Its good to have a Free software 3D engine, even it is on MS Windows. But how can you say
"All classes must be fully documented"
http://ogre.sourceforge.net/docs.php
when you are relying on
"This section includes the full documentation of each class, using HTML documentation generated from comments included in the C++ source."
Generating documentation from comments is a hacked way of not properly designing or documenting stuff properly in the first place. It depends on literally designing at the keyboard, which is basically making stuff up as you go along. This is because the programmers are too hasty for results. Then depending on this stuff, to write up your documentation. Its like making a movie, THEN writing the script.
This over-eagerness is evident in this:
"Make good use of object-oriented features such as exceptions, overloading, inheritence and data hiding in order to improve the design."
Object-orientated features are tools for a design. FIRST you come up with the design, then you decide which of them to use. To even consider these things, before you have decided the design, indicate that the design is a merely a vehicle for the tool.
Things like using established code libraries are NOT part of the design. They are LIMITATIONS of the design. They are parts of the project where NO decision, hence no design, is to be made.
A design is a solution to a problem. A solution can have no principles. Because problems have no principles. If problems fell within well defined principles, they would NOT be a problem.
It makes no sense to talk about Design Principles. A solution either works or it doesnt. To talk about principles is to suggest there is ALREADY general set of solutions to which this design is part of. This is NOT true for any NON-TRIVIAL solution.
However they are bang on when they say:
"All code should stand up to current professional standards"
This is just like the vast majority of so called professional work out there. They basically hacked, poorly documented, TRIVIAL solutions to something which has already been solved elsewhere.
Take a look at how a company becomes corrupt for example. A company's licence to trade is given to them on the basis that they will be of service to the public. The money they receive is compensation or reward for that service. But when the company's motives change from service provision to survival it inevitably becomes corrupt. It is no longer interested in progress but conservatism, because this insures survival. It will not take risk. It will not venture out into new pastures. It is no longer interested in anticipating the needs of the public, but shaping it. It is only interested in stealing other markets, other ideas, which others have pioneered. It is only interested in fighting in an increasing limited space with other conservative companies. It does all these things because they ensure its survival. And, in the end, because it really has no interest in the future, they become a victim to it. They fall very badly, which is the inevitable result of all corruption.
This is what happened and is happening to Microsoft. This is what happened and is happening to sites like Linux Today, Slashdot and The Register. They are all conservative. Their focus is no longer on service, but on survival. They will say or do anything so long as it does not threaten their survival. They think it is prudent fall over backwards not to say anything against popular companies. But not to think twice about misrepresenting, sensationalising, or coming up with damn right lies about unpopular figures. Is there not more to Richard Stallman's comment than these headlines would have you believe? Whenever a public figure talks they have a view which they want to convince people about. Which is fairer: a headline which attempts to achieve this? Or a headline which at best only focuses on a small part of it, and at worst completely confuses people?
It is doubtful that these web-sites can see a distinction. A corrupt company cannot view things fairly, because its outlook is no longer on its services, but its survival. This is conservatism.
Good commenting should describe your objectives and the algorithm (i.e. procedure) you will use to reach those objectives. So like algorithms it should be independent of any language (including C). If the comment is enough for someone to re-implement the procedure in another programming language, then it is spot on.
To this end, having experiences with many languages helps. It also follows from this, that good comments will, in effect, teach someone how to program in a language. It also follows that comments should not include language dependent phrases like 'functions', 'pointers', 'int' or variable names. It also follows that blatent comments like
// Increase the number of sales number_of_sales++;
are not superfulous. Comments like these also make it convenient to someone jumping to the middle of code, see what the purpose of each Variable is, without having to search for the declaration, wherever it may be. This all flows from the tutorial nature of this kind of approach to commenting.
A lot of professionals and middle managers have come to power off the back of Microsoft. They actually DEPEND on the instability, lack of interoperability and unnecessary complexity of MS systems to keep their jobs. These ambitious people, saw MS ambitions, and appeal to superficiality (i.e. Graphical User Interfaces), as tool they could use to rise to power. They have had a large effect on corporate culture, including the News Media. And as far as Information Technology is concerned, corporate culture is all that matters. It inevitability dictates other social cultures, because it is the most profitable. It is no coincidence that MS Windows power and influence has come off the back of Business Machines (i.e. IBM PC clones).
What brought them into power is pretty much what keeps them in power. When Microsoft come up with a new product and want to introduce it into a company. Who do they appeal to? The middle managers! If they accept it, the rest of the company will fall like dominoes. When they want to introduce it into the Home, who do they appeal to? The OEMs and PC Cloners. If they accept it, it will inevitably end up in the home.
How many of those who sing Microsoft's praises are not professionally whored to them in some way?
Why does Slashdot feel it has any affinity to the Games Industry? Especially the old games industry? Why are they always talking about the first such and such a game? They are spoilt and arrogant children. They basically think computer games started with the IBM PC clone, and 3D texture mapped graphics. All things which should ALIENATE them from the old games industry!
What was it that Stevie Wonder said when talking about Pastime Paradise, which was turned into Gangster Paradise by Coolio? He said something like: isnt it funny how all the wicked people in the world are always looking back and talking about the 'good old days'. Whilst paying no attention to the fact that they are the cause of things being so bad today.
"I dislike Windows as much as the next person, but I need it for development."
It just so happens the next guy is Bill Gates!
Funny how, when putting down Linux, Windoze advocates choose to use the UI (User Interface) compared to Linux's. When they really want to be bitter they use the good old 'arcane command line' remark, as if Linux didn't have a Graphics Interface. But suddenly when the UI causes an embarassing admission, UI is quickly divorced from Windoze. Similarly when the APPs make Windoze look good, they are brought forward. But the moment they cause embarassment. They are put behind.
"it's probably an interface issue with the application, not with Windows XP."
Interface is what MS Windows is all about aint it? Thats why its called Windows aint it? Its a system for producing Graphical User INTERFACE application in Windows. How you can divorce the Interface from the responsibility of a Windows system is beyond me. The applications are nothing without the OS, and the visa versa.
MS is going to make up money on free support. Really think about what you said.
Thank about what you said. Damn its stupid.
You think MS does not make profit selling consoles. Selling a product which does not work does not make you money? Think a about it. If it does not work thats because you did not put any work into it, and yet you are charging a full price for it.The console may be sold at a loss but MS is going to make up the money SOME how.
And there you are. Thinking MS is a charitable company. Laugh. How stupid can you be?
The word Windows, was a generic descriptive name given to ANY GUI system where the applications were rendered in Window. The 'Windows', with the 's' at the end, is just natural plural form of English grammer, used to refer to many Window applications which these systems could run at the same time. Thus people would use phrases like X Windows, Macintosh Windows. This is not the say that this is their official name, but merely to descriptive of the system. And it was a popular form to describe them in this way. Popularity matters because its customer perception which this case is about.
If 'X' is a valid description of the 'X Window' system. Then it that does not mean to say it is no longer valid to refer to the plural of X Window applications as X Windows.
X Windows and Macintosh Windows were famous GUI systems, before Windows 3.1 (i.e. MS-Windows) came out. This is a fact. Either X or Macintosh is perfectly within the rights to say that MS Windows is causing customer confusion by laying claims to a word like 'Windows, which was already synonymous with their systems. And they were both already RELEASED when MS Windows was just being DEVELOPED.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
"In 1985, Microsoft corporation released [Microsoft Windows 1.0]?, an enhanced user interface and set of applications for its MS-DOS operating system. This was seen at the time as a response to the popular Apple Macintosh computer released in 1984."
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO -2.html#ss2.1
"The X Window System was developed in the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as part of project Athena in cooperation with DEC, and first released in 1984."
This raises an interesting point about the relationship between a Developer/Artist with a company, compared with a company's relationship with a customer.
A company (especially a Software company) has no qualms making licences which divest them of all liability that might result from use of their software. They divest themselves of any suitability for a purpose. So they don't care whether it works for the customer or not. They still expect to get paid though for the product. They claim they can do so, because a customer agreed to the licence (a.k.a. contract) when they opened/purchase the product.
Yet a Developer/Artist working in a company is expected to not to advocate piracy. Why should they? They develop a product for the company, according to a contract too. They expect to get paid for it. They should not be liable if the company then squanders the product by poor marketing, or sales.
On the one hand we are told that the financies of a company is related to its employees it supports. But on the other hand we are told that the financies of a market (i.e. the profitability of a product of a costumer), should in no way affect the company which depend on it for support.
If a company can expect to make profit, regardless of what happens with the product, after it is sold, why can't a Developer/Artist expect to make profit, regardless of what happens to the product they develop, after it is complete?
Think of self-employed developers/artist. They do not belong to a company. Yet they manage to make a living.
Microprocessors history date way back surely before the advent of INTEL. It is only because of the monopoly they enjoy now a days that so called 'Computer enthusiasts', who do not bother to check anything before they talk, think they single handed came up with everything. History is written by the winners.
Microprocessors and computing in general dates from the Cold War era, when they were used to try and guide missiles (e.g. Billistic Missiles) back in the 1950s and 60s. Long before there was ever such a thing as INTEL. If there is a 'first' Microprocessor it would probably be found in Military research labs, not in the lame labs of INTEL.
Why is Slashdot so sychophantic, so willing to be blind, about people like Microsoft and INTEL who only rose to prominence in just the last ten years? Before that they were just 2 in a long line of wanna be 'Techo wizards'. Both of them have REALLY crappy architecture. If it was not for those two we wouldnt have such games like Counter-strike and Quake III. Oh please! Look at those games very carefully. And what are these games in the greater scheme of things, even in the computer industry.
Some sad, old PC "Fragger" will be trying to justify one of these to play the latest 3D Cardboard effects game from ID. Quake XIII:
"Wow! Now you can actually see the pimples on the characters in REAL, ULTRA, MEGA, GENUINE 3D, as supposed to fake ass crap that GeForce II produces now."
"You cannot play a decent game nowadays which does not run at 2000 FPS, with full ray-tracing."
"Every console maker's profits are nearly all in software sales. Hardware has traditionally been a loss of money.."
PS2 devkit cost 40000 pounds sterling. A loss? A PS2 cost 300 pounds sterling. For about 200 hundred pounds more you can buy a second hand 500 Mhz PC with twice the processing speed and 4 timers the memory capacity. We wont even mention the difference in hard-disk space. A loss?
Did the first generation of console makers like Atari take a cut of each ISVs royalties and sales? Did they have as much control on the content of games and what did not meet their standards? Highly unlikely!
This assumes that Commercial game companies think of the Users welfare before they adopt a platform. But is that True? Isnt in fact the other way around? They look at how well the sales of games are on a particular platform, and then they jump on it. Did the companies who signed up for the X-box, before its specs where even finalised, think about their Users welfare before hand? How could they think about that, when the hardware wasnt out yet. Same goes for DreamCast. Same goes for PS2.
Do companies care about the DLL hell problems Users have on Windows PCs? Or with incompatible graphics cards? Or the flakiness of DirectX? Do the companies care about the re-boots and re-installs their Customers go through? Or do they only care about the hard cold cash?
