I often see questions with both and tags (or and ).

To make it a bit clearer, should these questions be tagged with a new ?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Prior discussions here and here. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Sep 7 '16 at 15:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you have a concrete example of questions that you feel would be able to be tagged better if they had one extra tag slot to use? I feel like most of the time questions at the maximum tag limit have quite a few pointless, bad, or redundant tags on them. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Sep 7 '16 at 15:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JoshPetrie I edited the question :) \$\endgroup\$ – Vaillancourt Sep 7 '16 at 16:14

I am still in support of Tetrad's answer to this question back in 2012. Not all entity systems are component-based, and not all component-based code is an entity system.

Today's "entity component system" is building heavily on component-based concepts that have been in place in software engineering for years, and I think there's value in continuing to allow the distinction between "I am asking about an entity system" (), "I am asking about component-based programming or design () and "I am asking about both" (using both tags).

If anything I am in favor of correcting the description of and (the former is really describing the latter, which itself has no description at all), but otherwise doing nothing.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't think entity-component uses system. The way I see it, Unity is an entity-component (and component-based), it has no system, and the process is done in the components. The description of entity-system fits what I've known as an entity-component-system... \$\endgroup\$ – Vaillancourt Sep 7 '16 at 16:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .