So we should all agree with Pz or shut up?
Perhaps, the correct answer to borner's question here is somewhere between these two extremes. Discussion/debate of various EIA topics is not the problem. Cult-like twisting of facts to fit a particular point of view is. Not surprisingly Neverman provides a good example today. He is not alone, as many people with different points of view have often twisted and warped facts in this forum.
While I agree with Skanvak.... I'm inclined to believe what Grognot believes, and that is that this game was poorly designed (ie. is not coded robustly or modularly), so it's a moot point.
Except that Grognot didn't say the game was poorly designed, nor not robustly, he did make a correct statement of how it would not be feasable to open up the program if the program was not modular to start with. From a modular angle I believe this to be true.
Where this discussion comes off the rail and crashes is when Neverman takes this to mean that if it wasn't modular to begin with it must be poorly coded, or just not robust.
The facts of life in regards to programming do not support Neverman here. Modular is one way, but far from the only way creating robust code.
As for being poorly coded, once again until Neverman or anyone else sees the source code this is just an opinion that he keeps repeating but cannot support with any substance.
Modular: Marshall is the only one who knows the design of this program. Maybe he did use this practice or maybe he or Matrix had a different view of thier goal, perhaps different techniques were called for. There is no right or wrong, turning a vision into a language that computers understand is an art form.
I hope this makes sense, I also hope the discussion of EIA continues as it is mostly enjoyable even though it will have little if any effect on the game. Honest, Robust and Open discussion is a good thing in my humble opinion.
You should take your own advice, I never said that code couldn't be robust if not modular. I used the word "or" in the quote you gave.
Again, maybe you should take your own advice, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Secondly, I don't need to see the code. Marshall has explicitly stated regarding several issues that the code is not robust enough to accept some of the needed changes (ie. that "this is hard coded into the engine", as one example).
Again, you have no idea wtf you are talking about, as usual.