facundo_olano

(I'm the post author). I agree with this. Perhaps I'd emphasize larger in terms of people working on it rather than codebase size. Once you have competing "mental models" about how the code works, the problem of silent bugs can escalate quickly.

So I do think the "always test" mentality is a reasonable default for the non-prototype type of work. There's a tipping point where going on without testing can get the project out of control and it's hard to tell when that is, so in contexts where you care to avoid that risk it makes sense to be strict about it. I didn't care for that risk in this case, so it made sense not to bother and focus on building momentum. I'd probably add some integration tests now if I wanted to try a significant new feature or refactor, or if I had to consider contributions from other developers.

Hi Leandro, I've been reading and thinking a lot about OSS sustainability recently, so this sounds interesting to me. I have several questions:

1. Have you seen StackAid https://www.stackaid.us? it seems like a similar distribution model, although for donations and not for access as I understand your proposal would be.

2. How would you enforce paying for the subscription to get access to the software?

  - e.g. would people have to publish exclusively in your platform instead of e.g. GitHub?
  - would the source be available for non subscriptors?
  - would some sort of license hack be involved?

3. Wouldn't people working on non (yet) profitable OSS be disencouraged from using your project if it requires paying upfront?

  is the assumption that most OSS devs would already be paying their low rate subscription?

  wouldn't it make sense for the rate to be somehow proportional to the benefit the company gets from the software? e.g. you'd want Amazon to pay more than 2k a year if they are selling a product around some OSS project.

4. Having to put your work (and potential source of income) in a private/closed platform seems to be a growing concern for creators (e.g. artists in twitter and devs in Github/Microsoft). Perhaps you'd want to clarify a bit better how it'd be different for this platform, how authors would still be in control of their stuff, etc.

5. Have you done the math for this, e.g. how much money would be available if most companies payed for this subscription and how much would maintainers receive?

We haven't got to reading the Doom book yet, maybe once we do! Although for now we're likely going to focus on developing this one some more, if we manage to get the time.

I had the same idea while working in this project. Either play directly from the map view (the prototype sort of already does this) or even use a rogue like ascii interface (which, yes, would probably be similar to the Silas Warner game)

Thanks for the suggestion, and for your book and your blog posts, by the way, they are the main reason we thought about tackling this project!

This is fixed now.

This now has (experimental) windows support. If you find any problems please file an issue in github.

I haven't got this working in windows yet, see https://github.com/facundoolano/rpg-cli/issues/17

I was thinking about using ssh somehow to turn it into multiplayer.

A local, cheaper alternative is to just have different player profiles (with different data files) and make them battle when they both happen to be on the same directory.

I read a few of the books mentioned in the article (Random Walk, Common Sense, Global Value and Asset Allocation) and they certainly dedicate a lot of space to study the history: bubbles, how returns fluctuated over the decades, etc.

Most importantly, the key takeaway of those introductory books is to diversify your portfolio, which, if you do, should limit your losses in events such as those you mention.

All due respect to Linus, but the second example is much less readable. Proof of that: the code was reduced in half, but the amount of comments was doubled.

I think concepts like "elegance" and "good taste" of code should exist, but they are obviously subjective. My choice of good taste always considers readability first.

FYI Fixed the bottle thing. Also added the take all command.

Good, I didn't know about the "take all" feature, taking note.

In advenjure you can get a similar effect with the autocomplete. If you enter "take " and hit tab you will get suggestions for all the items available in the room.

Either case still requires the game scripter to try to guess what the players will attempt and write specific responses for that, otherwise they'll get the frustrating generic responses.

I think in this particular case, the game example script is more to blame than the parser. I don't even remember putting that bottle there, but I should've marked it to be take-able and drink-able.

I made it so it's fairly simple to extend the supported verbs (you can even add your own verbs as a lib user, without modifying the lib code). It's just that it hadn't been used much before today, so a lot of somewhat obvious verbs are probably missing.

(full disclosure: I had little experience with infocom games myself, I'm more used to graphic adventures, but this was a far more interesting programming project to learn Clojure).

good catch, thanks

Challenge accepted: https://github.com/facundoolano/aso

Not that I know of. The thing with the Apple Store is that it's harder to scrape than Google Play, but I'll probably give it a shot at some point. (Once I have the scraper, it's straightforward to use it in this ASO module).

It's merely conventional that humans can claim the property of ideas. Nobody can "steal" an idea, so there's no way of ripping off the creator.

The notion of intellectual property is now widespread because is the source of profit for companies, but it's not "natural" as the property of material stuff.

Apart from that, if you think that the current laws protect the creators from third parties profiting with their ideas, how do you think Microsoft got big?

It's no news that patents and copyright obstruct the progress of science and society (nobody ever listents to Stallman?).

Now, acknowledging that is far from being enough to abolish them. The world revolves around companies making profit, it's naive to think that the government will agree to rule against the huge companies that currently benefit from those restrictions.

Yes, but with Ruby or Python 60% of that code wouldn't even need to be written.

You forgot to put the option: "I know tests are great, I know I'll regret it, but I'm too lazy to write them".

The question shouldn't be this or that kind of property, but property or not property at all. The free software movement is a perfect example on how property (copyrights in this case) can be more of an obstacle than a catalyst for progress.

C?

Here's the transcript at Graham's site http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html