Another person complaining about the use of the term "C/C++". I hear this all the time, "it's so ignorant when people say C/C++".
Well perhaps it isn't an ignorant lumping-together of two distinct programming language, but a mention of the common ground between the languages, or shorthand for "C or C++".
For instance, I might say, "You should never dereference a null pointer in C/C++". Here I am not naively referring to C/C++ as a language. I am merely saying that you should never dereference a pointer in C, or C++ -- take your pick which language I am referring to because my statement applies to both.
I could just as well say "types are computed at runtime in Perl/Python", for the same reason.
I think games are usually used as a demonstration because they're more demanding than other applications. They require actual graphics (besides just text, lines and buttons), timing, user interaction via mouse+keyboard, and usually run inside a box, rather than interacting with a page. Games are perfect for the Flash/Silverlight style of web app, which is why it's "cool" when they're done in the HTML+JS+CSS+SVG style.
More standard "applications" are already better off in HTML+JS+CSS(+SVG?). Such as gmail or the other Google apps. They're better because they require less overhead, and run as a web page rather than an obnoxious box floating in a page (so they're more integrated with the browsing experience). Non-game "apps" that use Flash tend to annoy, because they don't feel like you're interacting with a web page (so you can't manipulate text as you would in a web browser, or use the back button, and so on).
JavaScript already has applications down. It's the games that are interesting.
(Your arguments that Flash/Silverlight are better for apps because "you can write whole applications with complex logic" does nothing. JavaScript is Turing complete, so can have "complex logic". Gmail is a perfect example of a "whole application". You also make no points as to why I should develop for Silverlight over Flash.)
OK that's true. If you wrote a hash table in C and compiled it to Flash, you'll end up with the equivalent of having written your own hash table in ActionScript and compiled it to Flash; whereas a sane ActionScript developer will use the built-in hash table (which is written natively). (Is this your point?)
That's true. I wonder how much that penalty will outweigh the benefits of knowing things statically.
Huh? You think this method is going to give anything remotely resembling the efficiency of native code? Unless the flash script language is really badly written, the performance will be even worse than programs that were manually written in flash.
Sorry, what? Why would C running on Flash get worse performance than ActionScript running on Flash?
Obviously you won't have the same performance of native code (for one thing, you need to be doing security checks, which is part of the major benefit of using Flash over downloading and running native code). But there are still much better opportunities for optimisation with C as a source language than a dynamic language such as ActionScript. So it won't be "slower".
Why would I want to write software based on how computers think when I have languages which work how I think?
Developer time is far more expensive than CPU time these days, so we really need to cater to those people in most cases.
(Sure, there are platforms and situations where it's necessary to use lower level languages, but I reckon the wide majority of cases would benefit from more efficient development in a higher-level language).
Why would would the full version have to start from scratch? Surely you could make it so the full version ignores the save key, while the demo version honours it.
That way when the demo runs out, you say "right, either re-install and you'll lose your saves, or buy the full version, and keep them."
The Java language doesn't have goto. The Java Virtual Machine (JVM) has goto. That's completely different.
Saying "Java has goto but the compiler hides it" is like saying "Java has pointer arithmetic but the compiler hides it" or "Java represents strings as a pointer to a char array but the compiler hides it". All kind of true, in practice, except that none of those things are features of the Java language itself.
I brought up those two other examples because they're deliberately hidden from you for the same reason as goto is: they make it a lot easier to make mistakes.
There is a good reason why modern languages discourage or prohibit goto. It's been proven time and time again that it isn't worth the extra confusion. Occasionally it's more efficient or easy to use goto, which is why it shows up in projects like Linux. But that should be the exception, not the rule.
The guy with the car analogy said it best. I just thought I'd clear it up with some more apt programming analogies.
And no, it isn't "ironic" that PHP doesn't have gotos but its VM does. It's good language/compiler design, otherwise known as abstraction. In this case, it's "control abstraction", and you can read more specifically on this issue under structured programming.
It seems (from reading the thread) that they got some of the ideas out of the patent description. Can anyone explain the legal ramifications of this? It's one thing to "reverse engineer" a technology (as they have mostly been doing, using compromised players and other cleverness). But does it make it legally "trickier" having implemented some of this straight from the patent?
Perhaps not... of course, unlike regular licenses, patents don't really care if you've read them or not. You're still violating them. So I guess it's the same either way.
I think you're more like 92% on my side or something:)
But yeah... there's something really disturbing about this. On the plus side, The Age ran a story on this yesterday (that could in fact be what this Slashdot article is about, if I RTFA'd). It's good to finally get some mainstream media attention.
So I was supposed to vote for a government who "looked into it and didn't do it because it was too expensive" in favour of a government who "will give it another go?" That doesn't sound like a very clear cut decision.
Especially considering all the other issues - Howard put us into a stupid war for nothing, for one thing. When there are many issues at stake, you can't vote your way on all of them.
Not saying "Democracy works", but it just isn't fair to blame voters when the government does the dirty.
I agree. FOSS and Games do not go well together, but maybe we should rethink how we produce games.
What FOSS does really well is taking a central idea (usually from one developer) and having lots of interested people tack on features. As you say, this doesn't work for traditional games because we need a core set of features, then polish.
