Matrix Games Forums

I still like SPWAW better

Originally posted by Ludovic Coval


[Joke on]
Erik (Rutins) wonder
[Joke off]

LC,

I didn't know you / eric but checking the credits made that clear - cool. The www page says still in development - how far are you?

see you,
Lars

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
It just goes to show, no game can assure you, it's fans are worth considering worthy defacto.

But it was enough to get me to flip the list the bird.

Les,

I know exactly what you mean, a large part of the emails on the ASLML are from some very "binary" minded individuals; like "I am right you are wrong", "This is the right way your way is the wrong way".. Well you know having been there. I am still (since 199x) mostly to see the occasional intresting rule getting picked apart. It is amazing that new players still turn up a regular intervals asking for hints and where to find other players. And it is neat to pick up players for PBEM there too. When did you leave?

see you,
Lars

Originally posted by Veldor
If I had to pick a piece it would be the part about putting SQL in the kernal and having everything from the file system to the registry to Active Directory in server cases, to program data residing basically into SQL tables.

Actually the kernel is intended to be kept small and secure. Do you remember the problems with faulty video drivers crashing the whole system when they were made part of the NT kernel and running with kernel priviligies?

The link that didn't work for your browser was to a security report on the MS SQL worm exploiting another MS security hole.

I am very fluent in .NET. Certified even as an Instructor for it. And I have visited Redmond and other places recently for training myself.

Thanks, this explains your aversion to Java! Hope your Up Front game is not written in Visual Basic...

regards,
Lars

I was on the list for like about a year I think.

Can't totally recall when to be honest.

The only big thing that was happening that I rmember being quite the hub bub, was Hasbro getting the notion it could copywrite the hex centre dot.

That sure was good for quite a lot of "heated debate".

I met a number of good individuals though. But it just got to much during that one incident.

I had an interest in the A3R list about the same time period. The big matter was srrounding GW2K at the time. I suppose that has become less intense now that A World at War is being promoted for sale (I would be interested, but I already own A3R and I think it is the pinnacle of the design myself).

Left that list when every second posting was from an individual (from no fault of their own if not a native english speaking person) was basically a rules dispute based on poor grasp of the actual wording.
It became tedious and tiresome getting email traffic that amounted to people that just needed a good dictionary.

I think I discovered Matrix shortly after (might have been a year lag), and really realised that a decent forum far out performed the merits of a mailing list in meeting my interests.

Originally posted by larth
Actually the kernel is intended to be kept small and secure. Do you remember the problems with faulty video drivers crashing the whole system when they were made part of the NT kernel and running with kernel priviligies?

It will remain small. First off its a much stripped down version. Second only a few essential pieces of it are actually "IN" the kernel. That is for performance reasons. Microsoft has done a fine job with the stability of windows 2000 and windows xp. I do not think its accurate to place any mistrust in that area any longer.

The link that didn't work for your browser was to a security report on the MS SQL worm exploiting another MS security hole.

Only if you hadn't already applied the appropriate patches. I don't wish to argue the "security" issue. The most credible "universal" security report for last year stated LINUX as having the most vulnerabilities discovered for last year and MS was second. Its always more popular to pick on the big guys though so that fact didn't get advertised too much. In either case when 90% of the world uses a MS product for this or that and 10% uses the rest, it doesnt mean the other products arent just as buggy or unsecure. Its just not as many are trying to find them.

Thanks, this explains your aversion to Java!

Why? So in your mind everyone is either naively swayed by MS marketing hype or intelligentely Anti-Microsoft? What does anything involving Microsoft have to do with an "aversion to Java"? Haven't you heard of Microsoft Visual J++ or Visual J# .NET?

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I think I discovered Matrix shortly after (might have been a year lag), and really realised that a decent forum far out performed the merits of a mailing list in meeting my interests.

Les, you are too technically literate for a wargamer! Get off the forums and go back to "respectable" wargaming community endorsed sources such as the mailing lists and the wonderful single-thread only Consimworld style pages!!

Les you being here gives the wargame community the wrong message. That they should embrace technology and use it too further advance their hobbies.

If your not careful soon places like Consimworld will shut down and be replaced by more technically advanced alternatives. The "true" wargamers will then have to FLEE in terror at the technologically advanced wonder that powers things such as these forums here.

