Nasal init edits / 01/2020
I do appreciate your recent work/effort WRT documenting Nasal Initialization and might even see a way to contribute missing bits to it - however, the article you've pruned (aka: deleted) by this change is certainly not outdated, Initializing Nasal early has a very different purpose and scope. While it may admittedly not seem as useful to you, it's based on discussions, and patches, among people who are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the current Nasal initialization scheme, as well as Nasal bootstrapping issues in general, so it does provide a number of pointers to relevant work, patches and discussions. As such, it should not be deleted, as it even points to working branches/patches that solve a number of these issues via a proof-of-concept approach. The article/link you have now deleted is referenced in countless forum postings and other wiki articles that specifically talk about these very issues, changing the article to point to your new article is at best misleading, and at worst highly confusing. Regarding your particular work, you may want to look at some of Philsopher's original work, specifically the "nasal internals" PDF (LaTex document). This is not to discourage your work, I think it will be highly useful, but documenting the current scheme is not the same thing as documenting discussions and patches to solve issues related to the current scheme. Thus, please revert your change to that article unless/until there is a scheme in place to deal with the very restrictions discussed in Initializing Nasal early . Thanks & all the best --Hooray (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2020 (EST)
in reply to Hooray, ss you wish. May I recommend you start writing real articles instead of collecting quotes?! My personal opinion (which may or may not offend you) is, that it is of no use and nobody really likes to read such pages that are cluttered with quotes. It is not "readable" and relevant information is not findable in reasonable time, so why don't you start writing pages with quality? I know this is more work and takes time but in the end you get something people may want to read. just my 2ct
- Your point is indeed entirely valid, but the point of having such "articles" is not to "write articles" but to solely collect pointers. Bugman summed it up nicely when he eloquently pointed out how such "collections of pointers" are indeed pathetic when looked at as "articles" but depending on your interests highly useful when it comes to bootstrapping new articles or even new features:
- Obviously, YMMV and you will find more people who agree with you than you may think - but once you have a certain interest, and once you want to work on something related to that area, you will appreciate the finer points of having an aggregated or even "curated" list of such pointers.
- As a matter of fact, there are a handful of recent developments and features that used to be such "collection of pointers" long before a single line of code had been written (often, even long before the corresponding contributor was contributing or even around in the FG community), which includes the Compositor (via ), the Canvas (via ), or the recent Nasal GC improvements (How_the_Nasal_GC_works), the Canvas View Camera Element or Howto:Extending_Canvas_to_support_rendering_3D_models - this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but maybe you see a pattern emerge:
- these articles will indeed be pointless to the majority of people not contributing or not interested in the corresponding topics (like you obviously), but to the few who are interested in these topics, they are actual enablers and they help pave the way for new features, and shape new functionality, much more than you may realize. And please feel free to review my list of wiki edits, to see that I am indeed able to write genuine articles beyond collecting quotes. We've had this discussion dozens of times on the forum, so it's kinda moot to repeat it again and again - but this isn't about writing articles, it's about collecting pointers - the target audience is a completely different one obviously. And the great thing is seeing how these pages can indeed become obsolete, by seeing actual developments that are in line with the original discussion and ideas, deprecating those in the process, and making these articles obsolete - like it happened when the Canvas system suddenly turned into something more than just a random idea page, i.e. something with its own portal and sub-forum.
- So yeah, please be my guest and humor me by telling me these pages are redundant and outdated, I see the proof that they do work every once in a while, and sometimes in a rather remarkable fashion which is also backed up exchanging dozens if not hundreds of private messages with the very few people interested in these "collections of quotes" (e.g. Canvas or Compositor). Again, also no offense intended or taken - but you might want to check some of your facts, or simply look at the history of some of the features added to FlightGear by people who never were core developers in the first place. --Hooray (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2020 (EST)