Wuzzy wrote:minetest_game is not a game
Then thats where the focus should be; making it into a better game.
But I am pretty sure that's where the devs are headed anyway so the point is mute.
Wuzzy wrote:I also do not understand what you meant by “claritiy in the usage of terms”.
This is refering to how the terms are used in "official" documentation.
When the official documentation implements how the terms are properly used;
the players/users/modders/developers will follow suit by making the same distinction in their own discussions.
This is a basic premise of language/communication. If I want you to understand what I am talking about I will use terminology that is accurate in description and correct in usage...despite my personal feeling on what the actual words are.
Wuzzy wrote:A clarity would be an unambigious naming.
But if you defend ambigious names (the same name for both the engine and the default subgame), then how exactly does this helps here? o_O
The naming convention LinuxDirk proposes may be similar but hardly ambiguous...its quite the opposite. The names are very specific.
The Minetest_game is only going to be confused with the Minetest engine when the people discussing it fail to make the distinction
because they are so annoyed by the extra letters they have to type to achieve said distinction.
Which is weird,because the only people that need such a seperation in terms will be the people developing the game or creating mods;
Said people are generally programmers and programmers know the importance of exacting usage of terminology and punctuation
Wuzzy wrote:I hate it to write “minetest_game” or “Minetest (the subgame)” and “Minetest (the engine)” every time in discussions instead of a proper name. It gets annoying.
Krock has taken to using MTG when refering to the Minetest_game;
I think that can be extended to MTE when refering to the Minetest engine,
at least in so far as general discussion goes.