Well I know you don't want this to be a code review, but being "simple", "easy to read" and writing things like unsigned int crc = -1; really don't look much better to me. Then of course you had to write it, rather than just including boost and writing something like:
This is hilarious in so many ways. I don't care what boost is doing under the hood, I just want it to do what its interfaces say it does and to a great extent, it does. Just the single boost::shared_ptr was fantastic in its time. Now we have a std implementation. There are many things in boost that are extremely useful.
Don't confuse a generally difficult learning curve for writing good C++ code with C++ being a poor language.
Wasn't the record the Elite:Dangerous kickstarter? It raised £1.5m, which is about $2.2m. Planescape should breeze past this easily as their first day raised nearly $1m, which is kind-of unbelievable.
I've owned Crysis 3 for 2 weeks and during that time it's been patched twice. Strangely, the fundamental unit of Patch for Crysis seems to be 210mb, as both patches were this size!
Yes, I was going to suggest that game makers, especially games that are "brands", shouldn't need to use publishers these days. I've contributed to some, including Elite: Dangerous and I think it's an excellent model for game makers to use.
The only problem with it is that you have to come with a reputation first otherwise you probably won't get funded. From reading GameDev over the years, there are thousands of people out there trying to make games, but producing a really good one takes time, effort and money (and experience too, of course).
The point of the "documentation" is to provide a kind-of library where one can search an interface to find an explanation of what it does (and sometimes how it works). The point of Stack Overflow is to provide answers to questions, which might nuance the interaction of various parts of an interface in specific contexts. So the comparison isn't really fair. They're both useful in different ways.
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Here's the list of Valve games:
Half-Life
Team Fortress Classic
Half-Life: Opposing Force
Deathmatch Classic
Ricochet
Counter-Strike
Half-Life: Blue Shift
Half-Life: Decay
Day of Defeat
Counter-Strike: Condition Zero
Half-Life: Source
Counter-Strike: Source
Half-Life 2
Half-Life 2: Deathmatch
Half-Life Deathmatch: Source
Day of Defeat: Source
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast
Half-Life 2: Episode One
Half-Life 2: Episode Two
Portal
Team Fortress 2
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead 2
Alien Swarm
Portal 2
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Dota 2
Do that look like "they don't actually seem to do anything"? Who knows what they're got in development (Half-Life 3 is probably in there too). Portal 2 was a fantastic game. Team Fortress 2 is one of the best online muti-player shooters out there and it's still going strong (I've been playing it since release and I still love it).
He wouldn't be doing that if his manager was good. I wouldn't send him home, I'd try to understand what I was doing wrong that he wasn't clear what he had to do and what his deadline was. This is a simple communication issue.
As a Software Developer, I find there's a strange effect called being "in the zone" that I get from time to time, where I'm not distracted at all and totally focused for hours at a time. It's when I'm most productive. It can happen daily, weekly or monthly, it depends on the project. I've noticed there are some things that really help getting "in the zone", the most important of which is understanding exactly what it is you have to do and knowing exactly how you're going to do it. There are timex for me when it isn't entirely clear, and these are the times I tend to lose focus.
I'm totally serious here... If you don't know what it is you're going to do and how you're going to do it, your attention will evaporate. So, however it is you "know" what it is you're doing - Gantt chart, list of tasks, whatever, knowing it is the most important thing when you're developing software.
As a Windows 8 user, with Ubuntu on a different partition, I can concur that it is terrible.
Re:how does it compare to NetBSD as a teaching too
on
Minix 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I have some experience with Minix, from 1995, when I modified the memory allocation algorithm for a class at University:). I don't think it's an OS I would actually use though!
Regardless of all of that, I thought it looked wonderful (from the YouTube video). I especially liked the rain effects and the lighting when it was raining. The water running off the rocks was pretty cool too. My engine is around 10 years behind that (!), mostly because I don't work on it full time.
Well this is clearly a problem with the package manager and the way things get installed. If there are no "progress hooks", there's little you can do. These things need to be included from the ground up I think.
This is why I wouldn't do anything based on speed. I would have each % of that represent 1 package, then, a sub-label displaying the total downloaded, i.e. 1% (1024/4096).
I understand the paper and I also understand what you're saying. My contention is tangential to the paper and that is that the ozone hole over the Antarctic is natural variation (regulated by cosmic rays), and very little or absolutely nothing to do with man-made CFCs. The hypothesis therefore, is that the ozone hole will be very large in or around 2019. If that is the case, given that we stopped both producing and releasing CFCs well within their atmospheric lifetime, will you or will you not concede that the hypothesis that the hole is caused by man-made CFCs has been falsified? If that is not the case, of course I will concede that my hypothesis has been falsified.
Interesting point, but therein lies the rub: The paper predicts another large hole around 2019. If that does happen, will you concede that it falsifies the hypothesis that the hole is caused by man-mad CFCs? This is how science works, after all, is it not? I will put my £10 onto the table if you will.
Well, that applies to the hypothesis that man-made CFCs cause it too. We don't have a record of the ozone hole over the Antarctic going back very far either, do we? For all we know, it's a natural cyclic event.
It depends on the topic really. Not skeptical at all about the Holocaust, no, mostly because my Grandfather was at Burgen Belsen in 1945 with the British Army. And attempts to lump everyone who is skeptical of one thing together with anyone who's skeptical about anything is just a poor debating tactic.
And by the way, moderating dissenting voices "troll" is totally beyond the pale. Science is about skepticism. Physicists are highly skeptical of each other's results. When it comes to Earth Sciences, why is it that people crowd the paradigm like it's a sacred tome? Debates here would be far more interesting if they were actually allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
, or whatever, which is much shorter, less code for your to screw up and almost certainly bug free from being used/checked by thousands of others.