That or be forced to admit that "technology" has a place in their "hobby".

I am, of course, just kidding.... Or am I??

Heheh your post would have been more effective if you had left out

"Les you are too technically literate for a wargamer".

That is clearly not a tangible credible assertion hehe.

I have, and will always say, the right tool for the job.

Computers are great tools, I like em.

Just so long as they are always the right tool at the moment when I am using it.

A computer can occasionally be the wrong tool. The trick is knowing when that occurs.

The second a computer isn't as easy or easier than the real thing, nothing it is capable of makes any difference.

Case in point. I have since I first made it known I would ship my ultra Steel Panthers to any location on the planet (if the recipient covered cost of postage), sent 6 cds out.
Sure that aint a lot. But for 6 fans that found the ability to download stuff free off the net, it was the best option. Sometimes old snail mail was better.

Oh just for comparitive sake. With Getright downloading in the slow evening/and or over night on a 56 k modem taking if my experiences are any indications, the equal of 6-7 12 hour long evenings. I can get the cd mailed to you faster than you can download it (took 4 business days for me to get it to Austria eh).

Sometimes the old ways are better, sometimes the new ways are.

So far for me, the biggest let down in wargaming, where new has not been worth it, is in the area of 3d.
I am currently more inclined to say the 3d experience has done more to burden wargaming, than make it more fun and easier.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Oh just for comparitive sake. With Getright downloading in the slow evening/and or over night on a 56 k modem taking if my experiences are any indications, the equal of 6-7 12 hour long evenings. I can get the cd mailed to you faster than you can download it (took 4 business days for me to get it to Austria eh).

Sometimes the old ways are better, sometimes the new ways are.

I'm not sure thats the best example as if you had a "modern" internet connection, that whole situation would not exist and the "old way" would be MUCH slower than the "New" way.

So far for me, the biggest let down in wargaming, where new has not been worth it, is in the area of 3d.
I am currently more inclined to say the 3d experience has done more to burden wargaming, than make it more fun and easier.

I'm somwhat inclined to agree on that point. As someone pointed out in another thread. Its really a matter of how much information you can "take in" in a 3D view vs a 2D one. You can get a much larger amount of information presented to you in a clearer fashion in 2D top down then in a 3D first person type view.

Whether or not such a thing is realistic for a tactical game or not is really irrelevant to me. In my view you personally ALWAYS must represent someone NOT on the battlefield anyway but either just offmap or otherwise remote.

And if you are suppose to be someone in game and onscreen you should have a character representing you, which when shot and killed, instantly ends the game. Now that would be realistic! But fun to play no.

But I think all it really means is there will always be a place for 2D wargames. I don't really look at 3D wargames as "burdening" wargames because most of the people working on them aren't doing them instead of 2D wargames, they are doing them instead of some other 3D game or instead of nothing at all. Plenty of others continue with 2D wargame development. And not due to lack of being able to do a 3D version as much as because a 2D interface is simply more appropriate for the style of game.

It is easy for me to wonder how people can "get by" with something like a 56k modem situation, but I have to remember, a lot of the wargaming world, in fact a lot of the world just doesn't enjoy the priviledge of a DSL or Cable or better option.

If the article I read last month is any indication, tech is about to once again leap forward as well.
Wireless tech appears to be making strides that will leave current conventional DSL and Cable in the dust.
Yes I know that sounds hard to envision, but then 10 years ago I thought a 486 computer with a 33.3 modem was really fine.

Sadly the 56k crowd will just get left that much further feeling disadvantaged.

My previous example though, was meant to illustrate, that for all the fanfare of "e" mail being so fast, the e world has it's limitations. Transmitting large amounts of data can sometimes be easier by just dumping it on a cd and mailing it in routine airmail.

For those that employ a 56k service, the origional way, mail, is sometimes the right choice.

I believe this is really turning in an off-topic discussion since most of your beef seems to be java...

Originally posted by Veldor
The most credible "universal" security report for last year stated LINUX as having the most vulnerabilities discovered for last year and MS was second. Its always more popular to pick on the big guys though so that fact didn't get advertised too much. In either case when 90% of the world uses a MS product for this or that and 10% uses the rest, it doesnt mean the other products arent just as buggy or unsecure. Its just not as many are trying to find them.

