Closed byorgey closed 1 year ago
I'm kind of leaning towards agent
. creature
and being
seem to imply something is alive, so applying them to robots feels weird. agent
is short and has a nice generic sense of "something that does something". There's also precedent for using "agent" within computing/programming contexts (e.g. agent-oriented programming, agent-based modelling, etc.).
I like actor
for anything that “acts”.
Internally it will make a little more sense for seed actors. It makes it sound like the whole game is a theater play which kind of fits the simulation. 🙂
I'm fine with being
too, agent
feels like something from action movie but I would get used to it.
@byorgey do you also want to rename internal module, types and functions or only the in game type for “robot reference”?
OK, I like actor
too. No, I was not thinking of renaming any internal modules, types, or functions, only the in game "robot reference" type. I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but it would be a lot more work and I don't know what the benefit would be.
Internally to the game implementation, anything that runs a program is a "robot". However, to the player, there are robots (things they build and program), and there can also be other kind of active things like aliens, animals, ... In particular I'm thinking about the
meet
command which will return arobot
value (see #920), but you should be able to use it tomeet
aliens, animals, etc. So I'm wondering if we want to change the name of therobot
type to something more generic and inclusive, and I'm open to suggestions what we should change it to.agent
?actor
?creature
?being
?