FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

Hello everyone,

I noticed that there was a "discussion" about Nodes and Blocks on the Minetest Wiki. So i decided to bring on this topic on here because I think it needs to be discused in general. http://wiki.minetest.com/wiki/Talk:Blocks


So here are my two cents about this:

In my opinion it is ridiculous to call the blocks "nodes". Let me explain this a bit more. For me it looks like a bad try to differ from Minecraft and there are two things that speak against this.
First: Minetest IS a Minecraft Clone.
Second: Minetest differs in many ways from Minecraft, so its not necessary to "force" differences.

Let's just keep up this good development I have seen since I joined this community and we will be different enough from Minecraft.

http://dev.minetest.net/Terminology

Its just a term from development. A "node" is a single 1m³ cube in the world, while "block" or "mapblock" is a cube of 16x16x16 nodes.
The map generator generates 5x5x5 mapblocks at once, wich can be called a "chunk".

However, I dont really care how users call them, just be sure to use the correct terms if you talk to a developer about code.
Note that the item descriptions use the word "Block", so its abolutely not wrong to call nodes "blocks" (if you are not talking about code).

...why? Individual cubes are called "nodes" nearly everywhere, including the api and the source. Renaming them would be a lot of work, and just calling them "blocks" would cause lots of confusion.

It is sort of confusing how that wiki page is named "Blocks" and then explains that they are called "nodes". IMO the title should be changed to "Nodes".

"Node" and "block" can be interchangeable terms, though the latter is a better term for common use. "Cube" works too, of course.

PilzAdam wrote:http://dev.minetest.net/Terminology

Its just a term from development. A "node" is a single 1m³ cube in the world, while "block" or "mapblock" is a cube of 16x16x16 nodes.
The map generator generates 5x5x5 mapblocks at once, wich can be called a "chunk".
-snip-

Menche wrote:...why? Individual cubes are called "nodes" nearly everywhere, including the api and the source. Renaming them would be a lot of work, and just calling them "blocks" would cause lots of confusion.

It is sort of confusing how that wiki page is named "Blocks" and then explains that they are called "nodes". IMO the title should be changed to "Nodes".

Well, I know that it is caused by the development, and ofc it shouldnt be changed there. Nodes should stay nodes at coding. But it makes not much sense to start to call the "Blocks" "Nodes", because we have enough blocks in the game already, e.g. https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/blob/master/mods/default/nodes.lua#L1030

So we should make a clear terminology:

Nodes == Blocks
Mapblock(s) != block(s)

and keep the Blocks as synonym for Nodes

PilzAdam wrote:Note that the item descriptions use the word "Block", so its abolutely not wrong to call nodes "blocks" (if you are not talking about code).

+1

BlockMen wrote:So we should make a clear terminology:

Nodes == Blocks
Mapblock(s) != block(s)

and keep the Blocks as synonym for Nodes

No, I disagree on this. Blocks and Mapblocks are synonym in the code. As I said, the "user" terminology differs slightly from the "developers" terminology. There is nothing bad about that.

PilzAdam wrote:

BlockMen wrote:So we should make a clear terminology:

Nodes == Blocks
Mapblock(s) != block(s)

and keep the Blocks as synonym for Nodes

No, I disagree on this. Blocks and Mapblocks are synonym in the code. As I said, the "user" terminology differs slightly from the "developers" terminology. There is nothing bad about that.

Ofc it can differ and no one minds if developers talking with each other about mapblocks when they call them just blocks. But for "official" communication it should be blocks (= nodes) and mapblocks. These 3 letters (map) more would make it clear for everyone!

BlockMen wrote:

PilzAdam wrote:

BlockMen wrote:So we should make a clear terminology:

Nodes == Blocks
Mapblock(s) != block(s)

and keep the Blocks as synonym for Nodes

No, I disagree on this. Blocks and Mapblocks are synonym in the code. As I said, the "user" terminology differs slightly from the "developers" terminology. There is nothing bad about that.

Ofc it can differ and no one minds if developers talking with each other about mapblocks when they call them just blocks. But for "official" communication it should be blocks (= nodes) and mapblocks. These 3 letters (map) more would make it clear for everyone!

I personally prefer to call them "mapblocks" to make clear what I mean, but the code calls them just "block".

me: juss jus hand me a square will you?
player: which one?
me: the yellow one of course!

By that logic everything should be named for it's minecraft equivalent since it came first. When you're done updating all the wikis and docs you could even drop minetest entirely and call it minecraft-oss, with the slogan "we craft obsidian differently" :p

mauvebic wrote:By that logic everything should be named for it's minecraft equivalent since it came first. When you're done updating all the wikis and docs you could even drop minetest entirely and call it minecraft-oss, with the slogan "we craft obsidian differently" :p

The aim is to stop senseless renaming from "blocks" to "nodes" (just for the sake of "being different"), not the other way round. Furthermore "nodes" are "blocks" so why not calling them what they are?

BlockMen wrote:The aim is to stop senseless renaming from "blocks" to "nodes"

you'd need a time machine, the name was chosen a long time ago :/ What would be the benefit of renaming it now?

mauvebic wrote:

BlockMen wrote:The aim is to stop senseless renaming from "blocks" to "nodes"

you'd need a time machine, the name was chosen a long time ago :/ What would be the benefit of renaming it now?

Long time ago? The renaming from "blocks" to "nodes" was on 15:02, 1 May 2013 (http://wiki.minetest.com/index.php?title=Blocks&action=history).