This is hilarious in so many ways. I don't care what boost is doing under the hood, I just want it to do what its interfaces say it does and to a great extent, it does. Just the single boost::shared_ptr was fantastic in its time. Now we have a std implementation. There are many things in boost that are extremely useful.
Don't confuse a generally difficult learning curve for writing good C++ code with C++ being a poor language.
Wasn't the record the Elite:Dangerous kickstarter? It raised £1.5m, which is about $2.2m. Planescape should breeze past this easily as their first day raised nearly $1m, which is kind-of unbelievable.
Unlikely. In fact they absolutely wouldn't do this. They'd release an "unlock" patch beforehand.
I've owned Crysis 3 for 2 weeks and during that time it's been patched twice. Strangely, the fundamental unit of Patch for Crysis seems to be 210mb, as both patches were this size!
Yes, I was going to suggest that game makers, especially games that are "brands", shouldn't need to use publishers these days. I've contributed to some, including Elite: Dangerous and I think it's an excellent model for game makers to use.
The only problem with it is that you have to come with a reputation first otherwise you probably won't get funded. From reading GameDev over the years, there are thousands of people out there trying to make games, but producing a really good one takes time, effort and money (and experience too, of course).
I agree with this. My skeptical neurons started firing when I read the phrase "mouse model" in the synopsis.
The point of the "documentation" is to provide a kind-of library where one can search an interface to find an explanation of what it does (and sometimes how it works). The point of Stack Overflow is to provide answers to questions, which might nuance the interaction of various parts of an interface in specific contexts. So the comparison isn't really fair. They're both useful in different ways.
Yup. Me too. Can't stand it.
Do that look like "they don't actually seem to do anything"? Who knows what they're got in development (Half-Life 3 is probably in there too). Portal 2 was a fantastic game. Team Fortress 2 is one of the best online muti-player shooters out there and it's still going strong (I've been playing it since release and I still love it).
He wouldn't be doing that if his manager was good. I wouldn't send him home, I'd try to understand what I was doing wrong that he wasn't clear what he had to do and what his deadline was. This is a simple communication issue.
As a Software Developer, I find there's a strange effect called being "in the zone" that I get from time to time, where I'm not distracted at all and totally focused for hours at a time. It's when I'm most productive. It can happen daily, weekly or monthly, it depends on the project. I've noticed there are some things that really help getting "in the zone", the most important of which is understanding exactly what it is you have to do and knowing exactly how you're going to do it. There are timex for me when it isn't entirely clear, and these are the times I tend to lose focus.
I'm totally serious here... If you don't know what it is you're going to do and how you're going to do it, your attention will evaporate. So, however it is you "know" what it is you're doing - Gantt chart, list of tasks, whatever, knowing it is the most important thing when you're developing software.
As a Windows 8 user, with Ubuntu on a different partition, I can concur that it is terrible.
I have some experience with Minix, from 1995, when I modified the memory allocation algorithm for a class at University :). I don't think it's an OS I would actually use though!
After playing RAGE, I'm pretty sure whatever Carmack is doing at the moment, it's about 10 years out of date.
Regardless of all of that, I thought it looked wonderful (from the YouTube video). I especially liked the rain effects and the lighting when it was raining. The water running off the rocks was pretty cool too. My engine is around 10 years behind that (!), mostly because I don't work on it full time.
Well this is clearly a problem with the package manager and the way things get installed. If there are no "progress hooks", there's little you can do. These things need to be included from the ground up I think.
This is why I wouldn't do anything based on speed. I would have each % of that represent 1 package, then, a sub-label displaying the total downloaded, i.e. 1% (1024/4096).
Precisely. So no reason to shout down dissent at this stage.
No, I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I just think it's wrong, that's all. Your abuse doesn't really help your argument here.
I understand the paper and I also understand what you're saying. My contention is tangential to the paper and that is that the ozone hole over the Antarctic is natural variation (regulated by cosmic rays), and very little or absolutely nothing to do with man-made CFCs. The hypothesis therefore, is that the ozone hole will be very large in or around 2019. If that is the case, given that we stopped both producing and releasing CFCs well within their atmospheric lifetime, will you or will you not concede that the hypothesis that the hole is caused by man-made CFCs has been falsified? If that is not the case, of course I will concede that my hypothesis has been falsified.
It's a very simple question.
Interesting point, but therein lies the rub: The paper predicts another large hole around 2019. If that does happen, will you concede that it falsifies the hypothesis that the hole is caused by man-mad CFCs? This is how science works, after all, is it not? I will put my £10 onto the table if you will.
Well, that applies to the hypothesis that man-made CFCs cause it too. We don't have a record of the ozone hole over the Antarctic going back very far either, do we? For all we know, it's a natural cyclic event.
It depends on the topic really. Not skeptical at all about the Holocaust, no, mostly because my Grandfather was at Burgen Belsen in 1945 with the British Army. And attempts to lump everyone who is skeptical of one thing together with anyone who's skeptical about anything is just a poor debating tactic.
I did read a paper not so long ago about the Ozone layer being regulated to a large degree by cosmic rays, over the Antarctic.
And by the way, moderating dissenting voices "troll" is totally beyond the pale. Science is about skepticism. Physicists are highly skeptical of each other's results. When it comes to Earth Sciences, why is it that people crowd the paradigm like it's a sacred tome? Debates here would be far more interesting if they were actually allowed.