NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hollywood" data-source="post: 725585" data-attributes="member: 7408">a) Java is NOT a horrible language.  Its actually a very good language by itself.  The biggest problem is that its supposed to be cross-platform and doing cross-platform UI is not an easy task and the Swing API for doing UI is really dodgy and slow... IBM's version is actually a bit better, but it also relies on taking advantage UI APIs found on the target machines in which its run on.b) Java is based quite heavily on the C/C++ syntax anyways.  Its what is called a "managed" language, which means that it manages memory allocation/deallocation and some other things that can really trip up even the most experienced programmers.c) More important to the issue is not whether the team can program in C, or why they chose Java, but whether they can actually DESIGN and DEVELOP software with proven SOFTWARE ENGINEERING concepts.   Since none of their resumes are available, I can't say whether any of them have this experience or not.   Having seen the Java code, since its open-source, I really suspect not, but may be wrong.  If they don't, then it was a horrid move on WotC's part.Why? Start fresh, don't use bad code thats full of a lot of proprietary and badly designed code and data storage/manipulation.How about we see some design and architecture documents for eTools and PCGen to prove that legitimate software development processes are being followed.  That won't ensure that broken software won't get turned out, but will prove that some time and effort has been spent on thinking through the project before any coding begins and its not just a "code-n-go" project.ETools users should have gotten their money back, with an apology, from WotC.  Fluid should have bailed on the software long before it got to the point it got, when it was apparent that WotC had no true goals that could and would be set in concrete.I'm sorry, but I've not seen 3 years of value out of that work.  Luke's done far more with his RPM software.I disagree.  This "deal" doesn't address anything.  It only allows TWO tools, one controlled by WotC and the other basically controlled by WotC, to use additional options that are not available to other tools like RPM or Twin Rose's software.  Thats not "options, not restrictions", thats "restricted to only our tools" of which both are mishappened hammers being used to pound in wood screws.</blockquote>

Verification