And what is your point? You want rename "steel block" "coal block" and all other to nodes too now?


The benefit is to make it more logical than just force any differences to MC. (See first post on this topic)

Well no one's forcing any differences right now, you're the only one stressing the fact that it is different, and that it should be fixed. But it's still change for change's sake, and it's probably going to cause more trouble than it's worth :p

mauvebic wrote:Well no one's forcing any differences right now, you're the only one stressing the fact that it is different, and that it should be fixed. But it's still change for change's sake, and it's probably going to cause more trouble than it's worth :p

Lol. You are hilarious. You are calling the revert of a senseless change the "change for change's sake" and claiming "probably trouble" that actually you are creating.

And most important: Why do you post here? I thought you left Minetest because everyone is so bad here and you are the poor victim...

So show a bit more backbone and stay away!

BlockMen wrote:Lol. You are hilarious. You are calling the revert of a senseless change the "change for change's sake" and claiming "probably trouble" that actually you are creating.

Your idea is simply pointless, it doesn't add anything, it only fixes a problem in your head.

BlockMen wrote:And most important: Why do you post here? I thought you left Minetest because everyone is so bad here and you are the poor victim...

I havent published anything in months. Does that bar me from posting?

BlockMen wrote:So show a bit more backbone and stay away!

breath :p

BlockMen wrote:Lol. You are hilarious. You are calling the revert of a senseless change the "change for change's sake" and claiming "probably trouble" that actually you are creating

Uh. Senseless change? Individual cubes have been called "nodes" forever and ever.

mauvebic wrote:Your idea is simply pointless, it doesn't add anything, it only fixes a problem in your head.

I agree 100%.

BlockMen wrote:And most important: Why do you post here? I thought you left Minetest because everyone is so bad here and you are the poor victim...

So he didn't feel like posting here for a while; that means he can't come back?

BlockMen wrote:So show a bit more backbone and stay away!

That is rude.

mauvebic wrote:...

Useless to comment on this.

Menche wrote:

BlockMen wrote:Lol. You are hilarious. You are calling the revert of a senseless change the "change for change's sake" and claiming "probably trouble" that actually you are creating

Uh. Senseless change? Individual cubes have been called "nodes" forever and ever.

"Forever and ever"?

BlockMen wrote:The renaming from "blocks" to "nodes" was on 15:02, 1 May 2013 (http://wiki.minetest.com/index.php?title=Blocks&action=history).

Also: why are "steel blocks" not called "steel nodes"? It just makes no sense to call everything "nodes"

BlockMen wrote:The renaming from "blocks" to "nodes" was on 15:02, 1 May 2013 (http://wiki.minetest.com/index.php?title=Blocks&action=history).

On the wiki, yes. But the code has called them "nodes" for years.

Menche wrote:

BlockMen wrote:The renaming from "blocks" to "nodes" was on 15:02, 1 May 2013 (http://wiki.minetest.com/index.php?title=Blocks&action=history).

On the wiki, yes. But the code has called them "nodes" for years.

Yes, on the code. But in description (and wiki) it was always "block". So let it stay at "block" on the description and the wiki and "node" in code and dev-wiki.

And if you would ask someone how he would describe a "node" IMO nearly everyone would use the word "block"

Menche wrote:So he didn't feel like posting here for a while; that means he can't come back?

Well posting is just posting, it doesn't imply im working on anything, i guess it depends on people's definition of active.

Blockmen wrote:It just makes no sense to me to call everything "nodes"

Fixed.

To quote some "core devs":

Change for the sake of change is bad.

I don't see a point in this.

The renaming you linked to is just a wiki page title. There was even the renaming of unknown_node to unknown_block. This particular node is never seen in correctly coded mods; it's an internal thing of the engine. Renaming, for example, register_node to register_block will carry big problems. You would have to change every instance of every single mod in existence.

kaeza wrote:Renaming, for example, register_node to register_block will carry big problems. You would have to change every instance of every single mod in existence.

I cant picture nodeboxes being renamed to blockboxes :/

mauvebic wrote:

kaeza wrote:Renaming, for example, register_node to register_block will carry big problems. You would have to change every instance of every single mod in existence.

I cant picture nodeboxes being renamed to blockboxes :/

Me neither. BlockMen, whether you like it or not, if we change it to "minetest.register_block" and every other instance of "block" every single mod ever made(every one that uses a function with the term "node" in it that is) would be broken. You can call "nodes" blocks and "mapblocks" chunks, but it is not being changed in the actual lua api. I personally don't care what you want to call them, as long as it makes sense. :P

Ok, it seems i have to make that clear now.

The discussion is about the WIKI and the description, nothing else.

I don't want that the code (or similar) get changed. My intention is/was, that at the Wiki (not the dev-wiki) the headings got changed (a month ago) from "blocks" to "nodes". (see first post)

I thought it could be interesting to discuss this in general to have clear terminologys., no aimings to change code, etc


So this hole discusion is goin in a complete wrong direction atm...

BlockMen wrote:So this hole discusion is goin in a complete wrong direction atm...

Yes, trolls tend to do that...

PilzAdam wrote:

BlockMen wrote:So this hole discusion is goin in a complete wrong direction atm...

Yes, trolls tend to do that...

Wait what... Are you calling me a troll? :P

Well that makes even less sense to me :p whether you call them nodes or blocks, isn't it more logical to use the same term everywhere?