quote:

---

Originally posted by uilleann:
Quoting GameMaster:
[b]The Food thing... Two catagories "home and out" doesn't make sence...
You know, I forgot to mention that one. Nice to see someone as picky as me out there

And what is the difference between...area of extreme [and] specialty area[?]
Firstly, what is an area of extreme? It replaces the number, so that means that it would supposedly have a numerical equivalent. Why wouldn't 10 count as extreme? To me, though, extreme suggests manner only, in that you do it a lot (to the extreme) whether you are good at it or not. Thus, surely it would be added after the number, and not replace it? You might only consider yourself to be a rating 5 RPG player, but if you play RPGs all day and all night, you might have a qualifier of 5*.

As for specialty area, that is something that you specialise in, and its usage does indeed follow my reasoning above.

Personally, I think the format for qualifiers should be improved. I suggest:
�selector ::= <selector-id>( <qualifier>
�qualifier ::= <rating>(<modifier> )
�rating ::= 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|?|!
�modifier ::= (@)($)(*)
OK, have 10 as a rating too, but I want to keep ratings one-digit Plus, that order, now consistent, also makes parsing easier than before.

I'm also a bit uncertain about the meaning of ! and ?. If you choose not to participate in a given selector, why not just omit it? The same applies for if you don't know. The use of ? suggests you want people to know that you don't, and ! implies that you are making a stand by refusing to say, as opposing to quietly omitting the selector.

- uilleann[/B]

---

ok, i'll do that, i won't be able to do today, as i just learend i'm going out to apple store near us today (near is relative-it's an hour and a half away), and we're having lunch at the cpk there, but i'll try to take it in the car with me and work on it from there

Well, why can't we? I know programming languages are terse and formalised for precision and ease of understanding by compilers, but who writes anything like that when it is only for human reading? Imagine a software set-up guide written like that, and so on.

This is why I still wonder what this is about? OK, so a Geek Code lets you describe your abilities with cutesy precise numbers, but I for one can't rate myself like that (both from the modesty/arrogance/comparison to all others conflict, plus a scale of 1-10 being too hard to rate the aformentioned imprecise opinion on). OK, I concede that I'd not be able to rate myself in words either, but still.

But, I'll humour the project anyhow ;)

Heh, this is almost as good as AIM =)

I am a profcient coder in: C, C++, ... I like to watch: star trek, Baboon 5 (heh) ... I have intrests in Roleplaying, stradegy gaming, shoot 'em ups, flight simulators ... I go through books about politics, coding, ect ect at a unexerable rate and blah blah blah.... Which starts to sound like a form letter, personal ad and/or shortest autobiography in the history of man.

I think that add-ons are a way to get people into the spirit of the thing, and if they contribute to making an add-on, they'll tell their friend's friend's friend and their mother about it... Which means the code spreads which means the code site gets more visiters which gets the GC more visiters (who all buy T-shirt and Snaggy retires early). So, uh, what's in it for me for arguing to keep add-ons?

I see what you were saying about the misplaces catagories, haven't looked back at the site to see if it has changed, because I am working on a speical project that seemed undoable untill I found a new toy to play with. Hey, that reminds me, U, how much JAVA do you know, and what do you know about the world of non-profit arts groups?*evil grin*

If you need me, I'll be in a cave somewhere working on this project and/or playing with ASM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GameMaster:
The purpose for the geekcode is to give a bunch of information about yourself in a short amount of space that can be easly taged onto a larger body of text... The idea is so that you don't have to write out at the bottom of all e-mails:

I am a profcient coder in: C, C++, ... I like to watch: star trek, Baboon 5 (heh) ... I have intrests in Roleplaying, stradegy gaming, shoot 'em ups, flight simulators ... I go through books about politics, coding, ect ect at a unexerable rate and blah blah blah.... Which starts to sound like a form letter, personal ad and/or shortest autobiography in the history of man.

