Bob Somers wrote: > Minh, I was talking about open sourcing their tools. I just don't > think that makes any business sense for them. It makes sense from our > perspective, sure, but from theirs... little to none. > > Also, excellent point about adapting your workflow to the engine and > the other way around. This is the best way to work with any, large, > complex system. It takes longer to learn how to work in someone else's > environment, but you save loads of time in the long run rather than > struggling to make someone else's paradigm fit into what you want. > > --Bob > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Harry > Jeffery<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Minh, I think you just produced the best argument in the conversation so far. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > > Personally, I think Valve should leave Source as it is for now. If they're going to take a huge step such as open-sourcing hammer or adding scripting support, then they should leave it until they release a new engine.
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
