NetHack-3.4.3

Perhaps relevant to this audience: NetHack has a routine specifically for this. https://github.com/NetHack/NetHack/blob/NetHack-5.0/src/objn... I think I agree with the comment in NH5 that some of the new cases "probably shouldn't be handled here", and think maybe NH3.4.3's simpler version should've been fine for NetHack's purposes: https://github.com/Vanilla-NetHack/NetHack-3.4.3/blob/master...

indeed it seems it's often a sea of nested if's and switch's with occasional #ifdef's e.g. https://github.com/Vanilla-NetHack/NetHack/blob/master/src/a... I think this is a reasonable way to handle the tons of special cases in nethack's gameplay, but not really "inspiring".

Nethack's repository is pretty great, especially considering how old it is and that it is in C. https://github.com/Vanilla-NetHack/NetHack/tree/master/src

Nethack source code was not closed and license was FOSS. Developers even accepted patches by email and from rec.games.roguelike newsgroup, but development was highly centralized as only a small group of developers had access to commit history. You could always fork NetHack, like UnNetHack developers did, but you only had access to release tarballs and had to rebase against many changes at once. Maintaining unofficial patch series was not actively supported. That is what I call "closed development process". Another project with similar policy is OMNeT++ [0]. Simulation models are developed openly in the public [1], but the development of the kernel is done by closed group. Well, they also have restrictive license, forbidding commercial use, but what I am talking about is development model. If you look at UnNetHack repository [2], it is for

I see your 1985 date and I lower it with this https://github.com/Vanilla-NetHack/NetHack/commit/a1b94f052f... dated Dec 17th 1984. ;-) Okay, this is not the official repository but one I did for us fork developers. And as we learnt last year, the NetHack DevTeam itself has been using CVS only since 2002 and apparently before that, they were just mailing around patches. But of course you can set the date for any commit, so it's just a matter of finding someone who wants to have an accurate commit history and a project that is old enough. Especially with GNU projects, there are probably several candidates that would have a history starting in the 80s. I was appalled when I learnt that Linus threw away the complete commit history of Linux when he switched to git. That was a veritable WTF moment.