Is it that Linux is not easy to use? Or are you in fact comparing installing Linux with using Windows pre-installed? How can a system be usable when its constantly crashing? How many AVERAGE Users know what to do when a game does not install properly or does not work properly on Windows? Don't they just call up and ask for help? Why is it inconcievable that they do it for the Operating System as well?
Define Average Gamer/User? Is it someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about computers? In which case, what difference does it make to them, whethere its Linux or Windows! Is it someone with little experience, and is not likely to learn or remain in the gaming scene for long? Do you think the bulk of Game buying public? Or is it someone who has many years of experience, and has bought many games over this period? A hardcore gamer, with NO experience of installing Windows, or other systems? Who does not want just that bit more speed and stability from their system?
To tell the truth, without their multi-player features, which any 2D, 3D isometric, even text-based game can excel at, ID/Quake and Unreal Tournament and Co have NOTHING to recommend them. They are no less SURREAL and a matter of ESOTERIC taste than Dragon's drawn with ASCII "D"s, or watching attack messages on MUDs, or mono-coloured 3D isometric terrains, with their strafe-left and right, while bouncing up and down, and holding 1 ton bazooka, cold 3D-card board effects pieces of crap.
The fact that Linux does or does not have these games is not a loss. As time goes by Game developers will realise what a waste of time and poor service they have given the Customers because of poor-design of Windows. Flakey games, which crash constantly. Or work fine on one machine, but have inexplicable glitches on another. DirectX and all the kludges and work-arounds they have to deal with, delaying release dates. A fact aggravated further by the constant obsession with graphics over game play.
The PS2 does not hold out much hope either. Its a pain in the arse to develop on, even worse than a PS1. The kernel and library keeps changing. Its poorly documented, and what there is is mainly low-level assembly language and electronic circuit diagrams. More than half of the sample programs are in Japanese. You have to grope around in the dark, until you stumble upon a solution, which does not behave quite as document. It is very much like Win32 SDK and DirectX programming that light. All of these will indirectly effect the users as games release dates gets pushed further back, and the end-result is not worth the time waiting for it.
Linux is not just a case of technological change but of cultural change as well. Since people can see the Open Source code, it is no longer beneficial to write poor underlying code, and obscure it in a binary. This will badly effect progress. So hopefully the underlying, and final product should be better all through for the User. This is of course assuming Game companies adopt the Open Source philosophy.
If Kids will stick with what they know, then why did they move from the 8-bit/16-bit platforms to DOS/PCs? Why did they move from DOS to Windows? Why they move from 3.11 to '95'? '95 to '98? '98 to ? What? What is that you are saying? All the KIDs in all the classes move INSTANTLY from one-setup to another? There was NO migration period?
ONE advantage of Linux over Windoze? Stability, Price, Speed, Price, Freedom, Price, availability across more platforms, Oh, did we mention Price? I guess what you are saying will come TRUE if KIDs become more STUPID as they grow up and, not as common sense dictates, that they actually learn to use their brain.
"Hey computers are easy! They give you a pretty blue-screen, and you don't have to worry about saving your work or recovering, because you cannot. Just follow the 3 Rs: Re-boot, Re-install, Re-instal Windoze!!! Aint modern technology grand?"
We all get more than a little over enthusiastic for "modern" technology, and think it can solve all the worlds problems.
However, "modern" equipment malfunctions with unpredictability, and it gets outdated even more quickly, than its predecessors. We all like to exagerrate how inexpensive Intel PCs are nowadays, and how widely available they are. Forgetting that more than half of the World's population have never used a telephone before, let alone connect up to the Internet.
Forgetting of course that when the first PC came out they were 2000 (UK pound sterling) and today the standard PC you get from shops are still at least 1000 (UK pound sterling). Showing virtually no change in price. Where as the equivalent 8-bit machines have dropped from 200(?) pounds in price to 50?
Forgetting of course, because PCs are so expensive, cheap (and technically inferior) game consoles systems like Sony and Dreamcast can undercut PC games, and claim a Lion's share of the market easily.
Lets not forget that the PC CPU architecture pre-dates even the 8-bit machines, and is from the 1970s, hardly "modern". All the parts are a mish mash from different manufacturers, that the whole is less than sum of the parts.
The 8-bit computers layed the foundation on which the modern PC market is built on. You cannot cast aspertions on their character without casting them on the modern market which lives off the inheritance.
"A disciple is not greater than his teacher, but at his best will be like his teacher".
Modern PCs will be AT BEST as fun, as simple, as cheap, as plural, and widely availabe as their 8-bit benefactors. The fact that they fall short of this is part of the problem here.
It is indeed an honour to meet someone who is not in awe of 3D card-board effects in the gaming industry.
What do you need to create a good game? Good enough representation to get your ideas across, this can be 2D, 3D isometric, text, or (depending on your idea being completely useless without it) perspective, texture-mapped, 3D-vector graphics.
The top-10 best selling game franchises include: The Sims, Championship manager, Command and Conquer, (and here in the UK) Who wants to be a millionaire? Some of the other best sellers are variation of these. These games are either 3D isometric or text (with 2D backdrops and coloured fonts). The vast majority of games probably are 3D cardboard effect games with little chance of success, as Good game developers, and public in general, realise that you do not need Cardboard effects to be a good game.
Good ridance to the 3D-cardboard industry, and heres hoping for a restoration of balance and sanity in the game industry once again. Here is to definitions of gameplay which do not include superfulous graphics. Here are to games of the future whose representation is not predefined before the game is even written.
Yes! High-end UNIX applications do operate on this licence. But two crucial things:
(1) These are quality applications. No terrible bugs or security holes or bloat like the MS version
(2) these are not mainstream applications.
