On Dec 13, 2007 12:41 PM, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Andris wrote: > > >> there's already games/prboom, so why another Doom-engine? > > > > Because someone ported it? > > > > I don't get this "there's already a ported implementation of <idea>". > > Sounds like monopoly. > > > > IMHO, any quality port (as in: compiles, runs fine) should be included. > > With a quick glance they seemed quite the same > and I can say prboom works good, so why not improve > existing? > > I'm not saying it shouldn't be imported, I'm just > wondering what makes chocolate-doom better than > existing prboom. > > -- > Antti Harri
IMHO, is it not relevant the quality (as in: completeness, friendliness, or the like) of the port. I *do* find important the quality of compilation and run.