You mean the MS sponsored Aberdeen Group report? And it based on new vulnerabilities, not the sum of known and new. Look into current stats and you'll see MS viruses still lead.

What does anything involving Microsoft have to do with an "aversion to Java"?

Perhaps because of quotes like:


"Java scares the hell out of me" (Bill Gates)

"How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?" (Ben Slivka, Microsoft's Java program manager)

"Subversion has always been our best tactic, it leaves the competition confused, and they don't know what to shoot at anymore." (John Ludwig, Microsoft's vice president in charge of Java development)


more here: http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/trial_report.php3

(search on java)

Haven't you heard of Microsoft Visual J++ or Visual J# .NET?

Surely. J++ is mostly known for the MS attempt at hijacking Java for their own purposes by introducing windows only extensions. And, by coincidence, a new security alert a couple of weeks ago.

J# is as far as I know only a way of moving the from old MS Java 1.1.4 (J++) into .NET, but only for .NET - it will not run on other companies Java virtual machines.


I think we can leave it at that. I have my opinion. You have yours.

/Lars

larth,

I didn't know you / eric but checking the credits made that clear - cool. The www page says still in development - how far are you?

Say that far more is done than to do

LC

Originally posted by larth
I believe this is really turning in an off-topic discussion since most of your beef seems to be java...

No, not really. You might need to reread my initial posts before you joined this topic. My complaint against JASL has everything to do with everything other than JAVA.

I have no problem with VASL being a JAVA based app. In specific VASL has been very careful to avoid legal issues both way back when with Avalon Hill, and now with MMP though Avalon Hill never gave VASL "official" approval and I am actually not certain that even MMP has though linking to the site from theirs is a pretty good start.

The thing with VASL is they really don't need too much approval in the first place anyway. That is because the boards and counters are not scanned in but redrawn. Of course that still doesn't completely eliminate the issue but most other objections are removed because along with that fact is the fact that basically NO LOGIC whatsoever is implemented, or at least very little.

In order to implement an AI a program must also implement all the game logic. This is a major breach of copyright as it would be identical logic to another product not even just partially based on it. The trademark would be infringed as well (as would also be the case with VASL).

Really none of that much matters although the simple fact is its enough of an infringement that for your own protection (or my own were it me but hey you make your own decisions) I would want some sort of "semi-official" approval if it were me. It is quite possible that Hasbro is the one that actually retains rights to the use of ASL in any computer version and so on so even in the case of MMP merely "ignoring" your project thus far could be not enough.

But since in 20 plus posts my objections still somehow seem unclear let me summarize in very simple language:

1. JASL is a completely unauthorized endeavor thus far.
2. If a program is going to implement and enforce ASL game logic, it should ideally be VASL not a seperate product with the same graphics set.
3. If VASL cannot be the "universal" ASL app (Kinney once said he didn't want to ever implement game logic PRECISELY because of legal issues alone) then the new application should be a "complete" "commercial quality" application.
3a. And this is where the sub-note came in about my opinion being that a "complete","commerical quality" application with a great AI, graphics, and all the game logic would best be accomplished with a platform other than what VASL used and ideally more along the lines of what most publishers like to see which is DirectX applications for sure, and in my experience and opinion (and I can say that all THREE publishers I talked to did prefer exactly this(including Matrix)) C++ as well.

That's it. Java has its uses and plenty of strengths. Its just not with games to me. All I ever really said about Java is that most publishers prefer DirectX and C++ and that either way that is what the majority of Game Developers use.

Originally posted by larth
You mean the MS sponsored Aberdeen Group report? And it based on new vulnerabilities, not the sum of known and new. Look into current stats and you'll see MS viruses still lead.

A vulnerability is no longer a vulnerability if it has been fixed. More total vulnerabilities discovered just means its been targeted heavily and bugs have been found and fixed. Others still have the same number of bugs or more they just haven't all been discovered yet because not nearly as many people are trying. But as 90% of hackers love to target Microsoft, it would alarm me that Linux has even NEARLY the same amount of bugs and vulnerabilities.

