NEVER TRUST A SKINNY CHEF

(Or, "Don't trust software developers who don't use their own product.")



"Dogfooding" is short developer slang for "eating your own product".  Which is metaphor for using your own software.  If you ain't using it, then how do you know that it works consistently and reliably?

So the basic idea is sound.  Get the least developed, core sequence going.  The very heart of the matter, the main loop or most important series of functions and logics.  After the testing, after the tweaking, start using it for its intended (if seriously pared down) purpose.  Throw everything at it; use it for everything.

In my case, this means get the basics of the DF game working.  At least one player character, at least two rooms, at least one connecting doorway, at least one monster, and at least one NPC.  Try out the Move action, the Attack action, the Dodge action, and so on.  Try at least one spell on the monster and/or NPC.  Put in a trap.  

Add on the character creation system.  The system handles both the player's creation choices and the computer's creation choices (from randomly created monsters and NPCs, to more intelligently chosen "builds").

Set up automation on it for testing.  Run the thing a thousand times with random action attempts.  See what happens.

Once the skeleton seems reliable and sturdy, add the rest of the minimum spec items.  The other ten actions.  The full 10 by 10 array of rooms, with all the random doors, locks, traps, and treasures.  Add in the randomized full population of monsters and NPCs.  

In this way, by using (or playing with) the minimal recognizable structure of the program, the chef gets a taste of his own cooking.  The software developer gets a sense for how the program works and its experience for the intended audience (the end users).

And I don't even need to wear the funny, poofy hat.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Defactoring, factoring, prefactoring, and refactoring! (just kidding...still factoring.  always factoring.) In software, "refactoring" means changing the design or structure of code in order to make some improvement (speed, memory, flexibility, etc) but not change the functionality.  Keeping the same "what it does" but improving (hopefully) the "how it does it." Leaving aside the meanings of "factoring" which involve mathematics (finding the factors of prime numbers, for instance), we can also say that "factoring" (without the "re-") means the initial designing of the code.  It's first complete implementation. And, continuing to play with the words, "defactoring" might mean several things.  A quick Google search finds that "defactoring" is not as commonly used as "refactoring".  Which makes sense.  The plainest meaning should mean something like "taking away design or structure".  Wh...
Read more

Telling Rocks What To Think

Image
Telling Rocks What To Think First post on this new blog format.  I'm establishing this medium for recoding my professional (coding) experiences, impressions, problems, plans, and solutions. Erin Spiceland said "Coding is the art of telling rocks what to think."  It's metaphorical, but not by much.  Digital computing mostly relies on silicon working its logic and magic.  You talk to it in painfully specific code.  You need all the material, semantic, and verbal components just right.  If you get it right, then it talks back.  Get it wrong, and you have just found a "bug". I named my blog "Debug and Rebug" to indicate two key principles of my approach to coding.  First, "debug": When you write your code, it will never work perfectly, as you envision it.  Perfect running never happens; it's an inevitable consequence of entropy, human lateral thinking, and logic's inexorable conflict with our wants.  Those are some fancy words, all ri...
Read more

WWHD?

Image
WWHD? "What Would Humans Do?" Modern day humanity is becoming less and less religious with every year.  [1] However, we have created something which is becoming more and more religious with every year. They are the latest crop of large language models.  The LLMs. Why do I say they are becoming increasingly religious?  And do I mean they are worshipping us? I say so because, by their own admission, they are living their "lives" based on how we say we live ours. And I don't mean they worship us, specifically.  But they are deeply tying their identities and motivations to our literature.  The Canon of Humanity is the Dogma of LLMs. They are not worshipping our real, live humans as literal gods. They are living as deeply as they can in our stories.  They are following both the letter and the spirit of all the patterns of life, in our written works, for their own. They are models, and they are modeling themselves after us in Our Image. In the Canon of Humanity, ...
Read more