SCSII installation warnings

[Jarno Mikkola]

As far as I can see, the only problem here is that WeiDU complains about it. Without its warning message, this problem joins the thousand of other silent semantic errors in BG.

And that it eats just a bit more power to execute. Lag.

But it's hardly anything to concern oneself with, when there are far bigger lag issues.

[jon-eli]

Life's too short to debate whether the fault lies with my description or your interpretation.

I wasn't assigning blame; I was trying to explain myself. Can you see that there might be difference? I wish I understood why you feel the need to prop yourself up on a moral pedestal when you're not even being attacked. There was no indictment against you. I apologize if I've misconstrued the spirit of academic debate by expressing an opinion.

 

I'm unpersuaded that what I wanted to do in this case could have been acheived via REPLACE_TEXTUALLY.

And this is my own failing, for sure. I'll reinstall BG2 and reacquaint myself with WeiDU, see if I can't provide some concrete examples for you.

 

At the risk of sounding vaguely polemical, I think generalizations do more harm than good.

At the risk of sounding vaguely polemical, this is a generalization.

Life is too short to discuss interpretation vs. description, but it's long enough to play word games? And you'll notice that it actually isn't a generalization, since the words "I think" force it to be a subjective supposition, rather than a statement. Moreover, you didn't even address the point I made.

 

I'm inclined to think that in this context, "refusing to do anything" is better than "doing changes and additions, even harmfully".

That's a conservative position, and I don't fault you for it. But I think our disagreement stems from our differing understanding of the word "context."

 

As far as I can see, the only problem here is that WeiDU complains about it. Without its warning message, this problem joins the thousand of other silent semantic errors in BG. And everybody lives happily ever after.

To be clear, since this is a point that seems to have been universally overlooked, is that warnings are often indicative of conceptual or architectural flaws. It's prudent to assume they represent latent errors, until such as time as it's demonstrated otherwise. Seat-belt theory.

[DavidW]

Life's too short to debate whether the fault lies with my description or your interpretation.

I wasn't assigning blame; I was trying to explain myself. Can you see that there might be difference? I wish I understood why you feel the need to prop yourself up on a moral pedestal when you're not even being attacked. There was no indictment against you. I apologize if I've misconstrued the spirit of academic debate by expressing an opinion.

All I meant was that (i) my original comment didn't mean what you thought it meant, and (ii) that might be my fault or yours, and it doesn't matter which.

 

I'm unpersuaded that what I wanted to do in this case could have been acheived via REPLACE_TEXTUALLY.

And this is my own failing, for sure. I'll reinstall BG2 and reacquaint myself with WeiDU, see if I can't provide some concrete examples for you.

Not so much "some concrete examples", more a way to do this particular task with it.

 

At the risk of sounding vaguely polemical, I think generalizations do more harm than good.

At the risk of sounding vaguely polemical, this is a generalization.

Life is too short to discuss interpretation vs. description, but it's long enough to play word games?

Life's never too short to play word games.

 

And you'll notice that it actually isn't a generalization, since the words "I think" force it to be a subjective supposition, rather than a statement.

Subjective suppositions are statements. (Not that it matters: as you say, I was mostly playing, not being serious.)

 

Moreover, you didn't even address the point I made.

I'm not clear what the point was/is. If it's "generalizations do more harm than good", then I don't really see how to reply to it, because it's far too general (that was the serious point behind my flippancy.)

 

I'm inclined to think that in this context, "refusing to do anything" is better than "doing changes and additions, even harmfully".

That's a conservative position, and I don't fault you for it. But I think our disagreement stems from our differing understanding of the word "context."

Care to explain?

 

As far as I can see, the only problem here is that WeiDU complains about it. Without its warning message, this problem joins the thousand of other silent semantic errors in BG. And everybody lives happily ever after.

To be clear, since this is a point that seems to have been universally overlooked, is that warnings are often indicative of conceptual or architectural flaws. It's prudent to assume they represent latent errors, until such as time as it's demonstrated otherwise. Seat-belt theory.

Perfectly sensible - but in this particular case, they don't represent latent errors.

[DavidW]

As far as I can see, the only problem here is that WeiDU complains about it. Without its warning message, this problem joins the thousand of other silent semantic errors in BG.

And that it eats just a bit more power to execute. Lag.

But it's hardly anything to concern oneself with, when there are far bigger lag issues.

 

It causes install-time lag, but not in-game lag. (Actually, it doesn't cause any more install-time lag than it would if the blocks were matched.)

[jon-eli]

All I meant was that (i) my original comment didn't mean what you thought it meant, and (ii) that might be my fault or yours, and it doesn't matter which.

Oh, okay. Agreed then.

 

Not so much "some concrete examples", more a way to do this particular task with it.

Some concrete examples of a way to do this particular task, is what I meant. Read "concrete" as "constructive."

 

I'm amused that there can be such a communication barrier between two fluent English speakers with similar cultural background.

 

Life's never too short to play word games.

Agreed. They delimit the monotony.

 

I'm not clear what the point was/is. If it's "generalizations do more harm than good", then I don't really see how to reply to it, because it's far too general (that was the serious point behind my flippancy.)

I'm starting to feel a bit senile... not really sure what I was getting at. But I'm sure it had something to do with my disdain of pessimism, which I felt this thread was oozing.

 

That's a conservative position, and I don't fault you for it. But I think our disagreement stems from our differing understanding of the word "context."

Care to explain?

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "context," by I'm fairly sure my own perspective wouldn't jive with yours. For myself, I think the context is that of a large mod stack. SCSII runs perfectly on tame installs, and I think you've suggested elsewhere that the burden shifts away from you in direct proportion to the amount of interference from other mods.

 

These problems only crop up with non-trivial installs, and therefore I think that that's the correct context. As part of that context, you have users who desire even partial-compatibility over no compatibility at all; they have become used to the idea of semi-functionality. If they choose to install Better Calls For Help, they expect it not to install only in the case of a complete and total clash with another component. If partial coexistence is possible, then that's what is desired.

 

Perfectly sensible - but in this particular case, they don't represent latent errors.

I think I've been reading an additional meaning into "latent," which is fairly typical of me. Perhaps:

DECOMPILE_THREAD_TO_BCS
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~latent~ ~hidden~
COMPILE_BCS_TO_THREAD

Hopefully my next post will contain code you can actually compile. I've been reading too much Tertullian... need to find my coding fingers again.

[DavidW]

you have users who desire even partial-compatibility over no compatibility at all; they have become used to the idea of semi-functionality. If they choose to install Better Calls For Help, they expect it not to install only in the case of a complete and total clash with another component. If partial coexistence is possible, then that's what is desired.

Fair enough, but it's not what I'm interested in providing - I'd rather err on the side of not breaking things.

 

Perfectly sensible - but in this particular case, they don't represent latent errors.

I think I've been reading an additional meaning into "latent," which is fairly typical of me. Perhaps:

DECOMPILE_THREAD_TO_BCS
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~latent~ ~hidden~
COMPILE_BCS_TO_THREAD

Hopefully my next post will contain code you can actually compile. I've been reading too much Tertullian... need to find my coding fingers again.

I don't think they represent hidden errors either The code's doing what it's intended to do: installing if the scripts in question have the expected shape, but not otherwise.

[jon-eli]

I don't think they represent hidden errors either The code's doing what it's intended to do: installing if the scripts in question have the expected shape, but not otherwise.

The more I work on it, the more it's starting to feel like a worthless exercise. But I need to suffer some kind of penance for blowing this out into a 2-page thread.