For one thing, there are broadly two types of game - "competitions" and "stories". (Usually, but not always, being represented as multiplayer and single player, respectively). If you look at a quality game like Warcraft III, you get both. I like Warcraft III (and StarCraft too) as an example because if you look at the single player campaigns, they are really just extrapolations on the multiplayer. The campaign designers took all the gameplay and rules from multiplayer and changed the rules slightly in each mission to create a compelling single player game.
It's clear that the "story" mode is going to be very hard for FOSS to pull off. So we should focus on the multiplayer or "competition".
Perhaps the "FOSS game" model needs to be more like traditional software - the focus is on the engine and the gameplay rules. The work revolves around creating a game engine, with all the interested parties contributing ideas including gameplay mechanics. People can contribute artwork in the same way - on a very peace-meal basis, because we aren't actually putting a story together. Just a playable multiplayer game.
If there's enough interest, eventually you get enough attention to be able to start writing stories. Maybe you let individuals create their own separate stories in a unified "world", so you don't have the entire team arguing on the story line. Perhaps you start replacing pieces of artwork, making them more consistent over time.
What I'm trying to describe is a game which starts off very rough (though public) and evolves over time like a FOSS project, as opposed to a planned linear development.
I think the closest I have seen to this model is the game Battle for Wesnoth. This game has gained considerable traction and is now in the later stages of my above model. They've iterated over the artwork a few times, have very professional-sounding music, have loads of campaigns, and it's starting to feel very polished. Technologically speaking, it's about 10 years behind commercial gaming, but it's a great example of community-driven game development.
And I must admit, after playing it a bit, really fun and addictive (and I've never liked turn-based games before).
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on... $10/month buys you your freedom if the country goes belly up.
If the world goes belly up, we're all screwed.
If Conroy knew he was being set up for this, he should have just quit.
Instead, he's carried on like a complete asshole this whole time. I'll shed no tears when he takes the fall for this.
Sorry, have to trip you up here.
While it is poorly worded, to say "the lack is an absence" is valid. That is, the lack itself is the absence, as opposed to the lack being absent.
In Australia, we call this "unwanted content".
Sure. But one is not an "idiot" for confusing virtual and physical memory.
Also, in this crazy day and age, I have difficulty understanding the difference between "a program" and "a website" ;)
Wait a minute ... we choose programming languages based on how well they display in forums now? WTF?!?
Another person complaining about the use of the term "C/C++". I hear this all the time, "it's so ignorant when people say C/C++".
Well perhaps it isn't an ignorant lumping-together of two distinct programming language, but a mention of the common ground between the languages, or shorthand for "C or C++".
For instance, I might say, "You should never dereference a null pointer in C/C++". Here I am not naively referring to C/C++ as a language. I am merely saying that you should never dereference a pointer in C, or C++ -- take your pick which language I am referring to because my statement applies to both.
I could just as well say "types are computed at runtime in Perl/Python", for the same reason.
I think games are usually used as a demonstration because they're more demanding than other applications. They require actual graphics (besides just text, lines and buttons), timing, user interaction via mouse+keyboard, and usually run inside a box, rather than interacting with a page. Games are perfect for the Flash/Silverlight style of web app, which is why it's "cool" when they're done in the HTML+JS+CSS+SVG style.
More standard "applications" are already better off in HTML+JS+CSS(+SVG?). Such as gmail or the other Google apps. They're better because they require less overhead, and run as a web page rather than an obnoxious box floating in a page (so they're more integrated with the browsing experience). Non-game "apps" that use Flash tend to annoy, because they don't feel like you're interacting with a web page (so you can't manipulate text as you would in a web browser, or use the back button, and so on).
JavaScript already has applications down. It's the games that are interesting.
(Your arguments that Flash/Silverlight are better for apps because "you can write whole applications with complex logic" does nothing. JavaScript is Turing complete, so can have "complex logic". Gmail is a perfect example of a "whole application". You also make no points as to why I should develop for Silverlight over Flash.)
"Deverberated" is 12 letters.
OP said "devertebrated" which is 13 letters, and I assume has more to do with removing a spine from a person or animal, also called spine-ripping.
OK that's true. If you wrote a hash table in C and compiled it to Flash, you'll end up with the equivalent of having written your own hash table in ActionScript and compiled it to Flash; whereas a sane ActionScript developer will use the built-in hash table (which is written natively). (Is this your point?)
That's true. I wonder how much that penalty will outweigh the benefits of knowing things statically.
Finally! Java applets are always so full of hassle to get running compared to Flash objects.
Now I can compile the JVM to Flash and run my Java applets inside Flash - no more need to install those meddlesome Java plugins!
Sorry, what? Why would C running on Flash get worse performance than ActionScript running on Flash?
Obviously you won't have the same performance of native code (for one thing, you need to be doing security checks, which is part of the major benefit of using Flash over downloading and running native code). But there are still much better opportunities for optimisation with C as a source language than a dynamic language such as ActionScript. So it won't be "slower".
A source for the quote by de Icaza.
Thank you for finding it.
Correction: You won't opt-out.
