🚀 go-pugleaf

psteffn@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU writes:
< much stuff deleted: demos & atari >
: >your own routines and use only those parts of the library that you
: >found acceptable.  How could it be *worse* to have a library?
: 
: I said I don't have anything against the library.  I just wouldn't have a 
: need for it.  The reason why I would want source available would not be for
: myself, but for the purpose that the person using it might be able to
: learn how it works, possibly improve on it, and send the improved version
: back to the manufacturer so the library will improve.  Hence, it would
: have educational value....

<more stuff deleted>

Getting back to the original thread....

I agree emphatically; a games library with source code would be most
educational.  Though I wouldn't consider myself a novice programmer, I have
only recently developed interest in game programming.  A games library would
certainly make my life easier - for now.  But what would be the point?  So maybe
I write a whammy-humdinger catchy shareware game using this library, but can I
really call it my own if all the ultra-quick graphics routines were written by
someone else?  More rewarding would be if I could examine the source, use it 
(and maybe customize a few routines), and be able to come out of the project
knowing a little more about programming and maybe in the future being able to
contribute some small routine, or improvement of my own to the library.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking...

--
Doug Gould   at   Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada.
( The above opnions are mine alone ... BNR probably doesn't even know I exist )