Re: [Chicken-users] 3D games in Chicken

[Shawn Rutledge]

On 2/11/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> Uuuh, dunno dude.  "Ought to have" is mighty strong language.  Oughtn't
> you implement it?

Yeah, I suppose so.  We'll see if I get around to it.

> What is your basic market motive for wanting things to "run
> everywhere?"  How do you personally benefit from this, aside from some

Like a lot of open source developers I don't know how or if I will
make money.  I have a day job for that.  I'd rather that my work get
unlimited exposure (assuming I get anything worthwhile done :-) rather
than tie it down with licensing fees or retail sales, and
simultaneously have to turn a fun hobby into a stressful drudgery to
meet commercial expectations.  And projects that are commercially
successful have to have a narrow enough scope that they can be done on
time, not be too revolutionary to be saleable, etc.  My day-job
projects have mostly been decidedly underwhelming compared to my own
dreams.  (There was one exception, but that company was not
commercially successful.  If it had been an open-source project, at
least I could keep using the cool code that I wrote there.  But alas,
it was not.)

> kind of programmer aesthetic satisfaction that "things have been
> perfected?"  How will others benefit from this?  The problem is, if it's
> just your own whim, then nobody else is going to do the maintenance
> upkeep on it.  So that portability will never happen.  People need a
> stronger reason for it to happen than "well I'd like it to be that

It has worked that way for some projects.  Just some are more popular
than others.  The most popular open-source projects have become quite
portable.