3 ms·

Another (flagged/dead now) comment also asked this. It's helpful to continue reading that line until the end of it. > > it's one of the first games that is us

Another (flagged/dead now) comment also asked this. It's helpful to continue reading that line until the end of it. > > it's one of the first games that is using ECS and that I also have a deep interest into > Both, at the same time :) > ECS probably been around since at least early 2000s if not even in the 90s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38703926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38703926 I guess if at least two people asked this question, my initial description wasn't clear enough that it was supposed to be a AND statement.

cstrahan 3y ago
> it's one of the first games that is using ECS and that I also have a deep interest into FWIW, I did read to the end of the line, but I parsed that as two separate assertions (with “and that” being a means to introduce the second assertion): 1) it is one of the first games using ECS 2) that you also have an interest in it Rather than the intersection of: 1) the set of games using ECS 2) the set of games that you have an interest in Or, expressed another way, it’s this (how I read it): (it's one of the first games that is using ECS) and that (I also have a deep interest into) Vs it's one of the first games that: (is using ECS) and that (I also have a deep interest into) I suppose I would have written this: It’s one of the first games using ECS which I have also had an interest in. I’m fairly certain I’ve almost always seen something like “[of] which” to introduce another qualifier, whereas “and” almost always introduces a new statement that stands on its own (the exception being in more formal contexts where there’s a sentence structured along the lines of “consider such [insert class of objects here] which are both: [this] and [that]”). I think it’s the “and that” which threw me (and others here who misread you) off.
- CaptainOfCoit 3y ago
  Thanks!

cstrahan 3y ago

> it's one of the first games that is using ECS and that I also have a deep interest into FWIW, I did read to the end of the line, but I parsed that as two separate assertions (with “and that” being a means to introduce the second assertion): 1) it is one of the first games using ECS 2) that you also have an interest in it Rather than the intersection of: 1) the set of games using ECS 2) the set of games that you have an interest in Or, expressed another way, it’s this (how I read it): (it's one of the first games that is using ECS) and that (I also have a deep interest into) Vs it's one of the first games that: (is using ECS) and that (I also have a deep interest into) I suppose I would have written this: It’s one of the first games using ECS which I have also had an interest in. I’m fairly certain I’ve almost always seen something like “[of] which” to introduce another qualifier, whereas “and” almost always introduces a new statement that stands on its own (the exception being in more formal contexts where there’s a sentence structured along the lines of “consider such [insert class of objects here] which are both: [this] and [that]”). I think it’s the “and that” which threw me (and others here who misread you) off.

CaptainOfCoit 3y ago
Thanks!