Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Please do not mimic the behavior of the posts shown here.

Moderator: GZDoom Developers

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby ZZYZX » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:28 pm

ibm5155 wrote:But I belive the worst part is to know how well writen the code is (like the build engine being heaven and the doom engine being a stuff made by angels) and also some specific área code (3D, UI, Parsers), and of course the language.

Well experience in these specific areas would definitely be a plus but it's not outright required IMO if one has the skills to navigate unknown and weird code. Everything else can be literally learned from examples in-place.

ibm5155 wrote:Actually, I could try to fix the acs parser in gzdoom builder so it could use again the map folder path for including acs files... (Don't count with me, it's a stuff that I may like to do, but I may not have the required knowledge to do it)

Separately or as part of GZDBBF? :P

ibm5155 wrote:EDIT: Why the hell were you guys conplaining about the texture window? everything is there like before, faster and with more options...

Most of these options appeared after the complaints. The initial one was pretty broken.
User avatar
ZZYZX
le chat du rabbin
 
 
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Location: Ukraine

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby ibm5155 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:04 am

ZZYZX wrote:
ibm5155 wrote:Actually, I could try to fix the acs parser in gzdoom builder so it could use again the map folder path for including acs files... (Don't count with me, it's a stuff that I may like to do, but I may not have the required knowledge to do it)

Separately or as part of GZDBBF? :P

As part of GZDBBF, but only if you rename the fork to Qzdoom Builder :mrgreen:
User avatar
ibm5155
Just Spooky
 
Joined: 20 Jul 2011

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Postby Gez » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:13 am

ibm5155 wrote:But I belive the worst part is to know how well writen the code is (like the build engine being heaven and the doom engine being a stuff made by angels)

Don't be cruel.
Gez
 
 
 
Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby meatman12 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:31 pm

I know I'm probably a bit late on this, but I'm still mesmerized by the fact that he just left it so suddenly. Is anybody planning on forking it & updating it?
User avatar
meatman12
Professional complainer
 
Joined: 11 Jan 2017
Discord: #4074

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby Mikk- » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:33 pm

User avatar
Mikk-
yooooooooooo
 
Joined: 30 Jun 2009
Location: Somewhere off Kanagawa
Discord: Mikk0451#3922

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Postby Leonard2 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:12 am

I was wondering where this went.

Graf Zahl wrote:To shed some light on this ridiculousness here's the story behind it:

Some time ago when I was starting to implement virtual functions, Leonard offered to implement a system that was supposed to avoid excessive renaming of functions in the code.
All was nice and well and seemed to work fine - until one day I scriptified a class that was a subclass of a subclass of Actor, and did NOT work.

Turned out that I had to activate the system Leonard gave me for each and every class in the engine - so instead of trying to fix the thing I just tossed it out and implemented the original idea which involved function renaming. That entire cleanup cost me two hours after which it was working like it should be - fixing and maintaining the system would have been a constant hassle into the future.
What some people seem to forget here is that no matter how good their code is, it's other people which have to live with it and make do with it. And if these other people decide that just dumping it is the best solution - so be it. Nobody is entitiled to have their code treated like being sacred.
Over the last 10 years I tossed out countless of subsystems Randi wrote, like, for example, the menus, I also rewrote lots of Randi's code to work better and the opposite also happened. Or take the expression evaluator in DECORATE. The first version was written by Grubber, but some time later I decided that the system, while doing its job was not good enough and rewrote it from the ground up - that code is still working as the backend for DECORATE and ZScript now.
Nobody ever threw a fit over this - but when I tossed out Leonard's code he immediately accused me of whatever, and I see he still hasn't laid that grudge to rest.

Talk about proving people's point.
Remember how I keep saying you ignore people?
Let's quote what I said when that happened:
Leonard2 wrote:All that is needed is to instanciate the template for the given object and that alone doesn't even require a new argument, it could just be done for all objects regardless, I simply thought it was sanner to use the argument instead.

There. You never addressed this crucial part AT ALL.
You see, I'm not accusing you of ignoring people, I'm actually stating facts here from having the experience of collaborating with you.

Another example off the top of my head that happened recently is this.
Did you not notice that pretty much everyone including YOU agreed to the proposed solution only to have you do the exact opposite of what you previously agreed to do later on?
After which this occured which I knew would happen the instant I saw you make that unexpected change.
Breaking backwards compatibility like that is something I have rarely seen.

Graf Zahl wrote:Leaving problematic code in just to appease someone's ego is the first step to a project's death.

Good to hear that's what you think.
You also probably think that there's a conspiracy going on against you like zzyzx said with monsterovich and some other people saying bad stuff against you.
Graf Zahl wrote:Nobody likes constantly being harassed, especially if it's always the same people pulling the same shit over again.

Called it.
Just think about it. It's just absurd.
Are you being harrassed or are you simply not a good person to collaborate with?

There's a reason why I want to know if you'll accept a contribution before I go ahead and make it and it's NOT to appease my ego.
It's simple really, all I want to do is to prevent the both of us from completely wasting our time.
You by having to remove it later on and me by making it in the first place.
It's especially a big waste of time when the next thing you do is completely scrap it off without even trying to discuss the problem beforehand.
And then the next thing you say is you need a dev team that listens to each other while simultaneously giving the whole team undiscussed orders.

ZZYZX wrote:so that the feature can be edited according to the standard or whatever.

That's exactly the reaction Graf did NOT have and even after telling him how easy it would be to fix he kept on ignoring it.
Absolutely no discussion took place for my proposed solutions.
User avatar
Leonard2
 
Joined: 14 Aug 2012

Re: GZDoom Builder 2.3

Postby ZZYZX » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:47 am

Leonard2 wrote:You also probably think that there's a conspiracy going on against you like zzyzx said with monsterovich and some other people saying bad stuff against you.
No conspiracy, just people like you — they do it wrong and care about Graf rejecting their proposals too much.
Also, please, don't bring my name up in autistic dramas. I had enough of this in Zandronum.

Leonard2 wrote:That's exactly the reaction Graf did NOT have and even after telling him how easy it would be to fix he kept on ignoring it.
Absolutely no discussion took place for my proposed solutions.
The discussion should have happened before the code got into gzdoom/master.
Besides, you should have predicted that Graf will have to apply your code to existing classes and either propose to do it yourself or suggest an easy solution.

Anyway, why are you necrobumping this poor GZDB thread? Did you just get unbanned or smth?
User avatar
ZZYZX
le chat du rabbin
 
 
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Location: Ukraine

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby Graf Zahl » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:53 am

I think it should go without question that the developers of a project have ultimate say in what code remains in and what code does not. If I decide that a certain solution to a problem is not the way to go and find an approach that suits better, so be it. In that context it is completely irrelevant how the original creator of that code thinks about it. To be frank, this is the first time in my 30 year long programming career that someone threw a fit because I removed their code. Sorry, this is just ludicrous.

ZZYZX wrote:The discussion should have happened before the code got into gzdoom/master.


It was discussed before, but the particular problem that made me remove the code was a nasty little bug I only experienced quite some time after the code was added. So what do you do with a bug? My solution is to fix it - and if I find that the basic construction of a piece of code is conductive to repeating the bug inadvertently, that piece of code either gets fixed, refactored or removed, depending on what yields the most reliable results.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom Developer
Lead GZDoom Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: Developer issues discussion (GZDB split)

Postby wildweasel » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:24 pm

We really don't need to drag this spat out more than it already has, honestly. It is this moderator's administrator's opinion that, without taking any particular side, all involved parties do need to separate and chill for a while.
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003

Previous

Return to Hall of Unpleasantness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests