Yeah I definitely think if you guys want to expand Cemetech's range of specialties go ahead but make sure to maintain our calculator roots.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Definitely true. I was actually thinking today, if we really want to revitalize the site, the trick would be to find something new and current to focus on. Web development? PHP programming? Torque? You guys tell me.
Are we still talking about TI-Calc? I think it'd be nice to have authors create their own pages that fit the program they uploaded or their style. To keep things organized, that would be done with CSS.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
I can entertain the idea of web development on TI-Calc, mainly HTML/CSS & a simple user PHP (sort of like Wiki, where a author can create a dynamic link easily, but still can't do harm to the display of the page if the destination link doesn't exist.) Though you just being a web developer and not a TI programmer would be pointless (since you wouldn't be able to showcase your site/layout) I could see alliances between Web Developers & Programmers.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, can you clarify further?
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
TI-Calc focuses to much on the singularity of the users, assuming the program was made by one person. Yes there are co-author fields, but the respected form felt distant from the community. It'd be nice to see TI-Calc embrace a grouped community, where you can choose to be alerted for new author activity - whether file submission or project progress/blog.
Very true. As far as the Cemetech archives go, so far I've copied the ticalc.org model of author/ coauthor/ coauthor/ coauthor, but as I work more on the archives I'm thinking it should be author / coauthors, where the author could be a group ID and the coauthors the members of that group. Ideally, groups would be forum user groups and linked as such. We've never really experimented with using the phpBB group concept except for Global Mods.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
We're not in a static web environment; the most dynamic element of TI-Calc is the fact that it counts downloads. That's fun to look at but honestly, it's boring as hell. The number of downloads is nice to compare to other programs if there are no screen shots.
Well, what features for Cemetech (or ticalc.org!) would be interactive, fun, and fit into the current foci?
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Speaking of Screen Shots, I believe screen shots should be mandatory to a project being submitted. It's nice to see what the program does rather than read some half-assed description.
That's all I got so far
Definitely, I like that plan. Admins, start rejecting submissions that lack screenshots.
That's all I got so far
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
EDIT: It'd also be nice to easily edit file descriptions rather than e-mail someone - or completely resubmit your file - to change one error. I also think descriptions should be proof read. The legibility/readability should also hold something to the programs acceptance to the archives.
Cemetech is about 60% of the way towards having that functionality.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
No offense to the people who have English as their second language, but it's hard to understand what your program does when you guys leave out nouns, articles and other essential words (and not all of you do!) to understanding the program.
And no 'All-Caps' descriptions, those just get annoying. A program should be rejected just for that.
Absolutely. Duly noted as rejection criteria for Cemetech. ticalc.org should listen too.
And no 'All-Caps' descriptions, those just get annoying. A program should be rejected just for that.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Speaking of rejection: It'd be nice if your program stayed in a que once it has been rejected. You make the necessary edits as depicted in an e-mail and/or notice on the page and you click re-submit. Your program will go to another que - for resubmitted rejects - and if it fails again you have one more try to fix it.
Interesting, but that sounds like it would take some significant backend work to implement.
I think that its vitally important to keep calculators at the fore-front of this site. I have moved on some what from calculators but yet still maintain an interest (and a large scale project). I think that if this site starts to move too much from its calculator roots, we are catalysts for this depression of calculator programming that we all seem to be seeing. I mean the picture at the top of the website is a calculator for crying out loud. People can go almost anywhere for things like PHP, that's not gonna die out anytime soon. Calculator programming is so rare, and its so hard to create a new calculator forum, almost none of them catch on. The thing about ticalc was that it was a hub, a place that all people UTI, cemetech, maxcoderz, revsoft, and omnimaga alike could congregate and share a wealth of knowledge. If we let cemetech move from that, we let an entire branch of calculator programming die, which is a significant portion.
Sorry for the ramblingly long paragraph...
Sorry for the ramblingly long paragraph...
