I did a bit of cross-platform development in C++, and I'm glad to report that Linux is an API clusterfuck in regard to anything going beyond system calls. None of the desktop-related stuff is part of the system and there's always more than one way to do something, and you have to support all of them because else someone would complain that your thing doesn't work on their particular configuration.
> Minecraft does doors right in comparably simple way, and I think few if any players have a problem with it
Ha. This is an amusing claim given that redstone, the whole complicated circuitry used in advanced Minecraft machines, was arguably added for the purpose of powering doors. Years of work have gone into all of the community-made piston doors of various sizes and features. And all interactive components like buttons and pressure plates have to have their signal duration balanced against how long it takes to walk through a door.
Even ignoring redstone, though, doors are complicated to design in the exact same ways. Which way do they swing open? Depends how you’re facing when you place them… unless the game detects double doors, and reverses the second one to match. And each door has to have a corresponding vertical trap door, which can either be flush with a floor or with a ceiling. Which way do trap doors open? Well, whichever way works best with the ladder below them. Oh, which means trap doors must also act like ladders. In fact, you can climb a wall of nothing but trap doors in the game.
What about water? Trap doors can be waterlogged, and that’s a common way to hide irrigation. But normal doors intentionally aren’t. Why? Because doors are the most common early-game tool for scuba diving - a placed door becomes a free pocket of air. Does it seem realistic? No, and maybe they could fix it, but then that would affect anyone who uses doors as entrances to underwater houses, as well as make scuba diving more difficult.
Players argue about the use of doors for diving; they argue about whether they should be able to shoot arrows through the windows in doors; they argue about whether every new tree should bring a new type of wood, and thus a new type of door.
Redstone: The surprising complexity of a redstone torch does not confer complexity to a minecraft door, even though you could use that torch to open or close a door. A minecraft door has one binary state relating to redstone, powered or unpowered. That's it. The redstone functionality a minecraft door has is very simple by the standards of many other redstone-capable blocks in the game.
Piston doors: Can be arbitrarily complex, but these do not confer complexity to regular minecraft doors.
Placement: Minecraft doors are not the simplest block in this regard, but they are far from the most complex. Just compare them to stairs. Stairs have four attributes: facing[east,west,north,south], half[bottom,top], shape[inner_left,inner_right,outer_left,outer_right,straight]. There are 80 ways any stair block can be configured. There are only 64 configurations of a door block in minecraft (as far as the player need be concerned, it's only half of that since half a door implies the other half, similar to an extended piston.) Incidentally, there are 9 materials a door can be made out of, but 48 materials stairs can be made out of. And 8 of those 48 stairs have the special behavior of turning into other material, while only one of the 9 door materials has special behavior.
Waterlogging: Regular minecraft doors have never waterlogged. Waterlogging is complexity added to other blocks in the aquatic update, but doors were not changed. There was no complexity added here. And doors are not the only blocks which weren't updated for waterlogging; there are dozens of other blocks like this.
Trapdoors: Are more complex than regular minecraft doors. Trapdoors being complex does not mean that regular minecraft doors complex.
Players wishing doors had more complexity: Is not doors being complex.
> Doors are hard, no matter how simple the game.
Doors are extremely complex in some games, and significantly less complex in others. Complexity is not a binary trait. I claimed that minecraft doors are comparably simple, particularly when compared to the doors in TLOU2. I stand by that.
> that would affect anyone who uses doors as entrances to underwater houses
Given the current Java waterlogging mechanisms, even if doors acted like slabs and trapdoors, they would still hold out water source blocks present on one face. It would still break scuba diving though.
I don't know that "people" in the original argument equates to "universally", but the only institutions that a majority of people have either a "Great deal" or "Quite a lot" of trust in are the medical system (just barely, 51%), the military (72%), and small business (75%). So small business is trusted more than the military, and basically nothing else is.
6% of people have a great deal of trust in Congress and 9% in television news which I guess are around the percentage of dentists who recommend sugared gum to their patients who chew gum.
The meme is 4 out of 5. So yeah, most of them say sugarless gum, then there's the ones that ignore the rules of the poll and say don't chew gum. Those aren't the dentists we are talking about.
There really are dentists out there that will tell you that if you chew gum, the sugared stuff is what you want. Not a lot of them, but probably about the same percentage as people that have a great deal of trust in congress or television news.
That would indeed be unambiguous. But it would also be verbose and there's something about that which doesn't fit the HN spirit.
I don't know that unambiguousness would even be all that helpful. I have a feeling that all the same complaints would continue, they'd just route around it, as the old internet adage goes.