Perhaps because of quotes like:


"Java scares the hell out of me" (Bill Gates)

"How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?" (Ben Slivka, Microsoft's Java program manager)

"Subversion has always been our best tactic, it leaves the competition confused, and they don't know what to shoot at anymore." (John Ludwig, Microsoft's vice president in charge of Java development)

Quotes are a bit dated and out of context. That's like quoting something Bill Gates said about Windows in the early 90's and applying it to Windows XP.

Surely. J++ is mostly known for the MS attempt at hijacking Java for their own purposes by introducing windows only extensions. And, by coincidence, a new security alert a couple of weeks ago.

J# is as far as I know only a way of moving the from old MS Java 1.1.4 (J++) into .NET, but only for .NET - it will not run on other companies Java virtual machines.

Well in the business world anyway most people care more about things like XML's universal abilities and so on which J# is aimed specifically at.

I just don't see any customers with issues like making their core apps run on linux machines as well and anyone I've ever (and I really do personally mean this with no exeptions) anyone that runs Linux at home is a "techie" not just some casual pc buyer or even a "power user". Games need to run on linux about as much as the MAC OS needs to run on a PC.

Mostly I just find it humorous that this is all Java "fans" can ever come up with to defend why Java is so great. Yeah my C++ app can't run on a MAC or LINUX machine without an emulator(and some tweaking on top). But hell if I care if they can run on those platforms at all. I care about that about as much as I care if my app can run on a VIC-20 or TSR-80. And truthfully, if you code properly, were a MAC or LINUX version something you wanted, you could develop your code in such a way that very little would need to be altered for that compatibility.

BUT the whole reason so few bother is because if you develop ONLY for Windows you have HOARDS of extras and tools that JAVA doesnt at your disposal... So its just plain easier, faster, stable and powerful to use all the extras you get for it being proprietary and specific to just one platform. Basic truth in anything. PC related or not.

I think we can leave it at that. I have my opinion. You have yours.

/Lars

I think we can leave it at I am right and you are wrong.

I have really appreciated the comments fielded by your Veldor and as well you Lars.

Way over my head mostly, but it has been interesting trying to understand them.

For me, my ultimate wish, is for VASL to become the utlimate "tool" for board gaming.

As a tool, MMP and Hasbro would not have someone usurping the need to buy the game, but would rather, just be providing a tool you use to play the game.

An AI has it's merits, but I think an AI is unnecessary to the goal. The goal being "how do I get the guy in country X able to play The Guards Counter Attack against me on the computer?".

In my vision, VASL is just a tool. I would feel that VASL if down right, would be as much copywrite infringement, as my table is. It would be just something needed to play the game.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I have really appreciated the comments fielded by your Veldor and as well you Lars.

Way over my head mostly, but it has been interesting trying to understand them.

For me, my ultimate wish, is for VASL to become the utlimate "tool" for board gaming.

As a tool, MMP and Hasbro would not have someone usurping the need to buy the game, but would rather, just be providing a tool you use to play the game.

An AI has it's merits, but I think an AI is unnecessary to the goal. The goal being "how do I get the guy in country X able to play The Guards Counter Attack against me on the computer?".

In my vision, VASL is just a tool. I would feel that VASL if down right, would be as much copywrite infringement, as my table is. It would be just something needed to play the game.

That's pretty much VASL as it stands right now isn't it? So what do you feel needs to be added or changed in VASL? What's needed or not needed in a seperate undertaking?

Just finished reading the thread and I just have to comment. This is a long post but there are many issues I wanted to address.

Veldor, trying to impress grognards with your prog-talk? Sure it's likely you can get away with it but there are some of us who do understand you and you make an *** out of yourself. Less marketing hype and more good reasons would remedy the situation but I guess you like we all are too lazy to look up for facts before spewing out baseless accusations to support your view. Some newbie Java programmer displaced you or where's the angst coming from?

Even though I agree with you on that C++ has more merits than Java you have not yet even come close to my reasons. In fact your so called reasons are quite irrelevant.

