Pete:
1) Two different beasts and fields. Writing a compiler is not the same as writing a graphics engine. I'm saying this from experience.
2) Maplet was a pile of crap. Most knowledge of 3D APIs from games before B3D are useless. When's the last time you saw someone talk about DirectX prior to 7 or, God forbid, OpenGL in its early days?
3) I don't see what this has to do with the quality of his engine. Antony is just one person and he's written quality engines, the fellow behind Cipher is just one person and wrote a quality engine, etc. If anything, having one person makes it better since he doesn't have to put up with other people changing stuff. However, this does not affect the actual quality, since it comes down to his skill and even if he had another person working on it who was better the project would still fail if he fails to implement core components properly.
4) Sure let it happen with BlitzPlus and Maplet though. I'm also inclined to say MaxGUI as well, since it's pretty nasty internally. I'll be amazed if they ever add anything new to it with its structure.
5) I can. Maybe you all just lack the ability to adapt to a new environment? In any case, this has nothing to do with the quality of his engine.
6) Once again, nothing to do with the quality of his engine.
Grey: Yes, but even so you still have to make your products in a certain timeframe, correct? Consider a situation where you need a product out the door soon while still being stable. Let's say you have two options for the core: a) a product out now that's tried and true or b) a product that isn't going to be released for two months, but will be released within the project timeframe.
Let's say that the project takes four months.
Do you
a) Pick the tried and true product (has documentation, a clean record of products using it, etc.) and give yourself the time to learn it.
or
b) Wait for product B on good faith of the developer with very few details on what it will actually be capable of and be like.
Who here is stupid enough to choose B? Now before I commit a fallacy, there's also option c.
c) Develop with product A and evaluate product B, porting to product B while learning it.
The flaw with option C is that you still have the downside of B but with the added problem of porting existing code from product A to use with product B while still learning how to efficiently use product B.
Perhaps all you understand what I'm talking about here?
1) Two different beasts and fields. Writing a compiler is not the same as writing a graphics engine. I'm saying this from experience.
2) Maplet was a pile of crap. Most knowledge of 3D APIs from games before B3D are useless. When's the last time you saw someone talk about DirectX prior to 7 or, God forbid, OpenGL in its early days?
3) I don't see what this has to do with the quality of his engine. Antony is just one person and he's written quality engines, the fellow behind Cipher is just one person and wrote a quality engine, etc. If anything, having one person makes it better since he doesn't have to put up with other people changing stuff. However, this does not affect the actual quality, since it comes down to his skill and even if he had another person working on it who was better the project would still fail if he fails to implement core components properly.
4) Sure let it happen with BlitzPlus and Maplet though. I'm also inclined to say MaxGUI as well, since it's pretty nasty internally. I'll be amazed if they ever add anything new to it with its structure.
5) I can. Maybe you all just lack the ability to adapt to a new environment? In any case, this has nothing to do with the quality of his engine.
6) Once again, nothing to do with the quality of his engine.
Grey: Yes, but even so you still have to make your products in a certain timeframe, correct? Consider a situation where you need a product out the door soon while still being stable. Let's say you have two options for the core: a) a product out now that's tried and true or b) a product that isn't going to be released for two months, but will be released within the project timeframe.
Let's say that the project takes four months.
Do you
a) Pick the tried and true product (has documentation, a clean record of products using it, etc.) and give yourself the time to learn it.
or
b) Wait for product B on good faith of the developer with very few details on what it will actually be capable of and be like.
Who here is stupid enough to choose B? Now before I commit a fallacy, there's also option c.
c) Develop with product A and evaluate product B, porting to product B while learning it.
The flaw with option C is that you still have the downside of B but with the added problem of porting existing code from product A to use with product B while still learning how to efficiently use product B.
Perhaps all you understand what I'm talking about here?