| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1648 |
C64 Codebase
Hello!
It was a while ago now that C64 Codebase Wiki opened its doors. I would just like to encourage good coders sympathetic with this project to actually add some code there. This is important in order to keep the quality of the site. I feel that the quality is somehow fading a little with the stuff that has been added during the last 6 months, to generalize a little.
If you are a decent coder: Just think for a moment about all those sources that you have lying around on your C64 disks and PC harddrives. Codebase needs you!
http://codebase64.org/doku.php
If someone feel like donating some cool stuff, I could use that as prices in some kind of add-good-stuff-to-codebase-competition or so.
A good codebase is a good base for the future C64 scene! ;)
|
|
... 127 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1648 |
Okay.. Now I have spent the evening trying to do something about the structure on the codebase site, as well as updating to the latest dokuwiki version on the server. (That was very boring and I hate you all. ;)
I am still kinda confused myself about the distinction between "vic" and "demo" coding, but please, those of you who care; have a look and tell me what you think about the structure as it is now. I am very much open to any suggestions that you may have on how to improve things.
The VIC section itself is still rather messy. I am very happy for any attempts or suggestions on how to best clean this up. I am rather busy in these days... :)
Greetings to Jucke! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
its worse than ever, imho. a seperate section for simple routines is very annoying, those should be at the same place were the articles are. i have tried to click my way to the sideborder routine i submitted a while ago and couldnt even find it (WTF) and then gave up.
there are already too many cathegories, and structure is nested too deep, imho. better have a decent portal page or two. if you cant reach the document you want by at most 3 clicks, then the interface sucks =) |
| |
The Shadow
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 304 |
I agree, Codebase is a great concept and it needs a major makeover. It needs a new look. |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Ok, I've taken a quick glance and here's my comment:
1) GET RID OF CONTENT ON THE PORTAL PAGE
- no extensive description of what a category is about (like 'custom graphics mode' has)
- no "FLI pictures can have all of the 16 colors in one char position." descriptions
- no 3 varieties of FLI routines linked in the main content listing
- no source references (article taken from...), only author (or not even that, it can be in the article itself)
2) ORDER LISTINGS
- TOC on every page
- items with contents on the top, red (unfilled) items at the bottom
- similar way (typography) of describing (not item_like_this and Item Like This; pick a style)
3) DIFFERENT HIERARCHY
- Introductive material higher in menu that VIC programming
- Difficult code lower than easy code |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: its worse than ever, imho. a seperate section for simple routines is very annoying, those should be at the same place were the articles are. i have tried to click my way to the sideborder routine i submitted a while ago and couldnt even find it (WTF) and then gave up.
there are already too many cathegories, and structure is nested too deep, imho. better have a decent portal page or two. if you cant reach the document you want by at most 3 clicks, then the interface sucks =)
i dont know but.... it's a wiki you know. its pointless to dump here how you think it should be .. |
| |
Ervin
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 14 |
<off - sorry, I couldn't miss it>
Quote:-cycle table from graham's page
I bet not this one :)
http://www.grahamscycles.co.uk
<on>
|
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1648 |
What about doing like this:
Like GPZ says, make the structure a lot more flat instead of hierarchical. Reducing the categories in the sideborder instead, and making only one section for VIC/Demo/Game.
...and, at the same time, do a bit like Mace says, by reducing content on the listing pages, so they become more compact (and thus more comprehensible anyway, even if the listings themselves (on a single page) will be a bit longer).
What do you think? (I also get the impression that you people are mainly commenting on the VIC/Demo stuff, which is all good, but what about the other sections on the wiki? Personally I think they work quite OK.)
Then again, in case the problems are with Dokuwiki itself, one could always consider migrating into another wiki system. However, I also think that people will always have different opinions on all kinds of things, so I am not really sure that would solve anything fundamentally anyway.
And some more specific replies:
@Mace: Just two questions... There is a table of contents on every page, generated by dokuwiki? (Not in case there is only one heading in the page, but..) Also, where is the "blah_blah_blah" naming you are talking about? Please point me to it so I can see what you mean. About the comment: "- no 3 varieties of FLI routines linked in the main content listing". What you suggest instead is to collect them on a "FLI page" and link to that instead, or what? (In many cases it becomes rather messy to do things like that I think, since it stops working as soon as an article involves doing a demo effect with FLI, and thus fits in several categories. This is what I tried to do with all contents related to sprite coding now, but... I think it failed..)
@Gpz: Yes... Your border routine was in the "sprite" section. I agree that this kind of problem is quite annoying. Of course, you can always just search for "Groepaz" in the search box or so, but of course the navigation fails if you cannot even find an article that you know is there.
|
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
@ Frantic:
Quote:@Mace: Just two questions... You asked three questions, but I'm forgiving ;-)
I fixed some and will fix the rest, without destroying information.
Wait and see. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1648 |
I did some further cleaning. No big restructuring this time though.
I was thinking that maybe a separated VIC and Demo section can be justified anyway:
VIC - General graphics programming (setting up graphics modes, drawing/plotting, opening borders, etc. In sum: Graphics stuff which in itself does not constitute a full "demo effect".)
Demo Programming - How do to certain demo effects specifically (Rasterbars, Tech-tech, plasmas, scrollers, etc...)
At least it appears to me that this distinction is quite clear cut and relatively easy to understand. Yeah?
-----
In general, it would be nice if someone had a look at the VIC page and cleaned it up a little. It still appears a bit weird to me. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting Lots of BitchingThe website is called 'Codebase' not 'Source dump'.
Jeez people calm down, dont get your knickers all twisted.
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 - Next |