• Getting the product done is the biggest problem, no matter what language. What does it matter in the end if the product works? I have observed that many hobbyists go for Java so it must be easier to get into programming with Java than with C++. I have also experienced that somewhat myself. Productivity is better for some types of applications. C++ is not an easy language.
• AI has little to do with the language. You are true in that many games neglect AI but that's the way business world has worked in this case.
• Business world is using a lot of Java succesfully, don't you agree? However, saying all of X uses Y does not make Y any better. It's more an indication of business realities. The best solution does not always win (and C++ isn't always the best either).
• Many games use some kind of scripting language for most code. Performance is not the problem and I'm sure I bore you if I quote the 80-20 rule or state that for most code performance doesn't matter and you can very well optimize just the code where it matters.
• Many graphics intensive applications need speed and C++, true, but mainly in just a few places. In the business world seems you can always buy bigger tin .
• Java JIT compilers are quite good. Most likely better than custom hacks you would implement to your own scripting language. Hasn't MS hyped you with C# and .NET performance? Those apply to Java as well.
• MFC is good? Please. I'm no expert in it having only worked on a couple applications with it years ago but what I've seen and done does not convince me. In fact I find MFC a terrible antique library I wouldn't touch without significant compensation. AWT/Swing might not be as fast but that's not the issue for these types of games. Try GTK, wxWindows or what's better Qt for some other perspectives. Those are even free (Qt for Windows not) and portable. Oh and btw. I'm not satisfied with any one of those so I'm writing my own user interface library but many would call me crazy and most do not have the luxury.
• Graphic designers (programs to make the UI with) as in Delphi are very useful for GUI programming. I don't think MS form editors even begin to compare.
• Wouldn't you rather have the (you say) few Mac and Linux people be able to use your product too than leaving them out in the cold? Despite my handle I'm primarily a Linux user nowadays (in fact never been a Mac user). Java is very portable. C++ with SDL/OpenGL and the GUI libraries I mentioned is too. MFC and DirectX are not.
• C++ vs. Java.
  C++ has templates = some support for generic, meta- and generative programming and much less casting, covariant return types, operator overloading, const, STL, destructors & stack allocation = RAII, static type system to name a few
  Object-oriented programming is possible in both.
  Both have a lot of free libraries.
  Java is always garbage collected, C++ possibly if needed/if you consider that good.
  In Java you can easily load code on the fly, reflection, more dynamic typing
• VB is not really a higher level language. It doesn't offer any useful constructs C++ doesn't have. It just doesn't enable you to do low level programming like in C++. Higher level constructs such as first-class functions and higher order functions, lexical scope, closures, multiple dispatch etc. you might find in languages such as Lisp, ML or Haskell (latter two with true strong static typing). They also have compilers if you need the speed.

Your idea of JASL and VASL somehow eating each other or doing some other harm seems funny to me. Copyright must be respected but having two or more similar programs isn't always a problem but a Good Thing(tm). An application doesn't have to be complete or commercial quality to be fun to its creator and others. Many such projects are commercially unfeasible. I wouldn't talk about fragmenting the few users but reaching a wider audience instead. Sometimes diversity however is bad like you say but the chess analogy was nice .

Maybe you spoke hastily in the beginning and are now slowly agreeing or changing your mind and we can spend our time discussing something more productive. Hope you get results with your project, that's what everybody wants after all. And hope I didn't upset you too much because you also made some good points.

Btw. (2b||!2b) is not right either. 2b is an invalid identifier because it starts with a number but you all knew that or don't care :p.

Mac,

I'm neither a anti-Java or C++ ultra fan and I agree on most of your post but on some points :

Many graphics intensive applications need speed and C++, true, but mainly in just a few places. In the business world seems you can always buy bigger tin .

Yes and Veldor/Lars were talking of game development. DirectX has been wrote in C. Using C++ easy call to DX routines has both share the same calling/type convention. (i.e this avoid : 'How hell I call this function from language' question)

MFC is good?

MFC is like any other development tool, it has its pro and con. It has the main advantage to be easy to use under VC++ and well documented (both inline and net). Remember, easy is fast, fast is money

Graphic designers (programs to make the UI with) as in Delphi are very useful for GUI programming. I don't think MS form editors even begin to compare.

Forms are more VB world, rarely VC++. The main option in VC++ is to use, or not, the ActiveX version of a given control : at least you have the choice. (I personaly dont use ActiveX).