I think that add-ons are a way to get people into the spirit of the thing, and if they contribute to making an add-on, they'll tell their friend's friend's friend and their mother about it... Which means the code spreads which means the code site gets more visiters which gets the GC more visiters (who all buy T-shirt and Snaggy retires early). So, uh, what's in it for me for arguing to keep add-ons?

I see what you were saying about the misplaces catagories, haven't looked back at the site to see if it has changed, because I am working on a speical project that seemed undoable untill I found a new toy to play with. Hey, that reminds me, U, how much JAVA do you know, and what do you know about the world of non-profit arts groups?*evil grin*

If you need me, I'll be in a cave somewhere working on this project and/or playing with ASM.

---

I guess we can leave the topic of add-ons to be for a while, and keep it open for debate,,,, i just signed on with my cell phone, testing connection , if i can get on again in a few hours, then you should be able to see version .8b, and if not, then you can haul out to the westfarms mall, and look for me, and i may consider showign it to you

You know that finding a mate is something I like the sound of a lot, and really I don't think the code would ever begin to explain the peculiar invidual that is me (nor do I hold out that much hope of finding a geek girl who would care about much of the stuff that my code would allude to). Even so, my own site's About page only goes as far as allusions as to who I am (I talk in hints and subtle allusions); the Carpe Geekium is probably the only public place where much more of the real me is known [note: I assume you gave up on me there? ;-)]

Even so, under the premise that the GCC is good, which for the most part I am following, I'm still happy to help with it. I am simply not a blind follower, I want to be certain that what is going on is correct and valid. I am a little concerned about the implementation. I'm not seeing any arguments in favour of my ideas (and thus feel bad when they are used, as if ilovemydualg4 is doing it from the overpowering force of my will, and not from reasoned decisions, which makes me feel guilty), nor are there arguments against them for those ideas not used (where was I wrong?). I just wonder.

A good example is the sudden and unexpected removal of the ? and ! modifiers (*thinks back to BBC BASIC, ahhh*) - I did not suggest they be removed; I was actually more hinting at a use for them. Knowing my tendency to talk in hints and allusions, being able to mysteriously refuse an answer with an ! would make people wonder what I have to hide, and a ? would be good for Nayt to use... (apologies to Nayt ;-). Instead, they just vanished without reason. Pity, I rather liked them. Same for area of specialisation. Looks like ilovemydualg4 looked at your post, got <insert emotion here> and just killed it. It sounded really useful to me, and definitely distinct from extreme as you were questioning.

It also seems a pity that it is just us three... even though the rest of geekdom might be averse to the code, I would have expected to see Hikaru at least, given that he made a geek code of his own. Where are all the other opinions? The willing followers to our scheme? All the ideas and suggestions from non-computer geeks to help the skills, hobbies and professions part of the code expand beyond just computer geekiness which is what we're seeing now?

Regarding my criticisms above (parts a and b etc), I'm not trying to crush the code, but rather seek reasoned arguments in favour of the code, and against me, and get this settled, so I know that people do indeed know where they are going and why, and are not just doing this blind. Prove me wrong, and I'll be content; if not, I'll remain feel guilty for thinking I've ruined it all :)

Hey, that reminds me, U, how much JAVA do you know, and what do you know about the world of non-profit arts groups?*evil grin*
<mode type=suspicion>Uh oh...what is this you have in mind? I know absolutely nothing about said world, and my Java is limited to basic principles (no GUI principles) and a few odd class patterns, assuming I can still remember it all. I do have the Mac Java SDK, although I never really learnt to use it having done all my Java at university in Sun OS/Linux.

In principle (isolating the geek part of the brain from the personality fundamentals part), I'd probably love to code in Java again, but there are a few limitations: a) fear (of effort, and of the mad panic of being caught up in some project which would rush beyond my control like being washed away in a fierce storm at sea) and laziness. I can't even be bothered to update my website, or my existing software projects... We'll see, we'll see.</mode>

hits for this page (not counitng multiple hits from one system ina row)

• Marital status is insufficient; I feel in needs to indicate more whether you're looking for a geek SO or not; you may be in a relationship already, but not married.
• Music: "I am in a profession band" comes under "Listening"? Listening and playing need to be separated. Preference needs to be a comma-separated string list of common genre names.
• Locale: Is there a standard format for specifying locales? (esp. from the parser's point of view)
• Food: I thought we'd established that the eating out/eating at home pair was redundant in that form? It needs to be reduced to a location of eating selector. Even that doesn't cover, though, where you eat out, or what you eat...
• "Computing" does not cover gaming in this, but would to me; maybe it needs a better title.
• OS Preference and Competence (note grammar correction) need to allow for inclusion of other OSes. I use EPOC on a daily basis, and I know others who use BeOS, PalmOS or WinCE, for example.
• Programming should still give more detail...
• Design should come under hobbies, not entertainment. I must, again, once more, point out that there is more to a geek's life than what is covered here - e.g. science geeks, math(s) geeks, and so on (see the original Geek Code list of geek types for a pretty comprehensive list) - how are they catered for with this?
• TV and movies still cater only for a select set of series and films. The favourite geek movies and favourite sci-fi shows topics indicate that there is more out there, so it is not guaranteed that you would be able to judge someone's actual liking for such genres just by their opinion on certain token cult sci-fi series and films.
• Card games.... w00t! Nice to see that made an entry, I mean, the hours I've totalled up playing Pyramid Solitaire on my palmtop now... ;-)
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by uilleann:
Hrm... after looking at the code more, I have these added comments (in order) based directly on the current implementation as shown in gcc2.html:

• Marital status is insufficient; I feel in needs to indicate more whether you're looking for a geek SO or not; you may be in a relationship already, but not married.
• Music: "I am in a profession band" comes under "Listening"? Listening and playing need to be separated. Preference needs to be a comma-separated string list of common genre names.
• Locale: Is there a standard format for specifying locales? (esp. from the parser's point of view)
• Food: I thought we'd established that the eating out/eating at home pair was redundant in that form? It needs to be reduced to a location of eating selector. Even that doesn't cover, though, where you eat out, or what you eat...
• "Computing" does not cover gaming in this, but would to me; maybe it needs a better title.
• OS Preference and Competence (note grammar correction) need to allow for inclusion of other OSes. I use EPOC on a daily basis, and I know others who use BeOS, PalmOS or WinCE, for example.
• Programming should still give more detail...
• Design should come under hobbies, not entertainment. I must, again, once more, point out that there is more to a geek's life than what is covered here - e.g. science geeks, math(s) geeks, and so on (see the original Geek Code list of geek types for a pretty comprehensive list) - how are they catered for with this?
• TV and movies still cater only for a select set of series and films. The favourite geek movies and favourite sci-fi shows topics indicate that there is more out there, so it is not guaranteed that you would be able to judge someone's actual liking for such genres just by their opinion on certain token cult sci-fi series and films.
• Card games.... w00t! Nice to see that made an entry, I mean, the hours I've totalled up playing Pyramid Solitaire on my palmtop now... ;-)
  

- uilleann

---

so do you want to have the first description thing?

Relationship: Perhaps a scale bellow 5 but not 0 would be looking, 5 to 10 would be attached and the number would be level of commitment?

As for shorting your name, not mentioning it seems to be even smaller, but would be confusing in a larger threads.

Just kidding though, sort of. Wait, am I?

Anyhow, my vociferocity will be on stand-by pending ilovemydualg4's next set of changes.

Peace reigns in the topic...

- uilleann

PS geekculture.tk? WTF is .tk? Island of Tokelau apparently (cannabis addicts' haven?) - well, I see they do have free domain redirection... personally, I'm just fed up with the totally useless set of TLDs, and all the TLD abuse I see, and .tk makes no sense whatsoever... do we live in .tk? Someone, please, rip out and tear down all TLDs and build something consistent and useful (and take into account those with personal homepage domains, something that probably never entered into anyone's thoughts when TLDs were devised. .info? Eww..please, does my site sound like an information office?). Oh, and standardise it across the world. For example, a British university is *.ac.uk, a US university *.edu, and a German one, uni-*.de. Wow, how's that for consistency, huh? Grr...bloody fugging mess.

Well, what do you think? How about GameMaster? Or anyone else? Despite my strong feelings on this and many other matters, it doesn't necessarily make me right. Maybe you can see flaws in my reasoning, or if there are just opposing but valid views, the answer is in what people overall want, or in anyone who. I just want to see some thinking here. As soon as there was any hint that there was a problem with those modifiers, you ripped them out. Why? You put them there in the first place, so surely you had a reason? Isn't that reason worth sticking to, or defending?

Personally, I like the mystery that surrounds using ! to refuse to answer, and there maybe people who'd want to use ? to indicate that they don't know but should. I'm honestly not sure, though, depends what anyone else wants.

I have several reasons for picking JAVA and the largest is I have never written anything big in it before.
So you've chosen to use Java just to get some experience in it? And what might be the other reasons? (Hehe, uh oh, this topic really looks about to split now ;-)

As for shorting your name...
You're not the only one :) Let alone the fact that no-one can spell it (copy and paste too hard for those who can't read it off the screen and re-type it? ;-)... Anyhow, in IRC, as it gets shortened to uil(l), I have to set message highlight to pick up "*uil*" to find messages intended for me. Now, every time someone types "build"... *DING* Grr :) All the misspellings get missed, as do messages for "ui"...

Why don't I go with a nice nick, like Tom or something? :P

- [Uu](i(l(l(ean(n))))

[b]That would be what, pray tell? Ticket sales? And for whom are you making this? And does it stand to make you a tidy prophet? :P[\b]
Yep, for ticket sales (group and indivudual), inventory, goal setting, fundraising and the like that non-profit arts orginizations have to go through. It has no single target, but there would be numerous intrested parties (as there isn't a good ticekting software program avalible at the moment - The best availible is a pain in the but).

[b]So you've chosen to use Java just to get some experience in it? And what might be the other reasons? (Hehe, uh oh, this topic really looks about to split now ;-)[\b]
To play with Java (like you mentioned), Because the GUI model for Java seems to be the best choice o the display of the hall, the ability to simply add a applet for websales, and just cuz JAVA is cool. It's not spiliting, the original topic will still be the main focus, there is just a sub topic (which happens to be un related), like the conversation about ASCII in that other thread....

----------------
Coments? U, have you lost your mind? OOOpppss, sorry Tom... :P
I don't have a problem with "!" but the "?" seems needless (as if someone doesn't know what a catagory is, they simply don't include it... The "!" seems to to be a good idea, because it says I'm not answering this and innot answer I'm making a stand. Like for age, a girl using "!" could be saying "Never ask a woman her age" or the like... Or even simplier "Hell no, you did not just ask me that" followed by 3 snaps in "Z" formation. Just my .02USD.

So, says I.

Yep, for ticket sales (group and indivudual), inventory, goal setting, ...
Bloody hell, that sounds complicated. Well, good luck with that.

Coments? U, have you lost your mind? OOOpppss, sorry Tom... :P
Tom isn't my real name, by the way. Just came to mind. As for my mind - you're reasoning is based on the false premise that I had possession of said mind to begin with ;)

Actually, I knew it was a very dubious idea, but also nice in that it would let people add odd remarks to the code when they want to embellish the selector a bit. But sure, just me being frivolous here :)

I don't have a problem with "!" but the "?" seems needless
Yeah, I was having trouble trying to think of a use for "?". Guess it does allow people to pose as clueless ditzes, though :D

anyways....
so put in ! take out ? and put in the first designator like G/IT (Geek Information Technology) and politics?
i want to hear yey or ney first before of new one tonight

from your attitude towards it, u, i dont think i'll put it in quite yet.....

http://homepage.mac.com/ilovemydualg4/gcc/gcc.html

If other people want politics then put it in. Yet, where is their support? Where are all the other ayes and nays? Maybe you are right after all - I mean, it's just my opinion and yours right now, and if we don't want it, who is there to argue?

Anyhow, comments on the code:

• The list of geek types is noticeably shorter than the original - are we covering everyone? Anyone feel their geek type is missing? Further, the syntax for the geek type indicator is not given (although I can look it up from your own geek code).
• The TV, movies and games subsections under entertainment are all indented one level too deep.
• "First Person Shoopers"... ;)
• The new scale is 0-*, with the upper limit set to what? 5 is implied, but not stated outright. More to the point, many of the selectors have their descriptions still worded for 5 being the mid-point; for example, "Puzz: 5 I sometimes play puzzle games".
  

OK, I'm trying to make mine now, and am starting to have problems with the scale: Where does the average person come? (3? 2? 1?) How can I be accurate on a scale of only 0-5? It can be left open to interpretation (we can all work these things out) but there is always the issue that we might not reach the same conclusions as others. The meaning of * is also confusing. How many people are *? Where does * come in terms of linear scale? 6? 10? 20? What are the repercussions of * on the meaning of the maximum value (5)? For general computing, I'm assuming [Stop press - this is harder than I thought]:
0 - Never used a computer
1 - Use one at home or work, but have little or no idea how to do anything more than basic office work or instant messaging and e-mail.
2 - Use it regularly in the home or office and know how to install software and other useful things.
3 - Quite nifty with the machine, knowing all sorts of tricks and useful knowledge.
4 - Pretty good programmer, with much more inside knowledge about the way their preferred OS works
5 - Advanced programmer, etc.

Even that feels non-linear, and with steps missing. I guess this is just me over-analysing it, and that everyone else will pick something that looks right at the time... but then, no, that is my cynical assumption that I use on the world - we're geeks here, particular, precise and accurate with things like this. Thus, I feel unsure if I have a valid point here, or whether this is just a problem only I have.

Another problem I have is with explicit wording. For example, by the description, people who eat at home cook. Do they? What if their parents do or spouse/partner does, or they eat microwaved food? It would be nice to avoid such explicit statements of activity that put me off providing certain selectors.

- uilleann
Geek Culture Code

I like the chances I see. Now to spread the code...

The listing of modifiers should also show this change....

------------------

Home page | Geek Code and Geek Culture Code

• If you only want one digit numbers, go with 0-9 - a '*' for a 10 doesn't make any sense to me. I know it would move the mid-point out, such that 1-5-9 would be the bottom/mid-point/top with 0 below that, but it's better than 0-* :)
• Um... my page isn't a specification page, but rather my code's page. For now, !spec is semi-pointless because there is no parser, but eventually the spec files will be independent of the format. In any case, all the section IDs (Comp, Pers) need to be in the main spec, else there will be no official mapping between the two. I can make a syntax page, though, if you so desire, or maybe you're suggesting that the content and format specification pages are to be kept distinct. ilovemydualg4 may stick to the shorter format anyhow, which does look neater, albeit harder to follow.
• As for my format itself, it's not finalised yet - it contains inconsistencies that will make parsing difficult. The type line shouldn't look the same as a section start, maybe section starts will be Pers[ not Pers:, and reserve the : for type.
• If you're concerned about double (triple in your case, as like everyone, you used an extra post to apologise for the first two =]) posting, just edit the post to add to it :)
• PS, I assume Ga:S means Ma:S?
  

MainCatagory:
Catagory{item:modifer}

but even ignoring white space (like it should) the parser will run into a prolem with : having two uses.... maybe something like

MainCatagory-
Catagory{item:modifer}

or we could just use simple nesting...

MainCatagory{
Catagory(item:madifier}
}

-OR-
MainCatagory
{
Catagory
{
item:modifer
}
}

and if it ignores white space you could chain them all into a line...

MainCatagory{ Catagory{item:Modifier}}
-OR-
MainCatagory{Catagory{item:modifier}}

would all work through the parser (like code through a comiler...)

Also, if we change the hierarchy to use all {} for catagories, then wwe can include them like this...

#GCC@http://homepage.mac.com/ilovemydualg4/gcc/GCC.txt
#AddOn@http://www.somesite.com/AddOn.txt
GCC{MainCat1{cat1{item:mod item2:mod item3:mod}}}
AddOn{MainCat{item:mod cat1{item2:mod}}}

Not so much the spaceing, but that then it passes the GCC and the GCC.txt to translate, and then the AddOn and the AddOn.txt... Then for versions, there could be an item which it modifier will tell the parser which version to use...

------------------
Home page | Geek Code and Geek Culture Code

However, from the point of human comprehension, it would help to have some means of identifying which sections come from which add-on, to facilitate easy look-up; this would not be a problem for the parser which would just build a complete set of all possible subsections and selectors. This does, though, assume that it is not possible for an add-on to add to existing sections defined in the official spec.

Now, some thoughts about the parser:

1. What should spec URLs point to? The parser expects a spec file, but humans (and yes, even Martians, MacGenius) reading the code would expect something readable. Maybe they are just expected to be able to read spec files, but instead, we could allow for:
 !spec ADDON3,1.4,http://www.geocities.com/ilha-G/gccaddons/addon3.html,addon3.spec
Which could be coded as:
 !spec ADDON3,1.4,<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ilha-G/gccaddons/addon3.html">http://www.geocities.com/ilha-G/gccaddons/addon3.html</a>,addon3.spec

2. Another nicety to provide for people is direct linking to the parser. That is, to have the parser accept links like parser.cgi?parsepage=http://www.geocities.com/ilha-G/gcc/gcc.html. Then, by wrapping the non-existent <gcc></gcc> tag around the code, the parser will pull the Geek Culture Code out and parse it. That saves lots of annoying copying and pasting, and beats the existing method for the original code by making the link itself contain the code, with the issue of the code and link getting out of step.

3. Versions. I'm supposing that it will go like this: Parser is presented with a Geek Culture Code, and it reads the !spec lines and obtains the specification file URLs and specification versions. It downloads all the .spec files, parses them, and uses that to parse the code. The .spec files are stored to disc, with modified filenames, e.g. GCC-0.86.spec. For future codes, when it reads the specification version from the !spec line, it looks for a file named, say, GCC-0.86.spec or MYADDON-1.4.5.spec and if it finds it, uses it, else downloads a copy. Now, here comes the problem. What if the version requested is no longer available? The code might say !spec MYADDON,1.1,some-url/myaddon.html,addon.spec, but the latest cached version might be 0.4, and the current one downloaded might internally identify itself to be 1.4. What version does the parser use? The nearest one? Both, and compare? Should sites keep copies of all older versions? Should the current version, too, have the version number? If all versions are kept, then the !spec line would be this:
 !spec MYADDON3,1.4,http://www.geocities.com/ilha-G/myaddons/myaddon3.html
Where the parser has to dock .html from the filename, and add "-1.4.spec" to get the spec file name.

You know, though - this might all be a fantastically well designed system in the end, but I still wonder - if we're going to this much trouble to make a parser to output a more readable form of the code, then something might, perchance, be wrong with the idea of making the code unreadable in the first place? ;-)

Oh, and another thought - just how many unresolved issues are there now? I think we have a veritable collection of them, such as the reciprocal eating in and eating out selectors. I've just added, above, what I suspect, will only swell the collection.

[code]
//Pers:
Phys{wi: ....}
[\code]

I personally like #include or # to !spec
I want to avoid '#' mainly because it's used as a comment character in some script languages. However, from your perspective as a C++ programmer, it makes sense. "#include", though, suggests that you're using old-fashioned C-style mass-concatenation for this parser - will anyone be?

I suppose we could meake the tags a comment...
I did think of that, too, but using '//' for comments will interfere with the idea that spacing doesn't matter, as it will compel a line break after every section identifier. Allowing for inline comments with /* */ would solve that, as would [ ] or even ( ) (basing that on Pascal-style comments). Maybe just use [] to wrap section markers?

Odd thing is, when I first mentioned comments, you thought I was out of my mind... ;)

But, I've not abandoned it. It seems, though, that work on the code has died. What's up, people? New job tying ilovemydualg4 up too much these days?