Why would I want to write software based on how computers think when I have languages which work how I think?
Developer time is far more expensive than CPU time these days, so we really need to cater to those people in most cases.
(Sure, there are platforms and situations where it's necessary to use lower level languages, but I reckon the wide majority of cases would benefit from more efficient development in a higher-level language).
The second one doesn't sound bad.
Why would would the full version have to start from scratch? Surely you could make it so the full version ignores the save key, while the demo version honours it.
That way when the demo runs out, you say "right, either re-install and you'll lose your saves, or buy the full version, and keep them."
That was the only vim command I knew for 3 years.
In hindsight it was the least useful.
You seem pretty confused dude.
The Java language doesn't have goto. The Java Virtual Machine (JVM) has goto. That's completely different.
Saying "Java has goto but the compiler hides it" is like saying "Java has pointer arithmetic but the compiler hides it" or "Java represents strings as a pointer to a char array but the compiler hides it". All kind of true, in practice, except that none of those things are features of the Java language itself.
I brought up those two other examples because they're deliberately hidden from you for the same reason as goto is: they make it a lot easier to make mistakes.
There is a good reason why modern languages discourage or prohibit goto. It's been proven time and time again that it isn't worth the extra confusion. Occasionally it's more efficient or easy to use goto, which is why it shows up in projects like Linux. But that should be the exception, not the rule.
The guy with the car analogy said it best. I just thought I'd clear it up with some more apt programming analogies.
And no, it isn't "ironic" that PHP doesn't have gotos but its VM does. It's good language/compiler design, otherwise known as abstraction. In this case, it's "control abstraction", and you can read more specifically on this issue under structured programming.
Uh, we actually didn't mind that one. We weren't looking to kill things.
Keeping our voices would be nice though. I like to talk.
IANAL.
It seems (from reading the thread) that they got some of the ideas out of the patent description. Can anyone explain the legal ramifications of this? It's one thing to "reverse engineer" a technology (as they have mostly been doing, using compromised players and other cleverness). But does it make it legally "trickier" having implemented some of this straight from the patent?
Perhaps not ... of course, unlike regular licenses, patents don't really care if you've read them or not. You're still violating them. So I guess it's the same either way.
Comments?
Excellent. Then the Chinese Government are victorious.
It's one thing to oppress the people. But it's always going to make a lot of people very unhappy and will widely be regarded as a bad move.
If you can oppress the people and they don't care, then you're a 5 star tyrant government!
I think you're more like 92% on my side or something :)
But yeah ... there's something really disturbing about this. On the plus side, The Age ran a story on this yesterday (that could in fact be what this Slashdot article is about, if I RTFA'd). It's good to finally get some mainstream media attention.
So I was supposed to vote for a government who "looked into it and didn't do it because it was too expensive" in favour of a government who "will give it another go?" That doesn't sound like a very clear cut decision.
Especially considering all the other issues - Howard put us into a stupid war for nothing, for one thing. When there are many issues at stake, you can't vote your way on all of them.
Not saying "Democracy works", but it just isn't fair to blame voters when the government does the dirty.
That's stupid.
The previous government were trialling the same system. This one is just continuing it.
Voting just gives us the right to pick whose face we see on television feeding us his crap.
"By force?" You want the people of Australia to storm the capital?
I agree. FOSS and Games do not go well together, but maybe we should rethink how we produce games.
What FOSS does really well is taking a central idea (usually from one developer) and having lots of interested people tack on features. As you say, this doesn't work for traditional games because we need a core set of features, then polish.
For one thing, there are broadly two types of game - "competitions" and "stories". (Usually, but not always, being represented as multiplayer and single player, respectively). If you look at a quality game like Warcraft III, you get both. I like Warcraft III (and StarCraft too) as an example because if you look at the single player campaigns, they are really just extrapolations on the multiplayer. The campaign designers took all the gameplay and rules from multiplayer and changed the rules slightly in each mission to create a compelling single player game.
It's clear that the "story" mode is going to be very hard for FOSS to pull off. So we should focus on the multiplayer or "competition".
Perhaps the "FOSS game" model needs to be more like traditional software - the focus is on the engine and the gameplay rules. The work revolves around creating a game engine, with all the interested parties contributing ideas including gameplay mechanics. People can contribute artwork in the same way - on a very peace-meal basis, because we aren't actually putting a story together. Just a playable multiplayer game.
If there's enough interest, eventually you get enough attention to be able to start writing stories. Maybe you let individuals create their own separate stories in a unified "world", so you don't have the entire team arguing on the story line. Perhaps you start replacing pieces of artwork, making them more consistent over time.
What I'm trying to describe is a game which starts off very rough (though public) and evolves over time like a FOSS project, as opposed to a planned linear development.
I think the closest I have seen to this model is the game Battle for Wesnoth. This game has gained considerable traction and is now in the later stages of my above model. They've iterated over the artwork a few times, have very professional-sounding music, have loads of campaigns, and it's starting to feel very polished. Technologically speaking, it's about 10 years behind commercial gaming, but it's a great example of community-driven game development.
And I must admit, after playing it a bit, really fun and addictive (and I've never liked turn-based games before).