by Roody_Yogurt » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:08 am
Juhana wrote:Compared to Inform I like that you can modify the internals more freely like with the DoExit thing here. In Inform (especially 7) a lot of stuff is hardcoded in the compiler/interpreter or otherwise inaccessible. You can also see that the virtual machine is free of historical baggage (no need to maintain backward compatibility to Infocom story files) and therefore seems to be more straightforward.
To be honest, when I used Inform 6, I didn't completely understand the point of replacing routines (and not altering one's standard library files), but then again, I barely understood what I was working with. I appreciate Hugo for forcing me to understand the benefit of such a system, and luckily, for the most part, it's fairly transparent.
Juhana wrote:Compiler options are a bonus, I like the C-like compiler directives you can use to add variations to the source files. I'm using Grunt to automatize the build process and this works nicely together with it.
Yeah, I like how can set up a game so I can compile a Roodylib-enhanced or non-Roodylib-enhanced version pretty easily. I've also taken advantage of Hugo's usage of environment variables, as I've found that Windows applications can get confused by long path names (and I do a fair amount of compiling from the desktop).
Juhana wrote:Oh, and the manual is really good. People are always talking about how DM4 is the best thing ever, but the Hugo Book is definitely at par or even better, especially the technical part.
The DM4's strongest asset is the fact that the first section gets you
really excited to write IF, but that doesn't necessarily make the language any easier to learn. You're right that the Hugo Book does a great job.
Anyhow, it's great that you're taking a look at Hugo. At some point, you should talk to Kent about Hugo's future. I mean, he has some ideas already, but I'm sure he'd appreciate your insight.
[quote="Juhana"]Compared to Inform I like that you can modify the internals more freely like with the DoExit thing here. In Inform (especially 7) a lot of stuff is hardcoded in the compiler/interpreter or otherwise inaccessible. You can also see that the virtual machine is free of historical baggage (no need to maintain backward compatibility to Infocom story files) and therefore seems to be more straightforward. [/quote]
To be honest, when I used Inform 6, I didn't completely understand the point of replacing routines (and not altering one's standard library files), but then again, I barely understood what I was working with. I appreciate Hugo for forcing me to understand the benefit of such a system, and luckily, for the most part, it's fairly transparent.
[quote="Juhana"]Compiler options are a bonus, I like the C-like compiler directives you can use to add variations to the source files. I'm using Grunt to automatize the build process and this works nicely together with it.[/quote]
Yeah, I like how can set up a game so I can compile a Roodylib-enhanced or non-Roodylib-enhanced version pretty easily. I've also taken advantage of Hugo's usage of environment variables, as I've found that Windows applications can get confused by long path names (and I do a fair amount of compiling from the desktop).
[quote="Juhana"]Oh, and the manual is really good. People are always talking about how DM4 is the best thing ever, but the Hugo Book is definitely at par or even better, especially the technical part.[/quote]
The DM4's strongest asset is the fact that the first section gets you [i]really excited to write IF[/i], but that doesn't necessarily make the language any easier to learn. You're right that the Hugo Book does a great job.
Anyhow, it's great that you're taking a look at Hugo. At some point, you should talk to Kent about Hugo's future. I mean, he has some ideas already, but I'm sure he'd appreciate your insight.