[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3936) introducing native coordinates

[Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 05:50:16PM -0400, Ross Wetmore wrote:
> >So we both say that our changes are minimal.
> 
> Yes but are you both right?

Probably not.

> Who would you give odds on, the person that hasn't worked through the
> issues or developed working code for a number of extensions, or someone
> that has?

It is possible that the person which is working on this for a long
time doesn't see the wood for the trees.

> >>(I still don't see why you believe your method requires fewer code 
> >>changes.  This may be true, but there is no evidence for it.)
> >
> >Let me create some code so that we can have some facts. Hopefully this
> >week.
> >
> >Is there an implementation of your approach which is complete? For
> >measure of speed and general impact this doesn't have to support
> >mapview.
> >
> >     Raimar
> 
> There has been a complete working model for all the core (aka non-mapview)
> changes for close to two years. The original code changes took about a week
> to produce but have gone through a number of update and cleanup phases
> since then.

You have failed IMHO to provide reasons why a certain compression is
used and why a certain coordinate (what you call map in the new
scheme) is used as the default. And there was also no documentation
that it is possible that you can compress in two different way at
all. This didn't made it easier for other people do understand
iso-maps in general and the implementation in detail.

> The complete working code including GUI fixes for all supported topologies
> has been around in two forms for over one year. A merged package exists
> against current CVS. The native split appeared Dec 2001 as a cleanup of
> the regular mappos fiasco in parallel with the GUI phase.
> 
> I hope you can be as complete in your example. But I suspect it will take
> awhile before it reaches the level of stability and robustness of the
> existing versions. Hopefully you will better appreciate their approach
> though once you get your hands dirty.

> In the meantime we should perhaps continue with the discussion of the
> proposed solution and not stop all progress while we wait for Raimar to
> develop his personal flavour. Not having to argue two or spend so much
> time on other things will perhaps make things run a bit faster.

I have some free time in the next days so I'm hopefully that we have
some facts and also a decision at the beginning of the next week.

If you want to speed this up you can for example write about
iso-maps. Not about your implementation but about iso-maps in
general. Why do we want them, what do they look like in various forms
and how do they differ from the non-iso maps. This has to be written
anyway and you have 2 years of knowledge about this.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1