[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Profiles from huge game

[Mike Kaufman <mkaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 04:10:04AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Sebastian Bauer wrote:
> > From: "Ben Webb" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > I can't believe a patch like this went in.
> > > I guess you should have complained about it at some point between
> > > April and now, then, since the patch has been available for review since
> > > then. As for CVS commit privileges, I have none.
> > 
> > I think the code is completly ok. There was a small bug in but this was
> > found quickly. The speed can and must be improved but I don't see reason
> > doing this in a first patch. For me its more important that there is a start
> > for this feature. Also nobody of the players has compained yet about the
> > speed loss, which will be reduced anywhy if all works.
> 
> Did you check slashdot when the last release from freeciv was announced. 
> There were quite a few people who complained about how the latest version
> sucked and was worse than previous ones.  The ugly isometric mode was the
> biggest complaint, but speed was there too.
> 
I don't have anything to much to say about algorithm speeds, except to say that
I think that for flexibility, we ought to get rid of the improvement hardcoding 
in
the code. Obviously, this needs to be done in a way that maintains speed. But
enough of that...

Perhaps it's time for another "What's your favorite tileset?" poll. Whichever 
wins
ought to be the default tileset. I think that some of the commentary about how 
much
freeciv sucked now that isometric was there was a response based on the fact 
that 
people did not realize that they could change tilesets. I'm not sure how the 
README
could be more clear about the use of tilesets, but perhaps someone ought to 
explore
that.

-mike

> And personally, if I wrote something that used an O(n^2) algorithm when there
> was an O(1) way to do it, I would stick a bag over my head in shame.
>