Talk:ZDoom

Based off Strife?
Did ZDoom use Strife assembly code at all? GhostlyDeath 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Randy and Graf did some reverse-engineering work. See this for example. --Gez 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Backwards Compatibility
Although I think Gez settled things, I feel like I should point out a few reasons why the "ZDoom doesn't do backwards compatibility" thing is false. While I probably used the wrong word in my change by saying "strive" since I'm sure there are a few cases where we would opt not to fix something in the name of compatibility, but these are the exception rather than the rule. I can't even think of one of these exceptions off the top of my head. Unless you count demo compatiblity, but that doesn't stop a mod from being playable.
 * First of all we have an automatic compatibility lump. If we didn't care about compatibility we obviously wouldn't go through the effort to have this.
 * There are quite a few cases where we would have set some behavior as default but due to utilization of an old bug move the feature into a flag instead. A_CustomMissile comes to mind.
 * Tons of things have gotten rewritten and yet the old method is still valid even if we don't update them with features. If backwards compatibility was a non-issue we could probably remove a few thousand lines of code.

The point is, if a mod doesn't work in the latest ZDoom it should reported as a bug. In my opinion a port that isn't compatible with at least 99.9% its own mods is not a very good one. Blzut3 21:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't revert, but I too have seen the forum threads Vermil mentions. It also seems like whenever I look up a ZDoom mod in idgames, there are review posts saying it doesn't work, followed by another post listing the compatible version(s).  There was no implication of developer laziness or that the port is bad &mdash; how many other programs in the world have been so widely used for 10+ years running? &mdash; but a certain amount of inconsistency is understandable given the complexity of the codebase and the fact that you all have lives and jobs to maintain as well.    Ryan W 22:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest version is incorrect.
It's 2.7.1, not 2.7.0.