12-04-2020, 03:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2020, 03:34 PM by dale walton.)
OK fair enough. I probably still am in a separate paradigm from how Ludii is organized, -- and as I use it more maybe it will make more sense to me.
There are different ways to chop concepts into pieces. But in the end, it is what it is. -- And, as you point out, things can be used for whatever purpose we find them useful for.
I'm creative, I will eventually find a workaround using other variables. - and also in the longer term discover the most natural way to do it, once my brain finally aligns with the language. But just in case, I'll point Cameron to this thread to see if he can be a bridge between our conceptual realities. And if not I'll drop it.
As to what I am trying to do with the language. I am trying to use it as a tool to design and test game concepts for play defects and to provide a medium in which to share the game experience with others for testing purposes, and if worthwhile, to share publicly. To be useful for this I need enough facility with the language to produce nearly error-free descriptions of innovative game concepts, and to do that I am investing time and energy to learn the language by writing up scripts for as many of my existing game concepts as possible.
When I have trouble getting a feature to work, I tend to look for alternative approaches that might work, and thus may end up missing out on working through to successful use of features that my actually be the most appropriate to use. I do read and reread the documentation a lot, guess what it means and see if my guesses work out to gradually get a framework of how it hangs together, and think I am over the main hump, but missing out on about how to effectively use about 50% of the language.
I come from a procedural programming background, dormant for 40 years, so paradigms differences can indeed be a big obstacle to understanding what is the natural way to express ideas in this language.
There are different ways to chop concepts into pieces. But in the end, it is what it is. -- And, as you point out, things can be used for whatever purpose we find them useful for.
I'm creative, I will eventually find a workaround using other variables. - and also in the longer term discover the most natural way to do it, once my brain finally aligns with the language. But just in case, I'll point Cameron to this thread to see if he can be a bridge between our conceptual realities. And if not I'll drop it.
As to what I am trying to do with the language. I am trying to use it as a tool to design and test game concepts for play defects and to provide a medium in which to share the game experience with others for testing purposes, and if worthwhile, to share publicly. To be useful for this I need enough facility with the language to produce nearly error-free descriptions of innovative game concepts, and to do that I am investing time and energy to learn the language by writing up scripts for as many of my existing game concepts as possible.
When I have trouble getting a feature to work, I tend to look for alternative approaches that might work, and thus may end up missing out on working through to successful use of features that my actually be the most appropriate to use. I do read and reread the documentation a lot, guess what it means and see if my guesses work out to gradually get a framework of how it hangs together, and think I am over the main hump, but missing out on about how to effectively use about 50% of the language.
I come from a procedural programming background, dormant for 40 years, so paradigms differences can indeed be a big obstacle to understanding what is the natural way to express ideas in this language.