User talk:Zzo38/FORTAVM

From IFWiki

Not neutral enough?

It is much more powerful and more cross-platform than Inform, TADS, Hugo, and it is also more simpler to implement and other stuff.

I feel that this sentence isn't neutral enough for IFWiki. It's quite a lot of praise to write that an IF tool (especially if you created it yourself!) is much more powerful than all the major IF authoring systems. Does anyone else agree? --Eriorg 10:11, 1 October 2008 (PDT)

I also agree that it isn't neutral enough, but unfortunately I don't know how to make it neutral enough, that is why I wrote it in the way that I did write it. Feel free to correct that sentence so that it makes more sense, if you know how to do that. --Zzo38 12:33, 1 October 2008 (PDT)
It seems a little premature to say anything about what FORTAVM is, since as far as I can tell, it only exists as a specification at this point. It can't be "more cross-platform" when it doesn't yet run on any platform. --Vaporware 14:26, 1 October 2008 (PDT)
I guess right now it doesn't (and it isn't really complete yet anyways), but anyone can implement it according to the specification and it work. It isn't too complicated. Forth specifications are always not too complicated. FORTAVM is a specification. Do you know if you or someone can make a comment of it so far? If there is any mistakes or things missing, I would definitely like to know about it so that I can correct it. --Zzo38 14:53, 1 October 2008 (PDT)

Can someone please review the specification?

Can someone please review the specification? Please note that the standard libraries aren't complete yet, but it should still work (although not very good) without the standard libraries. Can you make a comment of it? Is there anything ambiguous? Is there something you think is wrong with it? Is this specification clear enough to write a interpreter? Please be specific. (Also, I tried to fix the neutrality of the article, I hope I fixed it good.) --Zzo38 18:28, 3 October 2008 (PDT)

You may be asking in the wrong place. Archivist-types aren't necessarily able or interested in developing specifications. We tend to report on what has already been published, and believe me, we have plenty of work doing that as it is. I, at least, have no time to assist you with FORTAVM. Less, since I discovered my right arm was fractured near the wrist today. Perhaps you should elicit help from technical coders who are more likely to hang out at, sourceforge, and possibly other useful sites I'm not even aware of. -- David Welbourn 20:19, 3 October 2008 (PDT)
I was not talking about you specifically, but thanks for this information anyways. If you don't want to help, or can't help, you are not required to help. But I'm asking here in case someone else who reads this does want to help. --Zzo38 22:31, 3 October 2008 (PDT)
Which NNTP server should I access on? --Zzo38 12:06, 4 October 2008 (PDT)
O, I found a NNTP server: Will a message posted to that server reach Google eventually? If so, how long does it take? --Zzo38 12:46, 4 October 2008 (PDT)
You can post on r.a.i-f with Google Groups, which interfaces to Usenet and is probably easier than finding an NNTP server and setting up a newsreader. --Vaporware 18:48, 4 October 2008 (PDT)

Why the page was moved

We've been having a bit of discussion over FORTAVM, unfortuneately, not about the authoring system itself, but the way it's being developed on IFWiki. We don't create CYOAs on IFWiki, because that's not really what it's for. We don't host reviews, either. It would be wrong to have huge transcripts of games on the wiki. Similarily, developing a specification is likewise a misuse of IFWiki's intent. Yes, there's been no official guideline on this issue exactly, it never came up before. But at the end of the day, I, David Welbourn, have to decide what counts as a misuse and what isn't. I'm, like, chief editor around here and get to make these decisions, even if I would prefer to avoid the issue.

I do think FORTAVM is of some interest to IF, obviously, but it really should be developed elsewhere. Then we can have a proper page about it instead of, y'know, FORTAVM itself. In the meantime, the page is now a subpage of your user page, and where it's somewhat more acceptable to do your own thing. -- David Welbourn 18:06, 4 October 2008 (PDT)

OK. Thanks for telling me. You are probably perfectly correct about this issue. It is OK as a subpage of my user-page. --Zzo38 18:10, 4 October 2008 (PDT)