and a little bit messy -LW
|
|
|
|
good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
| PerlMonks |
comment on |
| ( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Dude, I fear that you must have way too much free time on your hands... I personally believe that you could be extremely surprised to discover how your're both extremely right and extremely wrong at the same time. Specifically, due to my disease, 100% of my time is "free time" but for the same reason I'm filling it as much as possible, and due to the physical impairment most of my activities consist of sitting on a chair (or laying in bed with an Eee!) in front of a pc monitor and a keyboard to read and write... err, well, things: but in this I probably exaggerated and "chose" to do even too many of them, like blogging, chatting, (actually I'm keeping IM's shut off these days otherwise I couldn't literally do anything that I consider to be more "productive...") keeping correspondence via email... all seemingly little things that accumulate however, to the point that their total amount day by day seems to grow rather than to shrink. And I have to make choices: some days I can barely visit the Monastery! So I may have well refrained from posting the root node of this thread, but it was... well, an idea and I just felt like sharing it. That's all I can do: at worst, it will be bad idea, rejected by my readers. FWIW I regret far more the interventions I made yesterday in the how to speed lookups? and RFC: How to survive your first few months of Perl threads for they took me an unexplainably large amount of time and, in the case of the former, a posteriori seem totally useless, leaving me with an unsatisfactory taste under my tongue, if you understand what I mean: well, it happens and I don't want to bother you more with my personal issues. Now, back to the actual game: it was in fact just an idea. The single word that's been stressed more in replies is "useful" which I think to be an error and a wrong POV to start with. Golf and Obfu are focused on writing programs that do something useful for some definition of "useful" and the interesting part is to see how they accomplish that. Here, the relationship is quite the opposite: the game, which is admittedly much less interesting, is about doing something, in surreal way: but have you ever heard about something surreal being useful? Except for the intellectual pleasure of seeing it existence by itself? Indeed a large part of the latter is about seeing if the game is feasible at all. To make a comparison, if you stick with the "standard" graphical version of Exquisite Corpse, players could arrange things so that necessarily the end result is a human figure: just with pieces drawn by different individuals with different styles. But in the spirit of the game, it "works well" when what you get is... well, say a human head sticking out of a boot with flames surrounding it. Or something similarly weird. I would say that as with bizarro, although the latter is a much more recent genre, the main interest should be weirdness itself. As far as I'm concerned, I think there should not be any "goal of the exercise" but doing the exercise per se. Of course, a big issue, which is also a cause of concern to the other monk who replied to me is to make the overall script work at all both in the sense that it must compile and not fail at runtime: (but the latter is much a minor problem, considering that we know we couldn't do anything for it even if we were writing "seriously...") after all there's not stated rule thus far prohibiting me from having a while (1) { ... } loop in the hidden part of my portion of the program. Your considerations are certainly useful in this sense, but I still regard them as far too restrictive wrt the spirit of the game as I interpret it, although just not as much as that other poster's. Thank you for the time you contributed thinkering about this crazy idea of mine! In reply to Re^2: [Fun] Exquisite Corpse in Perl?
by blazar
|
|