terminal without scrolling" problem in a way that V should adopt.

I've got a hackish way for small screens which does fairly ruthless abbreviation. I always intended to do a proper method which checked how much space there was and prioritised information, but never got around to it.

Definitely let me know if you make progress on this idea, have patches you'd like committed to V to help align it better, or have specific suggestions on what to change. My time to work on Angband is somewhat sporadic but I'm definitely interested.

I will keep you posted. I'm currently trying to work out if there's a good way to deal with multiple variants sharing some code in a version control system.

[ekolis]

Not sure if there really is a way to share source code like that without breaking all the variants whenever the base library interface changes... and even when the implementation changes, someone's variant might depend on some quirk of the old system! Probably best to use some sort of library system - static link, dynamic link, whatever - instead of having everyone's code rely on the same source which might change!

Then again, dealing with changes IS the major strength of version control systems... perhaps if you used one with good branching support, you could say "OK, so the 'vanilla' branch includes r175 of anglib, and so do FA and O, but, say, Sangband isn't quite up to speed with the latest changes, and only includes r162..."

[Magnate]

Not sure what you mean by that, as I'm not aware of any patent disputes going on with the .NET platform, and even if there were, unless the platform were ruled flat-out ILLEGAL, I can't see that affecting code written against it; it just might slow down future development of the platform itself :P

Besides, I was being kinda facetious... I know not everything is gonna be written in C#, that's just in my dream world that it is

edit: oh, by the way, if someone does take this seriously, there is Cryptband

What he means is that Microsoft doesn't do openness, and when it purports to produce something open, there is always another agenda. So those of us for whom libre > gratis would steer clear of anything encumbered by a non-free licence (that's "non-free" in the Debian sense). AFAICT this rules out both C# and java, but not Python.

[ekolis]

OK, I guess I don't get the whole "everything must be open-source, even your dev tools"... is anyone seriously looking at rewriting the C *compiler* or something?

[AnonymousHero]

I'm currently trying to work out if there's a good way to deal with multiple variants sharing some code in a version control system.

The only sane way I see of doing this is to actually separate the code you're interested in having in common out into a library with a wholly separate API. This forces:
a) the designer of the API to actually think properly about it, b) the users of the API to actually rely on the API instead of just piling hack upon hack into the (e.g. display) code. I'm as guilty of the latter as the next person, this is exacerbated by the lack of refactorability of C code in general.

[d_m]

I will keep you posted. I'm currently trying to work out if there's a good way to deal with multiple variants sharing some code in a version control system.

Even in Subversion there's a way to have an "external project folder" inside of your project that actually updates from somewhere else (and theoretically can commit back there if you want). I've seen this used before.

You might also want to check out Mercurial or Git--it would be easier for different variants to share patches and code that way (and also easier to maintain patches or branches). Takkaria has said he wants to move V to Mercurial (which I like), and Magnate (and others on IRC) like and use Git, so you should be able to get help with whichever.

[d_m]

What he means is that Microsoft doesn't do openness, and when it purports to produce something open, there is always another agenda. So those of us for whom libre > gratis would steer clear of anything encumbered by a non-free licence (that's "non-free" in the Debian sense). AFAICT this rules out both C# and java, but not Python.

At this point I think Sun's JVM/JDK are DFSG-compatible and available through Debian so I think Java is in according to your plan. Although Debian also distributes Mono right now (which Gnome uses to some extent).

I think the real patent minefield is not the C# language but actually the .NET runtime. Anyway, I'm starting a new job soon that will at least partially be working in .NET so I'll let you know what I find out!

[Nick]

Even in Subversion there's a way to have an "external project folder" inside of your project that actually updates from somewhere else (and theoretically can commit back there if you want). I've seen this used before.

That sounds like it might be the missing puzzle piece. I'll look into that.

You might also want to check out Mercurial or Git--it would be easier for different variants to share patches and code that way (and also easier to maintain patches or branches). Takkaria has said he wants to move V to Mercurial (which I like), and Magnate (and others on IRC) like and use Git, so you should be able to get help with whichever.

...and FA is in Bazaar

I understand that they mostly play nicely with each other, so with luck it should be possible to set up some horrendously complicated system which no-one can understand and which breaks when anyone tries to actually use it.

[Magnate]

OK, I guess I don't get the whole "everything must be open-source, even your dev tools"... is anyone seriously looking at rewriting the C *compiler* or something?

You're not familiar with gcc??

[Magnate]

At this point I think Sun's JVM/JDK are DFSG-compatible and available through Debian so I think Java is in according to your plan. Although Debian also distributes Mono right now (which Gnome uses to some extent).

I think the real patent minefield is not the C# language but actually the .NET runtime. Anyway, I'm starting a new job soon that will at least partially be working in .NET so I'll let you know what I find out!

You make my point - you can't run a C# program without the .NET runtime! (Mono is good, but non-free I think.)

But yes, I think java is just about ok nowadays. Since I don't speak it, I've never studied the licencing issues all that closely.

[Therem Harth]

Mono is IIRC free... But .NET is patented and Mono is an implementation of it. Technically Microsoft could sue for patent infringement. I believe they have signed legally binding documents saying they won't sue, but them being Microsoft, you can be very sure indeed that they will find loopholes.

[ekolis]

You're not familiar with gcc??

Yes, I've hard of gcc... my point is, does anyone need yet another C compiler at this point?

Mono is IIRC free... But .NET is patented and Mono is an implementation of it. Technically Microsoft could sue for patent infringement. I believe they have signed legally binding documents saying they won't sue, but them being Microsoft, you can be very sure indeed that they will find loopholes.

Umm, really...
I had wondered what that deal was between Microsoft and Novell... now I know...
If I hadn't already sold my soul to Satan, then, I would jump to Java in a flash...

edit: Well, I looked into this, and yes, Microsoft has in fact signed such documents, and not just in regards to Novell:

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

It looks like they did this primarily to prevent someone else from claiming that THEY patented some component of .NET, and suing Microsoft for it... I suppose in theory since the license applies only to the ISO-standard CLI, that Microsoft could come up with some "extensions" that they DON'T make part of the standard, and then bundle those in with the other parts... but I don't think they can force people to upgrade, or legally prevent them from downgrading back to the "standard" version if they upgrade without knowing!

So yeah, if you're that paranoid about software licensing that only perfectly "clean" code is acceptable, I wonder if you even use Google for Internet searches, or did you write your own web crawler to find what's REALLY out there on the web, without being censored? :P I hope not... the whole point of open-source software is reusability, and if you choose to wall yourself off, you're no better than the old-school Microsoft of the '80s and '90s...

[Therem Harth]

Actually I'm perfectly happy to use proprietary software when it's better. My issue is that, in view of Microsoft's history, nothing they touch is safe IMO. A company of their size can bend the US legal system around its thumb.

[nppangband]

I am still trying to get my head around what part of the Angband code could be built into a standardized and permanent library, not subject to change. Every part of the source gets changed eventually, especially in the variants. In addition to feature changes in Angband and the variants, frequently we have to re-do the architecture just to keep it working with the latest operating sytems. And every 3-4 years we get a new maintainer who to re-write major portions of the code to thier own personal preference as well (remember lua?). Of course, most of the changes are good and progressive, but what part of the code do we think will not change for the next 4-5 years?

Unfortunately, I think in the end the only way for a variant to stay constant with Vanilla is for the maintainers to update their code base every time Vanilla udpates.

Jumping from the 3.0.6 code base to the current one has been quite a task. I think Angband changes more now in 3 months than it traditionally has in 5 years. I am getting close to finishing the updates, and again, you all have done some very nice work and added some great improvements to Vanilla.