Wouldn't you rather have the (you say) few Mac and Linux people be able to use your product too than leaving them out in the cold? Despite my handle I'm primarily a Linux user nowadays (in fact never been a Mac user). Java is very portable. C++ with SDL/OpenGL and the GUI libraries I mentioned is too. MFC and DirectX are not.

You're rigth. However Win is 90% of market. Computer Wargame being already a niche market, portability is probably not a valid point here. ( Linux computer passionate wargamer user are probably quite rare as market 'target')

Java is always garbage collected, C++ possibly if needed/if you consider that good.

I'm probably an old fashionned developer but I like to know/control memory state Moreover as C/C++ make a wide use of pointers, it is also a critical point to avoid memory leak.

Btw. (2b||!2b) is not right either. 2b is an invalid identifier because it starts with a number but you all knew that or don't care .

You're right but adding a letter before the '2' would kill the joke :p

LC.

Originally posted by Mac
Veldor, trying to impress grognards with your prog-talk? Sure it's likely you can get away with it but there are some of us who do understand you and you make an *** out of yourself. Less marketing hype and more good reasons would remedy the situation but I guess you like we all are too lazy to look up for facts before spewing out baseless accusations to support your view. Some newbie Java programmer displaced you or where's the angst coming from?

I made very few programming related remarks before a bunch of programmers joined this thread. As now there are at least 4 programmers contributing to it it is not an out of place thread. The "grognards" can read another thread if they don't like or follow this one. More-over I have been continuing the original topic in a parallel fashion here.

I am not too lazy to look up facts. This is hardly a high level debate we have been having. In fact, if any one thing does upset me right now, its that I could argue the JAVA side better than anyone else has. Stating LINUX support is hardly the "gem" of the Java language. But my take on the thread was never that debating JAVA was this threads prime purpose. Nor did I ever say that Java doesnt have its place. Nor did I even say it should never be used for games. All I ever stated was it is not the "DESIRED" preferred choice for commercial games.

---

Even though I agree with you on that C++ has more merits than Java you have not yet even come close to my reasons. In fact your so called reasons are quite irrelevant.

I'm glad we agree. As stated before this thread is not an attempt to build some case against Java and for C++. As for my reasons being irrelevant, unless I'm forgetting something the only reason I ever even gave was that it was the "preferred choice" for games. Certainly a generic statement and as you already pointed out, this is not a software development forum so I have not qualified the specifics further nor do I see a need too. Since you agree with me, go ahead and spell out why if you feel I haven't done a good enough job at it.

Getting the product done is the biggest problem, no matter what language. What does it matter in the end if the product works? I have observed that many hobbyists go for Java so it must be easier to get into programming with Java than with C++. I have also experienced that somewhat myself. Productivity is better for some types of applications. C++ is not an easy language.

No doubt the debate got sidetracked by a comment on JAVA. I do believe VASL is a great program and really all I mean (as ive stated now 10 times but everyone seems to ignore) is that id RATHER see VASL expanded and have all these new features than some seperate effort that borrows all the VASL graphics. And that if that isnt or cant happen that I'd rather see a FULL authorized commercial like product to replace VASL.

[*]AI has little to do with the language. You are true in that many games neglect AI but that's the way business world has worked in this case.
[/B]

Depends, thats why I asked about methodology and sources. More AI has been done both in the business world and in game with C++. Anyone who says they don't "borrow code" is a flat out liar and I will not even debate the issue. It's simple fact. Just like no programmer "knows" all the syntax for the language he/she is using (or even 50%) without looking up a lot of things. That means its going to be more difficult to write a good AI in something else. No not impossible, No not necessarily with a worse end result. But more difficult yes, in my own opinion, which I am intitled to have on a forum.

[*]Business world is using a lot of Java succesfully, don't you agree? However, saying all of X uses Y does not make Y any better. It's more an indication of business realities. The best solution does not always win (and C++ isn't always the best either).
[/B]

The Business world uses mostly VB, Access, SQL and the like as that is what is most pertinent to the form/data based needs of most organizations. Java is used there yes, though you will not find many organizations that dont use VB,Access, or SQL but you will find many that dont use Java.