To say a "lot" of applications use this form, is being disingenuous? A more accurate description would be a few niche markets.
Another thing is the capabilities of these packages. Even MS Office in all in its bloated glory is not capable of the features that these other applications are. These applications are far to huge to sell at one price. You could argue that MS Office is too huge as well, but there are competitors which still manage too, so why can't they?
How much is a truely good program or piece of work worth? But is MS Office truely good?
Your reaction to something which has a less than stellar performance is the re-define the criteria in which to consider it a success. Where as those who believe in Linux insist on higher stands, when faced with failure, your attitide is to LOWER your standards till you reach a level, and assert disinterest, by which you can define ANYTHING as a success.
If you really do not care about the issue so much then why do you bother to argue or paticipate in an argument? It is acceptable to be ignorant about an issue but to declaim your disinterest and ignorance about the issue so loudly is another matter.
User friendliness DOES have something to do with the workmanship of a product. If a product takes that much more effort to stay up, ESPECIALLY beyond the extent to which it is required, then it will DEFINITELY take the effort to excel in areas that is required. Failure in this area affects the availability of applications, once they are running.
Is the FAILURE of an OS, beyond a certain time duration:
(a) a request of Users?
(b) a FALSE generalisation by yourself to paclate your ZEALOUSNESS for mediocre software?
(c) an escape clause for people who develop mediocre software?
Ask yourself whose interest does it serve? Who profits from this upper limit?
If someone was about to set out on a journey, which was only going to be 10000 miles. He had no plans to travel any further than that. What do you think he would buy? A car which travels 10000 miles then stops permanently, or one which travels 20000 miles (and cast less than the former one)?
"Nobody CARES if the OS stays up for more than 49 days or not."
Great idea! Charlie Brown, or probably Linus in particular would be a great mascot for Linux. The Penguin is a good mascot, but Linus more PRECISELY captures the child like innocence, and trust, that GNU/Linux has brought back to computing.
Any product which fails after 49 days is rubbish. How can an Operating System be User-friendly which dies after 49 days? It is pretty ridiculous state of affairs. Yeah! There are problems with all software, the point is they are fixed BEFORE they are released. Surely Win '98 testing period lasted more than 49 days!
Would you buy a car which was doomed to crash after 49 days, so long as the manufacture provided a patch for it?
Something that crashes after 49 days is embarassing, no matter who did it. Sure, bring up the point about RedHat. Its embarassing for Redhat too. It makes NO difference except perclating your vain pride in a crappy software.
Any attack on the current state of games, quickly degenerates into cries of "don't be such a nostalgic, old fool" . But the guy writing the piece ACTUALLY works in games industry, unlike those who consider themselves "up-with-the times". He does present practical problems, which can't easily be dismissed as "nostalgic". People do not complain about the current state JUST because they want to return to the past. They may do so because they want a better FUTURE. But that is to be expected of those who think 3D card-board effects are realistic. He ends by saying:
"Okay, that's over the top. But there are certain design considerations and rules that come into play once you start down the "player in a world" path, and those considerations tend to conflict with games that don't fit that model. In many ways, the desire to architect explorable worlds inside the computer is at odds with what can be categorized as game design, the selection of rules and interactions that result in something that's fun to pick up and play. "
Nothing kills the creative process more quickly than NARROW mindedness. This is what those who cannot see this as anything but a nostalgic plea suffer from. That is what those who think the only valid goal is Virtual reality also suffer from.
Some of the post mentioned the Art World. Are the post-Raphaelite (more realistic works) superior to the pre-Raphaelites? Even in the artistic world, no one would dare say that 2D designs are inferior to 3D. Occassionaly, you get 2D pictures, some abstract pictures which would make a Cave-man blush, some black and white pictures. They still sell, because the Art World does not suffer from Narrow mindedness. The Computer Games industry TODAY does, when compared to their predecessors. A good game is a good game. Does not matter what time it was made in. If it was fun then, it would be fun now. Look at Chess, Draughts, Athletics.
Also if the goal of realism is to EXACTLY capture reality, how can realistic games be immersive? If they are EXACTLY like reality, you have not escaped anywhere, but simply back where you started. Perhaps this is the contradiction the article was hinting at the end.
One more thing. Being happy and free is a pre-requisite of being creative, especially creating FUN games. How can you give others the pleasure when you yourselves are unhappy? OK! Now ask yourselves this are today's developers happy? In the light of the censorship rights Sony, Sega and Nintendo excercise over their consoles? In the light of the long hours and terrible contracts employees in the Game Industry have to work under? In the light of the defections, sackings, and law suits you hear in the news?
There was darkness within. Now there is darkness without (the old games).
What do you think takes up the most amount in a game code? The physics modelling or the graphics? What about the rendering? Let's not forget that it has to load the DirectX DLLs to do the rendering too.
If you bought a car, and it had a mini-caravan tacked on the back, and someone pointed out to you that you were dragging a mini-caravan in the back, except it had no doors, and no one could live in it, would you turn around and say "Are you smoking crack? Thats not a real caravan!" or would you remove the caravan?
When was the last time you saw Asteroids in a 3d-texture mapped graphics form? Which also took up an insignificant ammount of graphics?
Technically speaking, asteroids is more fun to play, and takes up FAR less memory, but it was a good MS apologist tact to take none-the-less.
Slashdot Mirror
Its good to have a Free software 3D engine, even it is on MS Windows. But how can you say
"All classes must be fully documented"
http://ogre.sourceforge.net/docs.php
when you are relying on
"This section includes the full documentation of each class, using HTML documentation generated from comments included in the C++ source."
