Modding APIs also bring downsides by being a complex subsystem of the project for the maintainers to deal with, taking away time that could be used to solve other problems in the software,
but it also increases the capabilities of the project by approximately ∞%!
and (in my experience) they often lead to fracturing of a community and too many options to choose from.
this is good! i like having choices. you can always choose not to use mods
I mean, it's pretty simple: people need to be happy in order to be productive.
Well yes but they can't be productive if they're playing games.
Of course. There's a balance to be struck, and modern capitalism encourages a shitty one that leans way too heavily on productivity, leading to an overall worse society. (Besides, the reason people are productive is so that they can be happy.)
Modding APIs also bring downsides by being a complex subsystem of the project for the maintainers to deal with, taking away time that could be used to solve other problems in the software,
but it also increases the capabilities of the project by approximately ∞%!
…at the expense of taking far more time for those capabilities to come to fruition.
and (in my experience) they often lead to fracturing of a community and too many options to choose from.
this is good! i like having choices. you can always choose not to use mods
The fracturing of the community also leads to a fracturing of the effort. I would much rather have a few good choices than many bad choices.
this document refutes everything bmh says. read it. https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/2.0/index.48a3fe23ed13.txt
this document refutes everything in existence. consume it and perish: https://trimill.xyz/static/i/apioform1.png
truly
this document refutes everything bmh says. read it. https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/2.0/index.48a3fe23ed13.txt
I do not see which of my points this file you linked refutes, nor what particular relation it has to forking. Could you please be more specific?
I suspect you may be parodying message #3800 that i sent earlier. If this is the case, i want to make it clear that the file i linked in message #3800 was not a legal document about the legal nuances of forks, as you so claimed, but instead an essay explaining how the fear of an overwhelming number of incompatible forks of a project is not upheld by reality; i would suggest you be more clear (and a little less hostile) in parodization in the future if you want them to land better. If this is not the case, ignore the preceeding sentence.
the document is not an essay explaining how the fear of an overwhelming number of incompatible forks of a project is not upheld by reality.
it is about the legal fear of forks. as in incompatible licensing and cetera. there's a reason it's under a subdirectory literally titled « Licensing and Law ».
the document does not address the psychological overwhelming of many forks to choose from, which is only a counterargument addressing your argument that many modifications to choose from is overwhelming.
the document is not an essay explaining how the fear of an overwhelming number of incompatible forks of a project is not upheld by reality.
It seems to me like that's clearly what it's about: it gives several examples of instances of forking in many other projects that have been perfectly fine, and in the final section explains why that has happened. In the BSD section, it explicitly talks about how yes, sometimes forks persist, but it's because they fill a specific niche, creating a situation where it's clear which fork to select based upon actually substantive differences.
it is about the legal fear of forks. as in incompatible licensing and cetera. there's a reason it's under a subdirectory literally titled « Licensing and Law ».
Eh, death of the author. I don't think that what it says on the legal issues of forking are the main thing worth taking away from it.
the document does not address the psychological overwhelming of many forks to choose from, which is only a counterargument addressing your argument that many modifications to choose from is overwhelming.
I think it addresses that by explaining that forks rarely become many.
yes, the instances of forking are about it being legally fine. nothing to do with the psychological overwhelming of forks.
also, death of the author just means that the interpretation of a work is independent from the author's intention. nothing to do with categorisation.
I think it addresses that by explaining that forks rarely become many.
yes, because people add plugin APIs/modification APIs. which makes making many forks unnecessary. even the Linux kernel has a modification API; they're called kernel modules.
yes, the instances of forking are about it being legally fine. nothing to do with the psychological overwhelming of forks.
I know that the work itself never addresses that, but it seems to me as though it's trivial to derive.
also, death of the author just means that the interpretation of a work is independent from the author's intention. nothing to do with categorisation.
Does the author having it categorized in a certain way not count as the author's intention?
[forks rarely become many] because people add plugin APIs/modification APIs. which makes making many forks unnecessary.
I don't think that's true. I think that forks rarely become many because most attempts to fork a project will invariably get absorbed into the main project or one of the few forks that fills a unique niche different from the original project. I don't think that a modification API helps with anything.
Again, a modification api allows the user to pick and choose which mods to use rather than being able to only use one at a time. It gives the user choose, which is a Good Thing™
Again, a modification api allows the user to pick and choose which mods to use rather than being able to only use one at a time. It gives the user choose, which is a Good Thing™
You're acting like a capitalist, trying to prove your own point by simply saying it again instead of refuting the refutations of others.
I don't think that a modification API helps with anything.
ok, i guess you don't need an operating system then. just flash software to your ROM directly. since, an OS is literally a modification API for computers.
I know that the work itself never addresses that
and therefore, is not a valid counterpoint. if it's so trivial to derive, then provide a point-by-point breakdown of your trivial derivation.
I think that forks rarely become many because most attempts to fork a project will invariably get absorbed into the main project or one of the few forks that fills a unique niche different from the original project.
and also a plugin API. that's a very important reason that cannot be overlooked.
💀
Well, that's not a very informative response.
How else am I supposed to respond to "you're acting like a capitalist" we've explained to you numerous times why a plugin API is better than just forking it. And you've ignored us every time.
You're acting like a capitalist, trying to prove your own point by simply saying it again instead of refuting the refutations of others.
i never knew capitalism was about proving points via repeating oneself infinitely. i thought it was about the ruthless drive for profit above literally everything else. but i suppose it's about being a poor debater?
hey, speaking of poor debate skills, i'm pretty sure calling someone a capitalist, or « acting like a capitalist » is some kind of fallacy. it's certainly name-calling. ad hominem perhaps?
ok, i guess you don't need an operating system then. just flash software to your ROM directly. since, an OS is literally a modification API for computers.
I'd say that an OS is more akin to a scripting API or a programming language, which i am completely fine with.
I know that the work itself never addresses that
and therefore, is not a valid counterpoint. if it's so trivial to derive, then provide a point-by-point breakdown of your trivial derivation.
Okay then: The claim is that forking will lead to people being overwhelmed because there will be too many forks. The essay explains that there will not be that many forks. Therefore, people will not be overwhelmed because there will not be too many forks.
I think that forks rarely become many because most attempts to fork a project will invariably get absorbed into the main project or one of the few forks that fills a unique niche different from the original project.
and also a plugin API. that's a very important reason that cannot be overlooked.
What evidence do you have that a plugin API prevents fracturing?
How else am I supposed to respond to "you're acting like a capitalist" we've explained to you numerous times why a plugin API is better than just forking it. And you've ignored us every time.
What points do you think i've ignored? I didn't mean to do that, and i'd be glad to respond to them now.
You're acting like a capitalist, trying to prove your own point by simply saying it again instead of refuting the refutations of others.
i never knew capitalism was about proving points via repeating oneself infinitely. i thought it was about the ruthless drive for profit above literally everything else. but i suppose it's about being a poor debater?
No, it's just that capitalists tend to defend capitalism by just repeating themselves over and over. Example:
"They deserve their money because they invested capital!" «And i don't think we should have a system where a person having money should be rewarded with giving them more money.» "…but they invested capital!"
Of course, the it to is isn't what what do it what it's not only.
hey, speaking of poor debate skills, i'm pretty sure calling someone a capitalist, or « acting like a capitalist » is some kind of fallacy. it's certainly name-calling. ad hominem perhaps?
It's not ad-hominem because the analogue has direct relevance to the debate.
…at the expense of taking far more time for those capabilities to come to fruition.
what?
The fracturing of the community also leads to a fracturing of the effort. I would much rather have a few good choices than many bad choices.
would it? i think there would be less effort overall. you dont encourage modding by.. making it harder
the advantage of mod apis is that you can have hundreds and thousands of mods, all of which are going to be mostly compatible with each other, and the individual player gets to choose exactly what combination they want. if you merged all these features into the base game (or a relatively smaller number of forks) then you wouldn't have that freedom of choice.
and if you are thinking 'well, that freedom of choice doesn't sound like fun to me' that's fine, but given the popularity of modding across a wide variety of video games, it seems like a lot of people have a different idea of fun to you.
I'd say that an OS is more akin to a scripting API or a programming language, which i am completely fine with.
modifications/plugins are literally just advanced scripts. some even are literally just scripts.
It's not ad-hominem because the analogue has direct relevance to the debate.
wow you're acting like such a capitalism here, continually defending your beliefs even when they don't make sense. (it is very relevant for me to ascribe your behaviour to that of a capitalist)
anyway, why are you so stubborn in your beliefs? you made this thread like a question, and then argue like it's a debate. if you really had genuine curiosity, then why do you refuse to accept the given answer?
is it because you're still curious on the specific details? well it's not like we're going to explain human sociology to you to say why humans want to have multiple modifications working together and modularly, with an easy and convenient way to achieve that. you've got the best answer we can reasonably give.
What points do you think i've ignored?
The point about being able to install arbitrary numbers of mods for starters. I feel like I should take it you don't have a response to it at this point .
…at the expense of taking far more time for those capabilities to come to fruition.
what?
The modding API is a subsystem of the project that requires continuous effort to be put into it, leaving less time to work on other things.
The fracturing of the community also leads to a fracturing of the effort. I would much rather have a few good choices than many bad choices.
would it? i think there would be less effort overall. you dont encourage modding by.. making it harder
I don't think that modding should be encouraged. I think that forks and patching should be encouraged.
the advantage of mod apis is that you can have hundreds and thousands of mods, all of which are going to be mostly compatible with each other, and the individual player gets to choose exactly what combination they want. if you merged all these features into the base game (or a relatively smaller number of forks) then you wouldn't have that freedom of choice.
But if the mods clearly make the game better if implemented either as-is or as a per-savefile option, what rational person would choose not to play with them? What purpose is there to a choice nobody would take?
and if you are thinking 'well, that freedom of choice doesn't sound like fun to me' that's fine, but given the popularity of modding across a wide variety of video games, it seems like a lot of people have a different idea of fun to you.
My issue is that there are too many mods to choose from and most of them are not fun. It's difficult to figure out which ones are good.
What points do you think i've ignored?
The point about being able to install arbitrary numbers of mods for starters. […]
What is that point?
modifications/plugins are literally just advanced scripts. some even are literally just scripts.
When i think of a modding API, i think of something that is used to fundamentally and completely change what exists in a piece of software, where one entity makes and maintains a mod for distribution to others. When i think of a scripting API, i think of something used to do stuff, where people make their own scripts for quick little things, often only to use them once or twice, and frequently using a REPL or equivalent to do so. To me, these are two distinct things that fill unique niches.
anyway, why are you so stubborn in your beliefs?
I don't mean to come off that way. I'm completely willing to change my mind if i should, but i don't want to blindly accept things.
you made this thread like a question, and then argue like it's a debate.
I'm sorry that i've come off that way. I don't want this to seem like an argument. I wanted this to be a discussion mutually beneficial for all parties.
if you really had genuine curiosity, then why do you refuse to accept the given answer?
Because i don't understand why that's the answer.
is it because you're still curious on the specific details? well it's not like we're going to explain human sociology to you to say why humans want to have multiple modifications working together and modularly, with an easy and convenient way to achieve that. you've got the best answer we can reasonably give.
Well, based upon this statement, it appears as though this thread has served its purpose. Thank you all for coming.
When i think of a modding API, i think of something that is used to fundamentally and completely change what exists in a piece of software
then there. your definition is simply not what the definition of everyone else's is.
no further statements are necessary.
Bmh is known for occasionally doing that (making up his own definition)
No i don't. Often it's just a misinterpretation of the real most common definition.
please log in to reply to this thread