Actually, if anyone knows what exact processor and clock speed are in the Palm V I'd appreciate an email. I haven't been able to find that info anywhere, although I'm sure it's a DragonBall of some sort.
My copy of Lewis Carroll's Games and Puzzles mentions that LC had a huge fascination with the number 42 and encoded it everywhere in his books (he was a mathematician). It seemed reasonable to me that DA got the number from LC, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Pike's claim was that nothing was coming out of research departments. Are all those examples from research departments, or are they commercial efforts? He didn't say commercial entities weren't innovating, only that research entities weren't making ripples in the ocean.
Oh, and Quake 3 runs at almost the same framerate as my colleague's *identical* machine running Windows 2000. Even the colours and textures now look the same, and they didn't before with my old drivers. (That's actually not so great, as we agree that the Windows look is more washed out than my old Linux look.)
I just tried to order a digital camera today. Many don't ship to Canada. Two had 800 numbers that were not in service. My credit card is fine, it's the online merchants I worry about.
I have a TNT2 and a RIVA128. I also have a tax refund.
I'll soon be offloading those driverless cards for a product with real Linux support. My biggest decision now is whether to go with a 3dfx or Matrox product.
I don't care anymore whether nVidia ever releases proper drivers for my OS of choice. They had me as a customer, twice. They won't again.
IIRC, from the papers in the ALife conference proceedings, no evolved sorting network was better than the best known solution. I believe he had to use parasites to even evolve one as good.
I said that in my agree. The no-flex-hours, dress code stuff was some of the stuff I didn't agree with.
Nonetheless, having a process, even one you don't agree with, is good. It makes things repeatable and scientific. It's one thing to have a hit game, and another to be able to crank out hit after hit, pleasing customers and shareholders. Not burning out employees.
I'm not a developer, but like yourself I've worked on large development projects, in my case in business applications and data mining. It's the same there. If we didn't have a process, we might get lucky and ship a good app, but the next revision would fail. I've seen such failure happen, and I've seen success with process. I prefer the latter.
The book isn't the be-all-and-end-all of game books. I believe that one has yet to be written. But it's a start.
The book is about game design and architecture (and also process). Not coding. I don't believe coding is the most important component in a game. I agree with you.
I'm only saying if Carmack's opinion is sought, then Carmack's the guy to ask. I can offer only my own opinion, which I did.
John Carmack probably won't have much to say as I doubt he's read it.
They point out in the book that most game architectures are the same (even if the games themselves are wildly different). I've looked at the Quake engine, it's not that complicated. All the complexity is in the software renderer and the network code, from what I can tell.
I suspect most people don't need a book of Carmack's level, because they aren't writing games at that level. A corollary is that even if you aren't writing 3D/networking at Quake's level, you can still use its architecture for a simpler game.
What do we do when a major C++ compiler vendor refuses to migrate to the international standard?
The first language extension, covariant returns, proposed to the standardization committee and accepted in 1992, remains to be implemented in VC++6.
The scoping of variables declared in for loops also remains incorrect.
This causes major headaches for software developers who must compile on VC++6. They are useful features, and we wish to use them. Yet, a rogue compiler vendor causes us grief.
I'm not sure it is in Microsoft's best interest to conform to the standard. These longstanding bugs show no sign of being fixed.
How long before Microsoft starts adding new keywords to their C++ compiler? How do we programmers in the trenches cope with this?
Unfortunately, C++ cannot be used to provide linkable API's without either downgrading to severaly limiting C-based linkage or forcing everyone to use the same compiler that wants to call your library because of non-standard representations of structures and calling conventions.
I believe C also suffers this problem, although it isn't commonly known. That is, despite what people think, C also does not guarantee that different compilers and linkers can interoperate.
Slashdot Mirror
He was Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace, and is The Toad in X-Men.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
He already said that in his mind, Deckard was a replicant. The movie itself was ambiguous, but less so in the director's cut.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
My understanding is that it's only half that. There are two versions, one with larger files, and one with smaller files in more directories.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Actually, if anyone knows what exact processor and clock speed are in the Palm V I'd appreciate an email. I haven't been able to find that info anywhere, although I'm sure it's a DragonBall of some sort.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
I get no sound. Tetris, Asteroids, and JPak are unplayable.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
My copy of Lewis Carroll's Games and Puzzles mentions that LC had a huge fascination with the number 42 and encoded it everywhere in his books (he was a mathematician). It seemed reasonable to me that DA got the number from LC, but it would be nice to know for sure.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
The cow book is "Ruminations on C++" by Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo.
In general, I find the Addison-Wesley books on C++ to be better than the O'Reilly ones.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Read it regularly.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Are you suggesting he name his next son Joseph K. Narkinsky?
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Wow I just saw my Criterion Brazil for the first time last night. [Second time viewing the movie.]
Twins... Triplets... how time flies.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
I don't want software that's coming along nicely. I want software that works.
If it's free (speech or beer), all the better. But if it doesn't work, who cares?
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Pike's claim was that nothing was coming out of research departments. Are all those examples from research departments, or are they commercial efforts? He didn't say commercial entities weren't innovating, only that research entities weren't making ripples in the ocean.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Oh, and Quake 3 runs at almost the same framerate as my colleague's *identical* machine running Windows 2000. Even the colours and textures now look the same, and they didn't before with my old drivers. (That's actually not so great, as we agree that the Windows look is more washed out than my old Linux look.)
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
I've been running XFree86 4.0 for almost a month now.
I compiled it myself, installed it on Debian 2.1, with my NVIDIA TNT2 AGP and the NVIDIA drivers.
I've only had one or two lockups in the meantime. I'll likely upgrade to 4.0.1 soon.
My instructions for what I did to compile and install it are at http://www.antimeta.com/tmp/
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
I just tried to order a digital camera today. Many don't ship to Canada. Two had 800 numbers that were not in service. My credit card is fine, it's the online merchants I worry about.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
I have a TNT2 and a RIVA128. I also have a tax refund.
I'll soon be offloading those driverless cards for a product with real Linux support. My biggest decision now is whether to go with a 3dfx or Matrox product.
I don't care anymore whether nVidia ever releases proper drivers for my OS of choice. They had me as a customer, twice. They won't again.
--
Those are the ones we need.
--
IIRC, from the papers in the ALife conference proceedings, no evolved sorting network was better than the best known solution. I believe he had to use parasites to even evolve one as good.
--
This assessment is correct.
The winners only went to the stage after hesitating, and finally seeing that others were helping the handicapped artist.
--
I bought a RIVA 128, then a TNT2.
This settles it. My next card will *not* be an nVidia card.
--
I said that in my agree. The no-flex-hours, dress code stuff was some of the stuff I didn't agree with.
Nonetheless, having a process, even one you don't agree with, is good. It makes things repeatable and scientific. It's one thing to have a hit game, and another to be able to crank out hit after hit, pleasing customers and shareholders. Not burning out employees.
I'm not a developer, but like yourself I've worked on large development projects, in my case in business applications and data mining. It's the same there. If we didn't have a process, we might get lucky and ship a good app, but the next revision would fail. I've seen such failure happen, and I've seen success with process. I prefer the latter.
The book isn't the be-all-and-end-all of game books. I believe that one has yet to be written. But it's a start.
--
Aren't you misunderstanding me?
The book is about game design and architecture (and also process). Not coding. I don't believe coding is the most important component in a game. I agree with you.
I'm only saying if Carmack's opinion is sought, then Carmack's the guy to ask. I can offer only my own opinion, which I did.
--
John Carmack probably won't have much to say as I doubt he's read it.
They point out in the book that most game architectures are the same (even if the games themselves are wildly different). I've looked at the Quake engine, it's not that complicated. All the complexity is in the software renderer and the network code, from what I can tell.
I suspect most people don't need a book of Carmack's level, because they aren't writing games at that level. A corollary is that even if you aren't writing 3D/networking at Quake's level, you can still use its architecture for a simpler game.
--
What do we do when a major C++ compiler vendor refuses to migrate to the international standard?
The first language extension, covariant returns, proposed to the standardization committee and accepted in 1992, remains to be implemented in VC++6.
The scoping of variables declared in for loops also remains incorrect.
This causes major headaches for software developers who must compile on VC++6. They are useful features, and we wish to use them. Yet, a rogue compiler vendor causes us grief.
I'm not sure it is in Microsoft's best interest to conform to the standard. These longstanding bugs show no sign of being fixed.
How long before Microsoft starts adding new keywords to their C++ compiler? How do we programmers in the trenches cope with this?
--
Unfortunately, C++ cannot be used to provide linkable API's without either downgrading to severaly limiting C-based linkage or forcing everyone to use the same compiler that wants to call your library because of non-standard representations of structures and calling conventions.
I believe C also suffers this problem, although it isn't commonly known. That is, despite what people think, C also does not guarantee that different compilers and linkers can interoperate.
--