View Single Post
Old April 9, 2015, 14:53   #4
Dean Anderson
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 149
Dean Anderson is on a distinguished road
I haven't actually seen their Qt port in action, but I'm aware of it.

In my case, the thought process wasn't:

I want a new UI
=> Unity looks good
=> Unity needs C#
=> Therefore I need to port it to C# in order for it to work

The thought process was actually:

I've been a professional C# developer since the language came out and the company I work for switched to .NET
=> So why the **** am I messing around doing this in plain old C
=> I should totally convert Cthangband to C# for my own enjoyment/ease of use
=> Cool
=> ...
=> ...
=> Hmmm... I could probably do a graphical front end at some point. I wonder what 2D graphics engines are available for C#?
=> Unity looks good. And it's portable too!

So while the Qt front end sounds interesting, for me it's the C# port that's the important bit, not the addition of a front end. Also, the 3.x based code that the current dev team are working on is very different from the Zangband 2.1.1-based code that Cthangband is built on - so they're starting from a very different place. Just converting Cthangband to use the new Angband code would be a major task in itself, without doing any porting.
Dean Anderson is offline   Reply With Quote