Generating documentation from comments is a hacked way of not properly designing or documenting
stuff properly in the first place. It depends on literally designing at the keyboard, which
is basically making stuff up as you go along. This is because the programmers are too hasty
for results. Then depending on this stuff, to write up your documentation. Its like making
a movie, THEN writing the script.
This over-eagerness is evident in this:
"Make good use of object-oriented features such as exceptions, overloading, inheritence and data hiding in order to improve the design."
Object-orientated features are tools for a design. FIRST you come up with the design, then
you decide which of them to use. To even consider these things, before you have decided
the design, indicate that the design is a merely a vehicle for the tool.
Things like using established code libraries are NOT part of the design.
They are LIMITATIONS of the design. They are parts of the project where NO decision, hence
no design, is to be made.
A design is a solution to a problem. A solution can have no principles. Because problems
have no principles. If problems fell within well defined principles, they would NOT be
a problem.
It makes no sense to talk about Design Principles. A solution either works or it doesnt.
To talk about principles is to suggest there is ALREADY general set of solutions to which
this design is part of. This is NOT true for any NON-TRIVIAL solution.
However they are bang on when they say:
"All code should stand up to current professional standards"
This is just like the vast majority of so called professional work out there. They
basically hacked, poorly documented, TRIVIAL solutions to something which has already
been solved elsewhere.
Rod.
All forms of conservatism leads to corruption.
Take a look at how a company becomes corrupt for example. A company's licence
to trade is given to them on the basis that they will be of service to the
public. The money they receive is compensation or reward for that service.
But when the company's motives change from service provision to survival
it inevitably becomes corrupt. It is no longer interested in progress but
conservatism, because this insures survival. It will not take risk. It will
not venture out into new pastures. It is no longer interested in anticipating
the needs of the public, but shaping it. It is only interested in stealing
other markets, other ideas, which others have pioneered. It is only interested
in fighting in an increasing limited space with other conservative companies.
It does all these things because they ensure its survival. And, in the end,
because it really has no interest in the future, they become a victim to it.
They fall very badly, which is the inevitable result of all corruption.
This is what happened and is happening to Microsoft. This is what happened
and is happening to sites like Linux Today, Slashdot and The Register. They
are all conservative. Their focus is no longer on service, but on survival.
They will say or do anything so long as it does not threaten their survival.
They think it is prudent fall over backwards not to say anything against
popular companies. But not to think twice about misrepresenting,
sensationalising, or coming up with damn right lies about unpopular figures.
Is there not more to Richard Stallman's comment than these headlines would
have you believe? Whenever a public figure talks they have a view which they
want to convince people about. Which is fairer: a headline which attempts to
achieve this? Or a headline which at best only focuses on a small part of it,
and at worst completely confuses people?
It is doubtful that these web-sites can see a distinction. A corrupt company
cannot view things fairly, because its outlook is no longer on its services,
but its survival. This is conservatism.
Rod.
Good commenting should describe your objectives and the algorithm (i.e. procedure) you will use to reach those objectives. So like algorithms it should be independent of any language (including C). If the comment is enough for someone to re-implement the procedure in another programming language, then it is spot on.
To this end, having experiences with many languages helps. It also follows from this, that good comments will, in effect, teach someone how to program in a language. It also follows that comments should not include language dependent phrases like 'functions', 'pointers', 'int' or variable names. It also follows that blatent comments like
// Increase the number of sales
number_of_sales++;
are not superfulous. Comments like these also make it convenient to someone jumping to the middle of code, see what the purpose of each Variable is, without having to search for the declaration, wherever it may be. This all flows from the tutorial nature of this kind of approach to commenting.
Ignorant people love them. Its all they know. That tells you a lot about them right there!
Any decent Computer Science student would bulk at their products. They never did appeal to CS students.
Rod.
A lot of professionals and middle managers have come to power off the back of Microsoft. They actually DEPEND on the instability, lack of interoperability and unnecessary complexity of MS systems to keep their jobs. These ambitious people, saw MS ambitions, and appeal to superficiality (i.e. Graphical User Interfaces), as tool they could use to rise to power. They have had a large effect on corporate culture, including the News Media. And as far as Information Technology is concerned, corporate culture is all that matters. It inevitability dictates other social cultures, because it is the most profitable. It is no coincidence that MS Windows power and influence has come off the back of Business Machines (i.e. IBM PC clones).
What brought them into power is pretty much what keeps them in power. When Microsoft come up with a new product and want to introduce it into a company. Who do they appeal to? The middle managers! If they accept it, the rest of the company will fall like dominoes. When they want to introduce it into the Home, who do they appeal to? The OEMs and PC Cloners. If they accept it, it will inevitably end up in the home.
How many of those who sing Microsoft's praises are not professionally whored to them in some way?
Rod.
Why does Slashdot feel it has any affinity to the Games Industry? Especially the old games industry? Why are they always talking about the first such and such a game? They are spoilt and arrogant children. They basically think computer games started with the IBM PC clone, and 3D texture mapped graphics. All things which should ALIENATE them from the old games industry!
What was it that Stevie Wonder said when talking about Pastime Paradise, which was turned into Gangster Paradise by Coolio? He said something like: isnt it funny how all the wicked people in the world are always looking back and talking about the 'good old days'. Whilst paying no attention to the fact that they are the cause of things being so bad today.
Rod.
"I dislike Windows as much as the next person, but I need it for development."
It just so happens the next guy is Bill Gates!
Funny how, when putting down Linux, Windoze advocates choose to use the UI (User Interface) compared to Linux's. When they really want to be bitter they use the good old 'arcane command line' remark, as if Linux didn't have a Graphics Interface. But suddenly when the UI causes an embarassing admission, UI is quickly divorced from Windoze. Similarly when the APPs make Windoze look good, they are brought forward. But the moment they cause embarassment. They are put behind.
