Reply to Re: Announcement: Dink Engine Source Code Release Imminent
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Hi,
I don't think that the problem of whether features should be added or not is that important in a platform-- if a feature is added, it's usually not neccessary to force programmers to use it (there are exceptions, of course). The problem you appear to be seeing, however, namely that Dink might split into two or three different Dink engines with custom extensions, is a very real one.
(Note that any reasonable extension to Dink would have to attempt to be downwards compatible (or, at the very least, to have a switch to allow that), in order to allow older D-Mods to run anyway.)
I believe that the most likely reasons for people not to cooperate on building a huge, unified Dink 1.5 (or whatever) would be practical ones, i.e. issues of code sharing and communication.
Code sharing seems to be the more complex problem here, which is why I suggested getting CVS hosting from an independent and reliable source.
-- Christoph
I don't think that the problem of whether features should be added or not is that important in a platform-- if a feature is added, it's usually not neccessary to force programmers to use it (there are exceptions, of course). The problem you appear to be seeing, however, namely that Dink might split into two or three different Dink engines with custom extensions, is a very real one.
(Note that any reasonable extension to Dink would have to attempt to be downwards compatible (or, at the very least, to have a switch to allow that), in order to allow older D-Mods to run anyway.)
I believe that the most likely reasons for people not to cooperate on building a huge, unified Dink 1.5 (or whatever) would be practical ones, i.e. issues of code sharing and communication.
Code sharing seems to be the more complex problem here, which is why I suggested getting CVS hosting from an independent and reliable source.
-- Christoph
