Talk:ThingDef/.xml notation "attributes" are actually elements/reply (2)
I haven't programmed in C# but from what I understand it uses the var keyword for "variable". "Property" would be a getter/setter, right? Does "field" refer to something specific or do you mean in a general sense synonymous with "variable" or "property"? Sorry if this seems dense, but I want to be precise. "Attributes" appears to be a term for C# meta-programming--but I wouldn't know anything about that. Anyway, I think we basically agree about xml*. I was assuming that these object definitions were limited to the xml structure of modding. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like they strongly correlate to objects on the programming side? So like the xml structure is basically identical to the object structure in the C# code? If so, I think I see your point. Which, again correct me if I'm wrong, is to describe the data structure in general terms independent of how it's implemented (whether in xml or C#). In that case, I personally prefer to call them "properties". I think that's pretty clear no matter what programming background a person comes from. "Attributes" isn't really that bad or anything, but it makes me think of xml, especially since modding uses xml. But I know in casual speech, when talking about data structure, I've used "property" and its "value" independent of whether we implemented the model in xml, yaml, or in a SQL database.
- I actually wouldn't mind using "property" when talking about xml elements and attributes. Only make the distinction when necessary. Like just say: "definition properties are represented in the xml as either element tags or attributes within element tags. Learn more about xml structure here: <link to basics of xml>".
Again, I hope this doesn't come across as bikeshedding or arguing for argument's sake. I just want to use the same words for the same thing as much as possible to make the tutorials fool-proof, so-to-speak. And I also wouldn't mind learning how the data is structured internally, either. :-)
Anyway, thanks for the work you're doing. I appreciate it!