Re: Refactoring all the time

Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski wrote in
news:slrnef4bpo.9ej.news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
At Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:38:27 GMT,
Brendan Guild wrote:
On the other hand, we can use object-oriented techniques in
addition to the data-directed attributes.

Sure, you can insert as many layers of Object-Orientness into any
design, as you want. You can create your own object-handling
system, and then implement yet another object-handling system
within it, and so on, ad infinitum.

The question is, do you really need all this indirection?

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with indirection? I
imagine that indirection is always good, and more indirection is
always better.

The most perfect game would have layer upon layer of abstraction,
with the top layer being the most fundamental and indirect
description of what a roguelike is. Then if you look deeper you find
more abstractions, each more specific than the last yet staying as
abstract as possible until finally you reach the bottom where you
find a simple and direct implementation of the abstract concepts of
the layer above. (I should point out that it is probably a very poor
idea to try to implement a roguelike using layers as strictly as you
might in an operating system. I tried that and it only seemed to lead
to trouble. I am talking about far looser layers.)

Every step should be simple, every step should be as abstract as it
can be, and at the end you should have a game that can be easily
modified into any other roguelike just by altering a few carefully
selected levels of abstraction. You will have created the most
modifiable roguelike in the world. (Even better than Angband.)

If there is some reason why keeping things indirect is going to cause
problems, I would very much like to hear about it now before I
continue much farther with my plan!
.

Relevant Pages