"it's probably an interface issue with the application, not with Windows XP."
Interface is what MS Windows is all about aint it? Thats why its called Windows aint it? Its a system for producing Graphical User INTERFACE application in Windows. How you can divorce the Interface from the responsibility of a Windows system is beyond me. The applications are nothing without the OS, and the visa versa.
Rod.
Wow! Actually think about what you said.
MS is going to make up money on free support. Really think about what you said.
Thank about what you said. Damn its stupid.
You think MS does not make profit selling consoles. Selling a product which does not work does not make you money? Think a about it. If it does not work thats because you did not put any work into it, and yet you are charging a full price for it.The console may be sold at a loss but MS is going to make up the money SOME how.
And there you are. Thinking MS is a charitable company. Laugh. How stupid can you be?
Rod.
The word Windows, was a generic descriptive name given to ANY GUI system where the applications were rendered in Window. The 'Windows', with the 's' at the end, is just natural plural form of English grammer, used to refer to many Window applications which these systems could run at the same time. Thus people would use phrases like X Windows, Macintosh Windows. This is not the say that this is their official name, but merely to descriptive of the system. And it was a popular form to describe them in this way. Popularity matters because its customer perception which this case is about.
O -2 .html#ss2.1
If 'X' is a valid description of the 'X Window' system. Then it that does not mean to say it is no longer valid to refer to the plural of X Window applications as X Windows.
X Windows and Macintosh Windows were famous GUI systems, before Windows 3.1 (i.e. MS-Windows) came out. This is a fact. Either X or Macintosh is perfectly within the rights to say that MS Windows is causing customer confusion by laying claims to a word like 'Windows, which was already synonymous with their systems. And they were both already RELEASED when MS Windows was just being DEVELOPED.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
"In 1985, Microsoft corporation released [Microsoft Windows 1.0]?, an enhanced user interface and set of applications for its MS-DOS operating system. This was seen at the time as a response to the popular Apple Macintosh computer released in 1984."
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWT
"The X Window System was developed in the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as part of project Athena in cooperation with DEC, and first released in 1984."
Rod.
This raises an interesting point about the relationship between a Developer/Artist with a company, compared with a company's relationship with a customer.
A company (especially a Software company) has no qualms making licences which divest them of all liability that might result from use of their software. They divest themselves of any suitability for a purpose. So they don't care whether it works for the customer or not. They still expect to get paid though for the product. They claim they can do so, because a customer agreed to the licence (a.k.a. contract) when they opened/purchase the product.
Yet a Developer/Artist working in a company is expected to not to advocate piracy. Why should they? They develop a product for the company, according to a contract too. They expect to get paid for it. They should not be liable if the company then squanders the product by poor marketing, or sales.
On the one hand we are told that the financies of a company is related to its employees it supports. But on the other hand we are told that the financies of a market (i.e. the profitability of a product of a costumer), should in no way affect the company which depend on it for support.
If a company can expect to make profit, regardless of what happens with the product, after it is sold, why can't a Developer/Artist expect to make profit, regardless of what happens to the product they develop, after it is complete?
Think of self-employed developers/artist. They do not belong to a company. Yet they manage to make a living.
Rod.
Microprocessors history date way back surely before the advent of INTEL. It is only because of the monopoly they enjoy now a days that so called 'Computer enthusiasts', who do not bother to check anything before they talk, think they single handed came up with everything. History is written by the winners.
Microprocessors and computing in general dates from the Cold War era, when they were used to try and guide missiles (e.g. Billistic Missiles) back in the 1950s and 60s. Long before there was ever such a thing as INTEL. If there is a 'first' Microprocessor it would probably be found in Military research labs, not in the lame labs of INTEL.
Why is Slashdot so sychophantic, so willing to be blind, about people like Microsoft and INTEL who only rose to prominence in just the last ten years? Before that they were just 2 in a long line of wanna be 'Techo wizards'. Both of them have REALLY crappy architecture. If it was not for those two we wouldnt have such games like Counter-strike and Quake III. Oh please! Look at those games very carefully. And what are these games in the greater scheme of things, even in the computer industry.
NOTHING. Less than nothing.
Rod.
Now try the same with PPC!
Try the same with Sparc!
Try the same with Alpha!
Try the same with an old PC!
Now ask yourself why Office workers, or any one else but less than 1% of Users, would want RAID ATA-100 or Quake 3!
Rod.
Some sad, old PC "Fragger" will be trying to justify one of these to play the latest 3D Cardboard effects game from ID. Quake XIII:
"Wow! Now you can actually see the pimples on the characters in REAL, ULTRA, MEGA, GENUINE 3D, as supposed to fake ass crap that GeForce II produces now."
"You cannot play a decent game nowadays which does not run at 2000 FPS, with full ray-tracing."
Rod.
"Every console maker's profits are nearly all in software sales. Hardware has traditionally been a loss of money.."
PS2 devkit cost 40000 pounds sterling. A loss? A PS2 cost 300 pounds sterling. For about 200 hundred pounds more you can buy a second hand 500 Mhz PC with twice the processing speed and 4 timers the memory capacity. We wont even mention the difference in hard-disk space. A loss?
Did the first generation of console makers like Atari take a cut of each ISVs royalties and sales? Did they have as much control on the content of games and what did not meet their standards? Highly unlikely!
This assumes that Commercial game companies think of the Users welfare before they adopt a platform. But is that True? Isnt in fact the other way around? They look at how well the sales of games are on a particular platform, and then they jump on it. Did the companies who signed up for the X-box, before its specs where even finalised, think about their Users welfare before hand? How could they think about that, when the hardware wasnt out yet. Same goes for DreamCast. Same goes for PS2.