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
I can entertain the idea of web development on TI-Calc, mainly HTML/CSS & a simple user PHP (sort of like Wiki, where a author can create a dynamic link easily, but still can't do harm to the display of the page if the destination link doesn't exist.) Though you just being a web developer and not a TI programmer would be pointless (since you wouldn't be able to showcase your site/layout) I could see alliances between Web Developers & Programmers.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, can you clarify further? KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
TI-Calc focuses to much on the singularity of the users, assuming the program was made by one person. Yes there are co-author fields, but the respected form felt distant from the community. It'd be nice to see TI-Calc embrace a grouped community, where you can choose to be alerted for new author activity - whether file submission or project progress/blog.
Very true. As far as the Cemetech archives go, so far I've copied the ticalc.org model of author/ coauthor/ coauthor/ coauthor, but as I work more on the archives I'm thinking it should be author / coauthors, where the author could be a group ID and the coauthors the members of that group. Ideally, groups would be forum user groups and linked as such. We've never really experimented with using the phpBB group concept except for Global Mods. KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
We're not in a static web environment; the most dynamic element of TI-Calc is the fact that it counts downloads. That's fun to look at but honestly, it's boring as hell. The number of downloads is nice to compare to other programs if there are no screen shots.
Well, what features for Cemetech (or ticalc.org!) would be interactive, fun, and fit into the current foci? KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Speaking of rejection: It'd be nice if your program stayed in a que once it has been rejected. You make the necessary edits as depicted in an e-mail and/or notice on the page and you click re-submit. Your program will go to another que - for resubmitted rejects - and if it fails again you have one more try to fix it.
Interesting, but that sounds like it would take some significant backend work to implement.
When I first started programming, ticalc was essentially the jump from calculator-gaming sites to calculator programming. Those simple, repetitive programs inspired me to program calcs in the first place.... without them I would do little more than play Phoenix with my calculator....
The calc community is dying because we are no longer supportive of the n00bs; there are few active sites where someone with no programming experience at all can learn. If cemetech garners a larger file archive (especially games, to draw in googlers), or ticalc gets a better forum, a "new generation" of calc-programmers will be inspired to code.
BTW, frankly I think ticalcs archives are fine; its the archiving thats the problem...
The calc community is dying because we are no longer supportive of the n00bs; there are few active sites where someone with no programming experience at all can learn. If cemetech garners a larger file archive (especially games, to draw in googlers), or ticalc gets a better forum, a "new generation" of calc-programmers will be inspired to code.
BTW, frankly I think ticalcs archives are fine; its the archiving thats the problem...
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
I can entertain the idea of web development on TI-Calc, mainly HTML/CSS & a simple user PHP (sort of like Wiki, where a author can create a dynamic link easily, but still can't do harm to the display of the page if the destination link doesn't exist.) Though you just being a web developer and not a TI programmer would be pointless (since you wouldn't be able to showcase your site/layout) I could see alliances between Web Developers & Programmers.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, can you clarify further? some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
TI-Calc focuses to much on the singularity of the users, assuming the program was made by one person. Yes there are co-author fields, but the respected form felt distant from the community. It'd be nice to see TI-Calc embrace a grouped community, where you can choose to be alerted for new author activity - whether file submission or project progress/blog.
Very true. As far as the Cemetech archives go, so far I've copied the ticalc.org model of author/ coauthor/ coauthor/ coauthor, but as I work more on the archives I'm thinking it should be author / coauthors, where the author could be a group ID and the coauthors the members of that group. Ideally, groups would be forum user groups and linked as such. We've never really experimented with using the phpBB group concept except for Global Mods. some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
We're not in a static web environment; the most dynamic element of TI-Calc is the fact that it counts downloads. That's fun to look at but honestly, it's boring as hell. The number of downloads is nice to compare to other programs if there are no screen shots.
Well, what features for Cemetech (or ticalc.org!) would be interactive, fun, and fit into the current foci? some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Speaking of rejection: It'd be nice if your program stayed in a que once it has been rejected. You make the necessary edits as depicted in an e-mail and/or notice on the page and you click re-submit. Your program will go to another que - for resubmitted rejects - and if it fails again you have one more try to fix it.
Interesting, but that sounds like it would take some significant backend work to implement. rthprog wrote:
When I first started programming, ticalc was essentially the jump from calculator-gaming sites to calculator programming. Those simple, repetitive programs inspired me to program calcs in the first place.... without them I would do little more than play Phoenix with my calculator....
The calc community is dying because we are no longer supportive of the n00bs; there are few active sites where someone with no programming experience at all can learn. If cemetech garners a larger file archive (especially games, to draw in googlers), or ticalc gets a better forum, a "new generation" of calc-programmers will be inspired to code.
True, but are they going to have the motivation? I know that most of us started programming after playing calculator games we got from friends and wanted to see if we could make more and better games ourselves. Do the kids these days even have that motivation, or are they just going to whip out their cell phones and play more powerful/complex/graphical games?
The calc community is dying because we are no longer supportive of the n00bs; there are few active sites where someone with no programming experience at all can learn. If cemetech garners a larger file archive (especially games, to draw in googlers), or ticalc gets a better forum, a "new generation" of calc-programmers will be inspired to code.
rthprog wrote:
BTW, frankly I think ticalcs archives are fine; its the archiving thats the problem...
I have no problem with the archives themselves, but since they're hardly ever updated, stats are daily (Cemetech has hourly archive stats updates that complete in <2 seconds, so I'm not concerned about scalability), and we have no good way to suggest/add features to the archives, I'm in favor of the local archives. KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Speaking of rejection: It'd be nice if your program stayed in a que once it has been rejected. You make the necessary edits as depicted in an e-mail and/or notice on the page and you click re-submit. Your program will go to another que - for resubmitted rejects - and if it fails again you have one more try to fix it.
Interesting, but that sounds like it would take some significant backend work to implement.Hmm, I'm thinking of Three Que's:
- Submission
Edit
Submitted
I'm also thinking of a link another user can press if the program needs to be fixed. The program will be automatically resubmitted to the submission que after a reviewer assess the problem first hand with details from a report given by the user whom encountered the error. (with more lenient rules regarding number of trys to fix the problem)
Seems a bit unrealistic I suppose now that I read over everything
There's no reason that all of your different queues can't all be the exact same queue with different flags and such set.
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
[Or] Variables?
Well, flags are normally implemented as a field within the database, which would work out to be a variable. Simple enough.
Oh! Who wants to bet how long till the next update?
I take close to Dec. 25th... I'll put my 'money' on Dec. 23rd.
I take close to Dec. 25th... I'll put my 'money' on Dec. 23rd.
What's pathetic is those 11 files probably represent less than 5% of their current backlog. I submitted a file probably over a month ago and the backlog was ~170...
It's very sad that ticalc.org is dying, as it is the most used archive site for the TIs. I think it's due to the fact that most of the programs there are low-quality...
ZagorNBK wrote:
It's very sad that ticalc.org is dying, as it is the most used archive site for the TIs. I think it's due to the fact that most of the programs there are low-quality...
Well, the quality of submissions is extremely inconsistent, at any rate. They tried to do something about that with the rating system, but not enough people used it to make it that they could do useful things with the rating metrics.
I think what could be a better solution would be to have one file for everything. Like have one quadratic equation solver consensused to be the best. And then don't accept any more. If someone submits a new quadratic solver that has a feature that the "good" one doesn't, then change the "good" one to include said feature, attribute it to the programmer, and still only have one. Or maybe just take all of the features from one type of program, integrate it into one super-program, attribute (and get consent from) the original coders, and just have that one. But there are a ton of programs that are redundant and whatnot.
Plus, I think there should be different tiers of forums. And not like "this forum generally has good coders, this one generally has noobs". There would be one BBS, and on it there would be different divisions of forums for different skill levels. Of course, there would be no rigid boundaries and you'd be free to post in whatever forum you wanted. But there would be different places to post. Because inexperienced users do need to learn and share their ideas, and experienced users need to have their own place. But if you mix them together, you have the little kids poking around the legs of the big kids mussing everything up and not learning anything.
Plus, I think there should be different tiers of forums. And not like "this forum generally has good coders, this one generally has noobs". There would be one BBS, and on it there would be different divisions of forums for different skill levels. Of course, there would be no rigid boundaries and you'd be free to post in whatever forum you wanted. But there would be different places to post. Because inexperienced users do need to learn and share their ideas, and experienced users need to have their own place. But if you mix them together, you have the little kids poking around the legs of the big kids mussing everything up and not learning anything.
Aeromax wrote:
I think what could be a better solution would be to have one file for everything. Like have one quadratic equation solver consensused to be the best. And then don't accept any more. If someone submits a new quadratic solver that has a feature that the "good" one doesn't, then change the "good" one to include said feature, attribute it to the programmer, and still only have one. Or maybe just take all of the features from one type of program, integrate it into one super-program, attribute (and get consent from) the original coders, and just have that one. But there are a ton of programs that are redundant and whatnot.
That's a good way and all, but the realism isn't there. I mean, if there are twenty quadratic solvers submitted each day, someone would have to download each one, test them out and determine if any surpass the current 'leader.' I just don't think it's practical.
It'd be more practical to have each category have it's own page, but only the top five or ten have places; there would be a link to see the rest of the files. And every month the files that haven't had any downloads, get deleted - which would have to be in the terms of service agreement users sign when they create account.
Aeromax wrote:
Plus, I think there should be different tiers of forums. And not like "this forum generally has good coders, this one generally has noobs". There would be one BBS, and on it there would be different divisions of forums for different skill levels. Of course, there would be no rigid boundaries and you'd be free to post in whatever forum you wanted. But there would be different places to post. Because inexperienced users do need to learn and share their ideas, and experienced users need to have their own place. But if you mix them together, you have the little kids poking around the legs of the big kids mussing everything up and not learning anything.
This is great idea, but the appeal of the forum would have to be massive to get users to leave current communities. Even the attempt to just get the communities to cooperate in this effort would be difficult.
And of course there's the fact of determining who's a 'n00b' and who's an expert. There use to be/is a group called the 'Basic Elite,' which I tried to get into two to three years ago, but was rejected; Kerm is a member (if I'm not mistaken).
The only thing I can think of to solve ome18kanal0n3's problem would be to expedite the process.
This is probably illegal, but we (read: Kerm) could modify SourceCoder or a regular emulator to run programs directly from the Internet and parse the code so that it can be interacted with as on a regular calculator, but be copiable and in regular ASCII format (just an idea). For most programs, really, only a cursory examination of the source code would be required before either a) integrating the new features into the existing program or b) deleting it.
I mean, if there are 20 quadratic equation solvers submitted every day, you're going to run out of innovative features pretty soon. There's a finite amount of unique quadratic solvers you can write before they start running together. I mean, you can rearrange subroutines and use different syntax but it's going to be the same thing regardless of who writes it.
And it would probably help if a less eager approach was taken. Instead of "yay everyone write 18 crappy ten-line programs and then dump your RAM directly to the archive", you'd be encouraged to check for duplicates before writing/submitting/etc. I've written my own quadratic solvers and such, not knowing it's been done thousands of times. And that's fine, there's just no need to submit them.
This is probably illegal, but we (read: Kerm) could modify SourceCoder or a regular emulator to run programs directly from the Internet and parse the code so that it can be interacted with as on a regular calculator, but be copiable and in regular ASCII format (just an idea). For most programs, really, only a cursory examination of the source code would be required before either a) integrating the new features into the existing program or b) deleting it.
I mean, if there are 20 quadratic equation solvers submitted every day, you're going to run out of innovative features pretty soon. There's a finite amount of unique quadratic solvers you can write before they start running together. I mean, you can rearrange subroutines and use different syntax but it's going to be the same thing regardless of who writes it.
And it would probably help if a less eager approach was taken. Instead of "yay everyone write 18 crappy ten-line programs and then dump your RAM directly to the archive", you'd be encouraged to check for duplicates before writing/submitting/etc. I've written my own quadratic solvers and such, not knowing it's been done thousands of times. And that's fine, there's just no need to submit them.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
» Go to Registration page
» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic
» View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 4
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement