FAQ Proposal: authoring system coverage


Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:55:00 +0100

!!!! This post is quite long, and possibly thoroughly dull. Sorry. !!!!

Following is my proposal for a system of presenting information on IF
authoring systems in the rai-f FAQ, composed after reading the last
week-or-so's suggestions in the `It's that FAQing Jools again!' thread.
Again, if anyone disagrees with what I've written post your view here so it
can be commented on by any who're interested. And then I guess I'll have to
put my thinking hat on... again. 8) Here we go then...

All currently available authoring systems (those at gmd, anyway) will be
included. There will be three categories. Entry into a particular category
is based purely on the current popularity of the system in question as this
seems the most objective way to rate a system. The current popularity will
be "measured" by my own observations of the content of rai-f during the past
six months (for instance, at the moment about every second or third post is
related, either directly or indirectly, to Inform; therefore Inform is now a
category (i) system), and the quantity of new games produced on that system
during the past six months. The six months is a fairly arbitrary length of
time but should allow me to spot any long-term trends and to make a
reasonable estimate of the proportions of posts/games each authoring system
spawns. And no, I won't be keeping exact figures either, this is a little
more than I'm prepared to do. Yes, this method may well be a bit subjective
(it greatly relies on my memory and observation). If you can think of a more
satisfactory (and less Jools-intensive) method, just send in your ideas.

The categories, and their current occupants, are:

(i) Major systems:
Inform, TADS.
(ii) Intermediate and new systems:
AGT, ALAN, Archetype, Hugo.
(iii) Minor systems:
ADL, Advent, Adventura, AdvSys, AGIFG, Aventuro, DROOL, Figment,
GAGS, Gamescape, LADS, OASYS, Questmaker.

I have included new systems (those less than one year old) in category (ii)
as these have not yet had time to settle into (i) or (iii). They could of
course turn out to be perpetual category (ii) systems. All systems are free
to roam the categories over time.

Category (i) and (ii) systems get a semi-detailed description, while category
(iii) systems are listed by name only.

The descriptions of the various systems will be as objective as possible, not
explicitly recommending any one system over another. It may be argued that
systems from a higher category, (i) or (ii), have an intrinsic recommendation
over systems from a lower category, (ii) or (iii). I suspect this is
unavoidable if we're going to have any categories whatsoever. Category (i)
and (ii) systems, which are described, will contain information relating to
the following subjects (I've included some questions which I imagine
potential users might ask and which I'll try to answer in the FAQ):

Name of authoring system:
So, what is this system called? Any popular abbreviations?
Release:
What is the version number (including library version if different) and
date of the most recent release?
Name(s)/e-mail address(es) of author(s):
Who wrote this? Can I contact them?
Platforms:
Is this authoring system available for my computer/OS?
Author/popular support:
What level/amount of support can I expect for this authoring system from
the author(s) and from posts to rai-f.
Programming knowledge required:
Let's get down to the nuts'n'bolts. What will a screen-full of source
code look like? Will it resemble any known language in syntax
(C/LISP/English/Mixtec/etc)? I'd class myself as an IF/computer
programming beginner -- will this authoring system suit my capabilities?
Licensing details and availability:
Is this authoring system going to cost me? Is it public
domain/freeware/shareware/commercial/crippleware? I should like to
port/modify this authoring system -- is there source code available, and
am I allowed to redistribute the ported/modifed executable? When I
produce my game written with this authoring system will there be any
legal demands put upon me by the system's author(s)? Am I free to
distribute my game as I please (ie, either for the joy of doing so, or to
help pay my college fees/rent), or have I any obligations to the system's
author(s)?
Documentation and game sources:
Is the documentation comprehensive and up-to-date? Am I going to be able
to achieve a reasonable understanding of the system with the supplied
manual(s)? Will the manual(s) help me with obscure/low-level functions?
Are there lots of examples-in-the-manual/game sources available for me to
refer to?
Debugging features:
I don't want to spend x hours coding my masterpiece only to be thwarted
by some obscure and invisible bug in my source -- what debugging features
are there for this authoring system? Are these features self-contained
within the system, or do they come as a separate entity within the
distribution, or perhaps they're available as a separate (third party?)
package?

The actual information under each subject header listed above will be gleaned
from the questionnaires which authors of category (i) and (ii) systems are
sent, pertinent details which I can find in the downloadable manuals for
these systems, and all the e-mails you are going to send me relating your
personal experience with particular systems. In the FAQ I aim to have about
40 lines of text maximum on each category (i) or (ii) system. ATM I have six
systems listed, so thats about 240 lines maximum. I should imagine having
another 60 or so lines of other information in the `authoring systems'
section of the FAQ, so that's, say, 300 lines in total (although I'd hope to
bring this number down a bit). The previous length was approximately 140.

Anyone who wants further info on a particular system will be referred to
either Bob Newell's Comparison FAQ or Nathan Torkington's Authoring Systems
FAQ (both of which contain more detail than mine). Bob has expressed a
desire not to tread on Nathan's toes in his coverage in his FAQ, and I have
no wish to tread on either Bob's or Nathan's toes with my coverage. I
haven't been able to speak to Nathan yet, but I don't imagine he's a
toe-treadder either. So, the three FAQs should complement each other rather
nicely, and hopefully cater for all your authoring needs.

OK, I think that's everything. If anyone's still reading, well, that's my
bit for the moment. What I'm asking you to do is to read my proposal and
point out any shortcomings with a post to rai-f. In another few days I'll
amend my proposal as necessary, and re-post it (you lucky people). Unless
anyone objects violently this second proposal will be what actually goes into
the FAQ. I may have to mail another batch of amended questionnaires to the
authors; sorry to anyone who's already answered the first one, but public
demand made me do it. If you didn't answer the first one, why not?!

People who've read this far must be really interested, so each of you can
send me an e-mail detailing your experience with whatever system(s) you have
used. I particularly want to hear what you know of author/public support and
beginner blues. The more information like this which does not come from the
authors or manuals, the less subjective the FAQ. Oh, and I've just thought
of something else. I am not going to start a witch-hunt with this author
support bit. If an author actively and regularly supports his system, great!
I'll mention that fact. If not, well, then I just won't say anything. If
the author has stated that he is no longer supporting his system, obviously
I'll mention that. But I'm not out to expose anyone, so no guilt trips or
finger-pointing!

-- 
Jools Arnold                                          jools@arnod.demon.co.uk