Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Klintus Fang" data-source="post: 396384" data-attributes="member: 3580">I completely disagree.  I do agree that an object oriented approach is what should be used for such a project, but that is what C++ is.  C# doesn't add anything new in that respect that a tool like this actually needs.  On top of that C# is new, and has yet to prove itself in the market place.  No major commercial software product has yet been written in C#.  Why then would it be the "best choice?".   Until it has proven itself in the market place there's no way it could be the best choice for any kind of project.  I'm not saying it's a bad choice but to imply it was a bad choice not to use C# doesn't make any sense. My 2cents on C#:C# is a language that is compiled at runtime (its really nothing more than Microsofts variation on Java).  That along leads me to suggest it would be a bad idea to use it for a tool like this.   I would suggest using C++ with a Visual Basic frontend.  I don't know if that is what they did.That said, I do agree with other programmers who have suggested that the design of the program's internal data structures was probably not the best design.  I haven't seen them of course, but one can infer some things about there design from the things that fluid have said on their message boards.  Fluid's answer to why there is no template support and why you cannot "roll back" class levels was "that would require a complete rewrite of the data structures".  It follows that the internal data structures were not well planned (in my opinion).But I'm not faulting fluid for this.  The project had its direction changed multiple times by WoTC who contracted fluid to do it.  There's really no way to know if the weaknessess are the fault of Fluid's programming approach, or the fault of WoTC's management of the project.That said:  I gave the program a C.  I'd give it a B if I had faith that it was going to have continued support and development.  Because in that case it would be safe to assume the weaknesses would be fixed eventually.  But I have no such faith.</blockquote>

Verification