[vos-d] Re: here's another format :-)
And so says Peter Amstutz on 10/28/05 04:45... > Finally, I'd like to start thinking about a proof-of-concept interactive > 3D application to develop with VOS. I have a vague idea of maybe doing > a very simple first person shooter. Just deathmatch, no bots (unless > Kao or dmiles want to write one :-), only a few weapons, arenas are just > arbitrary VOS worlds. The goal being to test a) the network > architechture, b) the extensibility of ter'angreal and c) the > feasability and ease of implementing the all rules on the server in Python. What about a first-person deathmatch, leaving the "shooter" out of it? Start with, dunno, swords... we should have enough code to implement that already... then projectiles can come later. If you want to do the rules in Python, you're in my ballpark, in the area where I can actually be useful. Sign me in. Also, I can easily provide arenas - and also a few worlds to chat in - if your "parser framework" can do the trick I've been trying to do in the last 2 months ;-) Count me out of making models, though. I've tried once and I suck. Textures I can do. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- http://www.exoweb.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Re: here's another format :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Lalo Martins wrote: I like this quite a bit. "Explicit is better than implicit" when compared to YAML, "Simple is better than complex" when compared with XML, and all in all, "Beautiful is better than ugly, readability counts". Well, I'm waiting for Reed to weigh in, but at this point I'm still leaning towards XML for most of the reasons that Neil stated in his email (mainstream standard, can be validated, editor/tool support etc). I should point out here that the proposed XML and alternate language are basically structurally identical, the difference is merely the specifics of syntax, so there's no reason we couldn't eventually have both and even be able to cleanly convert between them. For the time being, however, the practical reasons for using XML override the aesthetic reasons of going with an alternative. Worse is better... [ Peter Amstutz ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Lead Programmer][Interreality Project][Virtual Reality for the Internet] [ VOS: Next Generation Internet Communication][ http://interreality.org ] [ http://interreality.org/~tetron ][ pgpkey: pgpkeys.mit.edu 18C21DF7 ] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDXpmsaeHUyhjCHfcRAsYDAJ43Cl1EqU2edBEUaxuc4SO/5fPf0ACfUQ8S m3keMomF/tRu6Tq/qzFjpKQ= =aP59 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
[vos-d] Re: here's another format :-)
I like this quite a bit. "Explicit is better than implicit" when compared to YAML, "Simple is better than complex" when compared with XML, and all in all, "Beautiful is better than ugly, readability counts". best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- http://www.exoweb.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
