Yes. I think we understand that.
-----Original Message----- From: Don Dailey [mailto:drd@supertech.lcs.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:52 PM To: adc@multex.com Cc: wms@igoweb.org; gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Goals, ver. 3
Alan,
What I'm proposing is to have several non-overlapping standards that do different things.
Good, that's one proposal.
My proposal is to have a single standard GTP command set.
Don
From: "Cabrera, Alan" adc@multex.com
Your conclusion "the odds that any particular program uses any particular set gets sharply reduced" does not necessarily follow from your assertion that "If you fragment [GTP] to several standards". Also, if a particular set of commands does fall into disuse then it's because no one thought it was important enough to support.
I would argue that if, and I use a little bit of hyperbole to make my point, there is a single giant standard, people will be discouraged from implementing it or, worse, not completely and/or correctly implement it. X windows comes to mind and, Christ, how long did it take everyone to get that protocol pig right?
Please understand that what I'm proposing is NOT several different standards. This implies that there are several different ways of doing the same thing; which is NOT the case here. What I'm proposing is to have several non-overlapping standards that do different things.
Now here is why we do this. An implementer does not have to pay for feature sets that he does not want or need and others are free to innovate previously un-thought of features. It would also allow feature sets that are not popular to fall by the wayside and not hang on like useless DNA. Why do i have to implement TCP when UDP will do for my particular application? It's that simple.
Alan
-----Original Message----- From: Don Dailey [mailto:drd@supertech.lcs.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:29 PM To: adc@multex.com Cc: wms@igoweb.org; gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Goals, ver. 3
From: "Cabrera, Alan" adc@multex.com
Did we reject the idea of multiple GTP command sets? How, exactly, would it would serve to discourage the adaptation of a standard?
If you fragment this to several standards, then the odds that any particular program uses any particular set gets sharply reduced. That means that all those standards are (unintentionally) discouraged.
If we create and promote a single standard, everyone benefits because ANY (gtp standard) engine will work with ANY gtp tool. Now that is something that benefits everyone! By having a single standard instead of 5 different ones, we are keeping things simple and implicity encourage people to implement the whole thing, not just some little piece.
But go ahead and make up as many different standards as you want to. If you actually believe this will bring everyone together, I'm all for it.
Don
Alan
-----Original Message----- From: Don Dailey [mailto:drd@supertech.lcs.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:51 PM To: wms@igoweb.org Cc: gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Goals, ver. 3
From: "William M. Shubert" wms@igoweb.org
Don, your comments are making less and less sense. I am merely putting
out the point that since we plan on using GTP for several purposes, and some commands will be used for only some of these purposes, then it
makes sense to break out the commands used for each purpose (eg tournaments) so that a programmer can implement only the commands they
plan on using. What is so hard to understand about that?
My fault, I read that email in a big hurry.
I thought we had earlier rejected the idea of multiple GTP command sets? It's just my opinion, but I think this would serve to discourage the adaptation of a standard.
William, I don't mean to be contentious about these issues, but I know that I am currently building a GOOD user interface and I will be making it available for EVERYONE to use. It will support "undo" and you will be able to set up positions from scratch and load problems.
So I'm speaking from a real NEEDS point of view, not a hypothetical "what kind of things might someone want to build" perspective.
I also know that one of two things will happen when I am done:
1. The new GTP standard will be powerful enough to support my UI.
2. The new GTP standard will need some extensions in order for OTHER programs to work with it.
I'm still going to build my interface in either case, but I will use my own extensions reluctantly, only if I have to. The extension I use will either be adapted anyone by others so they can use my interface, or someone else will build a more popular interface and have to build their own extensions.
Don
Why do you insist on anwsering my messages with bizarre tangents (like having to make up your own commands) that have nothing at all to do with what I was saying?
Don Dailey wrote:
>> I don't see why we need to force a person who just wants to participate in >> GTP tournaments to implement the commands for these other purposes. >> > >Who is it you are trying to be fair to? What about other users, they >don't matter? > >I'm not going to fight this battle any longer if others don't care >either. I'll make up the commands if I have to and other programmers >will have to conform to use my tools. It really isn't the way I want >to do it, but I'm not going to write a user interface without the >"position setup" feature or "undo" command just to name a couple. > >Don >
--
Bill Shubert (wms@igoweb.org) mailto:wms@igoweb.org http://www.igoweb.org/~wms/ http://igoweb.org/%7Ewms/
_______________________________________________ gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp _______________________________________________ gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp
-
Cabrera, Alan