Re: Proposing game for inclusion

I feel that a language with an enforced type system is easier for
newcomers since the type checker does a lot of work for you.

I love many of the python paradigms and I would always choose if for
something I'm working on alone or everybody's always talking like a
proper company's development team.

I would guess, without being able to substantiate that, that the quality
of "drive-by-contributions" for languages without compile-time
type-checking are generally worse than the alternative.

But I would make the lack of manpower mainly responsible. We have/had
(don't know the current status) a hopeful SoC applicant for finishing
the Port of Sudoku but we had to turn away an OPW applicant for lack of
available mentors.
I hope I will be able to do a port myself this autumn as part of my
masters degree.

We are very lucky to be in a state where we can regularily release 15
games per release schedule. This wasn't done this time last year.

There's also the issue of wanting to have a unified design for the games
that fits with gnome3 and this will take a lot of time as well.

Prioritizing is hard :(


Am Dienstag, den 15.04.2014, 21:16 +0200 schrieb John Stowers:

Yeah, nothing personal (it wasn't you anyway).

I never really thought a single language hegemony made sense once the
modules were split into separate repositories. Anyway, water under the
bridge now.

I just posted to point out that every technology choice has an
opportunity cost, and one should re-evaluate those on occasion.

I'm using PyGObject + Python3 in a number of significant code bases
outside of GNOME and the current state of python + g-i is fantastic.


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Thomas H.P. Andersen
<phomes gmail com> wrote:
        > Might I point out that the port of sudoku to Vala has been
        ongoing for more
        > than two years.
        > I initially ported it to PyGObject and Gtk+3 years ago and
        then politely
        > instructed to abandon it (to wait for the Vala port to be
        > Finally, Python 3 is a modern language, and the PyGObject
        bindings are
        > currently the most advanced and complete users of g-i.
        Hi John,
        I don't think that I ever asked you to abandon it. That was
        not the
        intention at least. I appreciated your work on the port. It
        was a
        great help. The long term goal was move all games the games to
        because it was easier for us to maintain it that way [1]. The
        port was never completed and I am to blame for that. I was
        just never
        able to find the time to complete it. After we split all the
        into separate modules the primary motivation  was gone and now
        that we
        even have it ported gtk3 and python3 it has dropped even lower
        on my
        Today I consider Michael to be the real maintainer for the
        game and
        the decision to go ahead with the port or not is up to him.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]