I fully agree with what's being said here. Is it supposed to be a spells section or a samples section? The funny thing, now that you mention it, is that WC3C has made the distinction a long time ago. I knew I saw a Samples section somewhere, and apparently even they have GUI approved in their samples section, just not in their spells section.PurplePoot said:The problem with GUI is much less efficiency, readability, etc (those are more personal flaws, and especially in the first case rarely come up) and much more portability. Spells in GUI are a great resource for other GUIers to learn, but they are so much more difficult to implement into a map than their JASS equivalents that they're generally useless; it's often just as fast or faster to implement the spell yourself than to use one. On the other hand, however, submitted spells are rarely used regardless of code, so the question becomes whether the spells section is really a spells section or just a samples section after all.
And I absolutely agree that portability is the issue here. I would've made the same case had it come to that. The rest of the differences are minor at best in the grand scheme of things.
That's true. I really do agree with what you're saying. That's something the spell section staff has to decide upon, really.PurplePoot said:Allowing only JASS makes sense from a resource point of view (regardless of those who think it's unfair; you're rooting for the losing team, get over it), but allowing GUI makes sense from a samples point of view. I think the issue is thus that the Hive needs to decide what its spell section is.