Do companies care about the DLL hell problems Users have on Windows PCs? Or with incompatible graphics cards? Or the flakiness of DirectX? Do the companies care about the re-boots and re-installs their Customers go through? Or do they only care about the hard cold cash?
Is it that Linux is not easy to use? Or are you in fact comparing installing Linux with using Windows pre-installed? How can a system be usable when its constantly crashing? How many AVERAGE Users know what to do when a game does not install properly or does not work properly on Windows? Don't they just call up and ask for help? Why is it inconcievable that they do it for the Operating System as well?
Define Average Gamer/User? Is it someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about computers? In which case, what difference does it make to them, whethere its Linux or Windows! Is it someone with little experience, and is not likely to learn or remain in the gaming scene for long? Do you think the bulk of Game buying public? Or is it someone who has many years of experience, and has bought many games over this period? A hardcore gamer, with NO experience of installing Windows, or other systems? Who does not want just that bit more speed and stability from their system?
To tell the truth, without their multi-player features, which any 2D, 3D isometric, even text-based game can excel at, ID/Quake and Unreal Tournament and Co have NOTHING to recommend them. They are no less SURREAL and a matter of ESOTERIC taste than Dragon's drawn with ASCII "D"s, or watching attack messages on MUDs, or mono-coloured 3D isometric terrains, with their strafe-left and right, while bouncing up and down, and holding 1 ton bazooka, cold 3D-card board effects pieces of crap.
The fact that Linux does or does not have these games is not a loss. As time goes by Game developers will realise what a waste of time and poor service they have given the Customers because of poor-design of Windows. Flakey games, which crash constantly. Or work fine on one machine, but have inexplicable glitches on another. DirectX and all the kludges and work-arounds they have to deal with, delaying release dates. A fact aggravated further by the constant obsession with graphics over game play.
The PS2 does not hold out much hope either. Its a pain in the arse to develop on, even worse than a PS1. The kernel and library keeps changing. Its poorly documented, and what there is is mainly low-level assembly language and electronic circuit diagrams. More than half of the sample programs are in Japanese. You have to grope around in the dark, until you stumble upon a solution, which does not behave quite as document. It is very much like Win32 SDK and DirectX programming that light. All of these will indirectly effect the users as games release dates gets pushed further back, and the end-result is not worth the time waiting for it.
Linux is not just a case of technological change but of cultural change as well. Since people can see the Open Source code, it is no longer beneficial to write poor underlying code, and obscure it in a binary. This will badly effect progress. So hopefully the underlying, and final product should be better all through for the User. This is of course assuming Game companies adopt the Open Source philosophy.
If Kids will stick with what they know, then why did they move from the 8-bit/16-bit platforms to DOS/PCs? Why did they move from DOS to Windows? Why they move from 3.11 to '95'? '95 to '98? '98 to ? What? What is that you are saying? All the KIDs in all the classes move INSTANTLY from one-setup to another? There was NO migration period?
ONE advantage of Linux over Windoze? Stability, Price, Speed, Price, Freedom, Price, availability across more platforms, Oh, did we mention Price? I guess what you are saying will come TRUE if KIDs become more STUPID as they grow up and, not as common sense dictates, that they actually learn to use their brain.
"Hey computers are easy! They give you a pretty blue-screen, and you don't have to worry about saving your work or recovering, because you cannot. Just follow the 3 Rs: Re-boot, Re-install, Re-instal Windoze!!! Aint modern technology grand?"
We all get more than a little over enthusiastic for "modern" technology, and think it can solve all the worlds problems.
However, "modern" equipment malfunctions with unpredictability, and it gets outdated even more quickly, than its predecessors. We all like to exagerrate how inexpensive Intel PCs are nowadays, and how widely available they are. Forgetting that more than half of the World's population have never used a telephone before, let alone connect up to the Internet.
Forgetting of course that when the first PC came out they were 2000 (UK pound sterling) and today the standard PC you get from shops are still at least 1000 (UK pound sterling). Showing virtually no change in price. Where as the equivalent 8-bit machines have dropped from 200(?) pounds in price to 50?
Forgetting of course, because PCs are so expensive, cheap (and technically inferior) game consoles systems like Sony and Dreamcast can undercut PC games, and claim a Lion's share of the market easily.
Lets not forget that the PC CPU architecture pre-dates even the 8-bit machines, and is from the 1970s, hardly "modern". All the parts are a mish mash from different manufacturers, that the whole is less than sum of the parts.
The 8-bit computers layed the foundation on which the modern PC market is built on. You cannot cast aspertions on their character without casting them on the modern market which lives off the inheritance.
"A disciple is not greater than his teacher, but at his best will be like his teacher".
Modern PCs will be AT BEST as fun, as simple, as cheap, as plural, and widely availabe as their 8-bit benefactors. The fact that they fall short of this is part of the problem here.
It is indeed an honour to meet someone who is not in awe of 3D card-board effects in the gaming industry.
What do you need to create a good game? Good enough representation to get your ideas across, this can be 2D, 3D isometric, text, or (depending on your idea being completely useless without it) perspective, texture-mapped, 3D-vector graphics.
The top-10 best selling game franchises include: The Sims, Championship manager, Command and Conquer, (and here in the UK) Who wants to be a millionaire? Some of the other best sellers are variation of these. These games are either 3D isometric or text (with 2D backdrops and coloured fonts). The vast majority of games probably are 3D cardboard effect games with little chance of success, as Good game developers, and public in general, realise that you do not need Cardboard effects to be a good game.
Good ridance to the 3D-cardboard industry, and heres hoping for a restoration of balance and sanity in the game industry once again. Here is to definitions of gameplay which do not include superfulous graphics. Here are to games of the future whose representation is not predefined before the game is even written.
Yes! High-end UNIX applications do operate on this licence. But two crucial things:
(1) These are quality applications. No terrible bugs or security holes or bloat like the MS version
(2) these are not mainstream applications.
To say a "lot" of applications use this form, is being disingenuous? A more accurate description would be a few niche markets.
Another thing is the capabilities of these packages. Even MS Office in all in its bloated glory is not capable of the features that these other applications are. These applications are far to huge to sell at one price. You could argue that MS Office is too huge as well, but there are competitors which still manage too, so why can't they?
How much is a truely good program or piece of work worth? But is MS Office truely good?
Your reaction to something which has a less than stellar performance is the re-define the criteria in which to consider it a success. Where as those who believe in Linux insist on higher stands, when faced with failure, your attitide is to LOWER your standards till you reach a level, and assert disinterest, by which you can define ANYTHING as a success.
If you really do not care about the issue so much then why do you bother to argue or paticipate in an argument? It is acceptable to be ignorant about an issue but to declaim your disinterest and ignorance about the issue so loudly is another matter.
User friendliness DOES have something to do with the workmanship of a product. If a product takes that much more effort to stay up, ESPECIALLY beyond the extent to which it is required, then it will DEFINITELY take the effort to excel in areas that is required. Failure in this area affects the availability of applications, once they are running.
Is the FAILURE of an OS, beyond a certain time duration:
(a) a request of Users?
(b) a FALSE generalisation by yourself to paclate your ZEALOUSNESS for mediocre software?
(c) an escape clause for people who develop mediocre software?
Ask yourself whose interest does it serve? Who profits from this upper limit?
If someone was about to set out on a journey, which was only going to be 10000 miles. He had no plans to travel any further than that. What do you think he would buy? A car which travels 10000 miles then stops permanently, or one which travels 20000 miles (and cast less than the former one)?
"Nobody CARES if the OS stays up for more than 49 days or not."
Do not shout your ignorance so loudly.
Great idea! Charlie Brown, or probably Linus in particular would be a great mascot for Linux. The Penguin is a good mascot, but Linus more PRECISELY captures the child like innocence, and trust, that GNU/Linux has brought back to computing.
Any product which fails after 49 days is rubbish. How can an Operating System be User-friendly which dies after 49 days? It is pretty ridiculous state of affairs. Yeah! There are problems with all software, the point is they are fixed BEFORE they are released. Surely Win '98 testing period lasted more than 49 days!
Would you buy a car which was doomed to crash after 49 days, so long as the manufacture provided a patch for it?
Something that crashes after 49 days is embarassing, no matter who did it. Sure, bring up the point about RedHat. Its embarassing for Redhat too. It makes NO difference except perclating your vain pride in a crappy software.
Any attack on the current state of games, quickly degenerates into cries of "don't be such a nostalgic, old fool" . But the guy writing the piece ACTUALLY works in games industry, unlike those who consider themselves "up-with-the times". He does present practical problems, which can't easily be dismissed as "nostalgic". People do not complain about the current state JUST because they want to return to the past. They may do so because they want a better FUTURE. But that is to be expected of those who think 3D card-board effects are realistic. He ends by saying:
"Okay, that's over the top. But there are certain design considerations and rules that come into play once you start down the "player in a world" path, and those considerations tend to conflict with games that don't fit that model. In many ways, the desire to architect explorable worlds inside the computer is at odds with what can be categorized as game design, the selection of rules and interactions that result in something that's fun to pick up and play. "
Nothing kills the creative process more quickly than NARROW mindedness. This is what those who cannot see this as anything but a nostalgic plea suffer from. That is what those who think the only valid goal is Virtual reality also suffer from.
Some of the post mentioned the Art World. Are the post-Raphaelite (more realistic works) superior to the pre-Raphaelites? Even in the artistic world, no one would dare say that 2D designs are inferior to 3D. Occassionaly, you get 2D pictures, some abstract pictures which would make a Cave-man blush, some black and white pictures. They still sell, because the Art World does not suffer from Narrow mindedness. The Computer Games industry TODAY does, when compared to their predecessors. A good game is a good game. Does not matter what time it was made in. If it was fun then, it would be fun now. Look at Chess, Draughts, Athletics.
Also if the goal of realism is to EXACTLY capture reality, how can realistic games be immersive? If they are EXACTLY like reality, you have not escaped anywhere, but simply back where you started. Perhaps this is the contradiction the article was hinting at the end.
One more thing. Being happy and free is a pre-requisite of being creative, especially creating FUN games. How can you give others the pleasure when you yourselves are unhappy? OK! Now ask yourselves this are today's developers happy? In the light of the censorship rights Sony, Sega and Nintendo excercise over their consoles? In the light of the long hours and terrible contracts employees in the Game Industry have to work under? In the light of the defections, sackings, and law suits you hear in the news?
There was darkness within. Now there is darkness without (the old games).
What do you think takes up the most amount in a game code? The physics modelling or the graphics? What about the rendering? Let's not forget that it has to load the DirectX DLLs to do the rendering too.
If you bought a car, and it had a mini-caravan tacked on the back, and someone pointed out to you that you were dragging a mini-caravan in the back, except it had no doors, and no one could live in it, would you turn around and say "Are you smoking crack? Thats not a real caravan!" or would you remove the caravan?
When was the last time you saw Asteroids in a 3d-texture mapped graphics form? Which also took up an insignificant ammount of graphics?
Technically speaking, asteroids is more fun to play, and takes up FAR less memory, but it was a good MS apologist tact to take none-the-less.