Datum or Obj

Page: 1 2
Dec 23 2009, 5:17 pm
In response to AJX
When the "they" happens to be someone who knows what they're doing, and they aren't trying to screw with you, you typically have to trust them. They know more about the inner workings of DM, so therefore they know whether or not what you're doing is a bad practice.
Dec 23 2009, 7:07 pm
In response to Jeff8500
Jeff8500 wrote:
When the "they" happens to be someone who knows what they're doing, and they aren't trying to screw with you, you typically have to trust them. They know more about the inner workings of DM, so therefore they know whether or not what you're doing is a bad practice.

Sigh. I never once questioned the intelligence of Tom, Dan, or Lummox. I would be a fool to do so. If one of them popped up right now and said 'No, that is a bad idea for X reason' then wouldn't have a word to say about it.

That is the point: No reason is given. It appears to be an arbitrary note.

If you apply your logic to this situation you can infer that the reason that warning is put in the reference is to avoid confusion for amateurs.

There is no reason to believe that subtypes of atom/movable are inherently broken in any way. It wouldn't make sense to program them that way.

Anyway: I've never seen anything to indicate that subtypes of atom/movable are broken, nor do I have any reason to believe that would be the case. I can't understand how you would.
Dec 24 2009, 4:24 pm
In response to AJX
The developers have a responsibility to preserve as much current intended functionality as possible. An obj will continue to be usable in the same manner because to change it would break a considerable number of games.

Instantiating direct descendants of atom/movables, however, it not intended functionality, and while it currently works, it is liable to be changed in the future, either intentionally or accidentally. See: the old "fullscreen" bug. As it is not an intended feature there is no effort put into it to ensure it continues working.

Obviously, this is an incredibly minor issue, but as the gains are also incredibly minor, I see not reason to not simply be standards-compliant.
Dec 24 2009, 5:58 pm
In response to Garthor
Garthor wrote:


Fair enough.
Page: 1 2