Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> but the point is that we need to communicate and collaborate.

You are missing the point.

>> It would not surprise me if notch fails to consult this "standards committee" when he finally communicates how this CPU will interface with game components.

> I know we all like to say "why should these guys decide?"

Except that in this case these guys shouldn't really disillusion themselves in thinking they are deciding. It's not their call - it's an in-game CPU and the standards are going to be what the implementors find convenient. The odds of notch finding this standard favorable to my standards are about the same as him favoring my standards.



> The odds of notch finding this standard favorable to my standards are about the same as him favoring my standards.

Huh? Notch doesn't have to give a shit about these standard. He's writing the emulator (and memory-mapped I/O); we still need conventions on top (calling external libraries; linking libraries and so on).

> the standards are going to be what the implementors find convenient.

Yes, of course. All I'm saying is that instead of each assembler/compiler/linker using its own "most convenient convention" we can at least try to unify them. And someone needs to write down drafts.


There's also the "those who can, do, those who can't, form standards committees" angle. (Of course, this does not apply to real standards committees that are formalizing post-hoc standards. But folks who form a standards committee to tell everyone else how to do their freely offered work before a de-facto standard is even in place? Please.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: