Talk:Redstone circuits/Memory

T Flip-flops Deleted?
Why did someone delete everything about T flip-flops? And why was the circuits page split up? This seems really stupid to me. Mister Momotaro 16:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably vandalism, it seems to be back now. I took the liberty of adding a proper topic header to your comment. --Mental Mouse 01:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was vandalism, since it was done by Goandgoo. It looks like he accidentally removed some of the Flip-Flop info when he removed the pulse components. And the circuits page was split up because it was insanely long and cluttered, per consensus of various discussions. &mdash;Munin295 &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

High and low
The section on D flip flops and latches uses the terms "high" and "low" for what seems to be on and off. Particularly now that signal strength is sometimes relevant, this is incredibly confusing. I wanted to check here first to make sure that on and off is the actual intended meaning, and that if I changed it I wouldn't make the article inaccurate. Monchoman45 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, the JK flip flop section uses 1 and 0, which isn't as confusing, but could be difficult to pick up on for someone who's never heard of binary. Monchoman45 (talk | contribs) 04:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "High" and "low" are common terms when it comes to digital signals, more than "on" and "off" IMO (although that might depend who you talk to). I don't think they're confusing, even considering the quantized signal levels we have now (as long as you know the subject is a digital system—if it's an analogue system, "high" and "low" have no meaning if not defined anyway). OTOH, terminology should *definitely* be defined somewhere among the redstone articles on the wiki, and editing the article here for consistent terminology usage is an improvement (if needed, haven't read it in a while), but I would favour "high" and "low" rather than remove it.
 * Also, 1 and 0 are more ambiguous than "high" and "low"—you can represent logical 1 with redstone low (= 0 signal) and logical 0 with redstone high (>0 signal). You can also represent it the other way around, logical 1 = redstone high, logical 0 = redstone low. If you're dealing with binary-coded data, you have to know what (redstone) means what (binary) in your design. Some inverted-input or active-low redstone circuits could be said to be a trivial example of that. Laogeodritt [ Talk 05:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to introduce/define redstone terms on the main Redstone Circuits page, and then when the term is used on another page for the first time (per page, or per major section, or whatever seems right), simply link it to the main definition. I have an elaboration on power level in my user space (Redstone Circuits 1.5) ready to go once 1.5 is finalized (articles are supposed to describe the published version of Minecraft, which is still 1.4.7 currently, where power level is only significant for redstone wire).
 * I prefer "on" and "off", simply because we're not writing for electrical engineers, but for the Minecraft community, some of whom are kids or non-native English speakers. "High" and "low" aren't too difficult to understand, but most people think of electricity (the usual metaphor for redstone) as being on or off (light bulbs, appliances, etc.) rather than high or low.
 * We usually don't worry about the output power level of a latch -- if it's on, it's on (whatever the output power level), otherwise it's off. So it's probably best to just keep discussing the circuits in terms of on and off, and only mention their output power level as an additional consideration if it's important for some reason (most of the circuits have their output right out of a torch though, so probably unlikely). Capacitors (circuits that hold an input power level until reset) will obviously need such a discussion.
 * &mdash;Munin295 &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 08:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The organization of definitions makes sense to me. I'd say that since this is the kind of article that will very often be accessed randomly, not read sequentially, it makes sense to link terminology once per major section—even for someone who knows redstone and needed to look up one of the basic designs, they could come across terminology they don't habitually use.


 * With regard to "on" and "off", while I don't like them as much for standard terminology (sounds more device-oriented than signal-oriented to my ear), I can understand the accessibility point of view. I've been working with electronics and programming for a few years now, so I don't really have the best perspective of players who aren't familiar in digital circuits or electronics.


 * Off-topic: Capacitor circuits, huh? Interesting adaptation of the word **capacitor** to redstone.


 * Laogeodritt [ Talk 03:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "...this is the kind of article that will very often be accessed randomly..." That's a very good point. Could justify parenthetical summaries of some terms, in addition to linking to full definitions.
 * "device" vs. "signal": There really are no signals in redstone circuits -- it's a cellular automaton. Signals, pulses, etc. are just useful metaphors for closely-associated things that are happening too quickly to discern discretely. : )
 * The "capacitor" circuits I've seen actually act more like a superconducting loop (feeding the same power level around in a comparator loop) than an electronic capacitor. I wonder if we could simulate electron flow using items through hoppers -- then build a circuit that would cause items building up in one hopper to "push" items out of a nearby (but not adjacent) hopper, and items flowing out to cause the other hopper to pull other items back in? That would be tough -- each hopper in the wire would have to compare the fullness of both its neighbors to decide which way to push items... Actually, I don't think I've seen two-way hopper pipes. Maybe with two lines of hoppers going in each direction with double chests every other space to have room to tile 1-wide processing circuits... Hmmm... Actually, it would probably be easier to reverse the direction of water in an item channel...
 * &mdash;Munin295 &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 07:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)