[*]Many games use some kind of scripting language for most code. Performance is not the problem and I'm sure I bore you if I quote the 80-20 rule or state that for most code performance doesn't matter and you can very well optimize just the code where it matters.
[/B]

There is no right answer here. But I will say that DirectX offers so many simple "effects", "manipulations", and overall "bells and whistles" not too mention simplicity in network game programming etc that while absolutely a lower priority than a good base game, certainly does help the game "look" better and more professional, and aside from all that many of those tools simply provide more interface options or more playing options (such as DirectPlay). DirectX and such are not "JUST" about performance.

[*]MFC is good? Please. I'm no expert in it having only worked on a couple applications with it years ago but what I've seen and done does not convince me. In fact I find MFC a terrible antique library I wouldn't touch without significant compensation. AWT/Swing might not be as fast but that's not the issue for these types of games. Try GTK, wxWindows or what's better Qt for some other perspectives. Those are even free (Qt for Windows not) and portable. Oh and btw. I'm not satisfied with any one of those so I'm writing my own user interface library but many would call me crazy and most do not have the luxury.
[/B]

It continues to evolve, and as already pointed out, is one of the best documented libraries out there. It is also widely used, not in gaming but in the business world. The newest versions of MS Visual C++ do a wonderful job at implementing it and in "writing the code" for you for much of what MFC is useful for. I don't wish to start yet another debate on MS Visual C++ vs others or MFC vs whatever, but as you well know MFC is widely used. No it doesnt make it better than xyz, but it DOES mean there are more code references, examples, documentation, peer support, professional level classes, and on and on which in the end helps a whole lot more in getting your program done, which as you already said is what is most important after all anyway.

[*]Wouldn't you rather have the (you say) few Mac and Linux people be able to use your product too than leaving them out in the cold? Despite my handle I'm primarily a Linux user nowadays (in fact never been a Mac user). Java is very portable. C++ with SDL/OpenGL and the GUI libraries I mentioned is too. MFC and DirectX are not.
[/B]

Yep. They are well accustomed to that stance already. If supporting a half dozen Mac and Linux potentials means sacrificing higher productivity options, absolutely. You have a Linux machine great. But are you actually going to try to tell me that you don't also have a Windows machine or at least dual boot the linux pc?

[*]VB is not really a higher level language. It doesn't offer any useful constructs C++ doesn't have. It just doesn't enable you to do low level programming like in C++.
[/B]

Trust me, the statement I made about VB being a higher level language was not meant in any way as a compliment for it. VB is great for form building and simple business apps in front of access or sql etc. Thats about it. I would rarely use it anywhere else. But you can find that statement in many books on the topic. Simply because the "language" of VB is a bit more English like whereas C++ is a bit more "cryptic".

Your idea of JASL and VASL somehow eating each other or doing some other harm seems funny to me. Copyright must be respected but having two or more similar programs isn't always a problem but a Good Thing(tm). An application doesn't have to be complete or commercial quality to be fun to its creator and others. Many such projects are commercially unfeasible. I wouldn't talk about fragmenting the few users but reaching a wider audience instead. Sometimes diversity however is bad like you say but the chess analogy was nice .

You agree or disagree? Most of your post is taking both sides at the same time yet also neither. I agree that sometimes diversity is good, but supposedly its already been established that ASL players arent generally the most technically advanced. One PC product is plenty for them to learn, install, and be good at. Two can only make things more complicated, and Three gets to be insane. Since VASL and JASL both use the same graphics and both use the same development language, it is THAT that I find funny. When it just could be a collaboritive effort like VASL has always been since day one.

And the copyright issue has not been dealt with. It is a clear violation though that certainly doesn't mean MMP or Hasbro will ever do anything about it.

Maybe you spoke hastily in the beginning and are now slowly agreeing or changing your mind and we can spend our time discussing something more productive. Hope you get results with your project, that's what everybody wants after all. And hope I didn't upset you too much because you also made some good points.

I haven't changed my mind that I would prefer one PC ASL product instead of two, or that if there are two that I'd prefer the second to be a fully approved near-to commercial quality version whether sold or not.

Your post is by far the most technical thus far so any further distraction from the seperate conversation you've only encouraged further.

I'm glad you see value and/or agree with some of the points I've made. But if you think we should switch to a slightly more productive angle on this talk, why don't you start that off yourself by telling everyone what you think we should be discussing...
[/B][/QUOTE]