How about my word? I just tried glxgears running over ssh, it works fine, but slow. At 1920x1200 it's about.5 frames/second. I do not doubt it can be speed up considerably. This is over a dodgy wifi link.
Here's the thing, though, games are expensive to make, and getting more and more so every day. But are we getting better games for that bigger investment? Prettier games? Sure. Better sound? Yup. Good voice acting and mo-cap? Indeed. But are the GAMES getting better?
Well here's my data point: I just can't get into Skyrim. Everything about the engine is upgraded but the world is just not compelling enough to get involved in. Frankly, I don't care what my stats are any more, I can hardly even see them. The map doesn't look anything like a map. The inventory doesn't look like inventory, it looks like menues. You can't see your character as you change equipment. Dragon fights are all wait-for-it-to-sit-down and no strategy. Meh. I used to always use Oblivion to demo to people how immersive gaming has become and now that Skyrim is out, I still demo Oblivion and not Skyrim. I don't really care what Bethesda comes out with next.
Have you actually used a Kinect? You can't control things for shit. It's a novelty and maybe a convenience device for simple interface commands, no more.
I haven't used the Kinect but I have used Sony's "Move" controller and it sucks just as you say. For the games that support both, the gamepad controller is always much more usable, accurate and responsive. Note that "accurate" is already a joke for any console controller.
The console makers and the game makers have played favorites with the consoles for a long time and completely jacked the computer gamers.
It is because they are mesmerized by the possibilities of DRM and the control it may give them over customer's wallets. And they lost sight of the fact that the PC market is an order of magnitude bigger than all the consoles put together, and the mobile market is yet bigger. Not that I shed too many tears mind you. I would far rather that the likes of EA and Activision just whither away and not interfere with the rising indie industry.
Console makers have just abused their customers too much. The sun is setting on the console industry while mobile and indie gaming are rising.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
Your solution is to know what templates you are instantiating. That is just discipline. I don't know about you, but when I am writing performance critical code I write my own templates.
The problem with large RC aircraft is that they are large enough to cause serious injury. Letting a small autonomous flying bomb fly off by itself into the great unknown... maybe if you could find a completely unpopulated area with no danger of forest fire, otherwise think liability.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
I think that in practice some code bloat and resultant cache pressure seems to compensate for some optimization gain if the latter result in code bloat.
What code bloat? Gnu C and C++ use the same code generator. It is entirely up to you if you want to use the bloaty STL stuff or not. A disciplined programmer can create code that is just as tight in C++ as C. File this under "answers to common misconceptions" please.
Right, it would have to be a fixed wing, quite heavy to carry enough fuel, long range radio with regulatory problems, just for starters. My advice would be, stick to the playground just for now.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 2
Properly designed C++ applications and frameworks don't have to be any slower than C.
Faster even, because of additional optimization possibilities in cases like method calls and lambdas. Speaking as an inveterate C hacker.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
Nokia is irrelevant now as far as QT is concerned
Not entirely. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Nokia still has fulltime QT devs on staff. And it looks like QT has pretty much landed on the N900, about the only Nokia product that actually has legs in spite of Elop's efforts to kill it.
It was refreshing to see them being honest that it's not really going to be ready for production use until 5.2 or thereabouts.
Indeed. It's important to note that QT 4.x is already nice to work with, stable and mature. I would like to see QT foundation really take their time getting 5 right, there is no good reason to push it out in a hurry.
It makes interface designer tools easier to create. That said, I will stick with the on-the-metal c++ QT interface, it's easy enough to work with. The designer is nice for quick mockups.
QT is among the prettiest and most capable of all widget sets, open source or proprietary. It's not much at the moment, but here is the beginnings of an interface I cooked up for an upcoming project. See, four independently navigable OpenGL windows, plus a few gratuitous native button widgets, which don't actually do anthing yet. Things to note about this code: it's clear and concise; it was easy to write; it's nice and robust. I managed to bypass the MOC so new widgets and actions can be hooked up on the fly, no need to recompile. I suppose QT 5 provides a similar capability, but I'm doing this already, with QT 4, and it's without any thick new layer of abstraction.
In general I really like QT, I just don't like the MOC. I mean, it isn't the most clumsy interface builder I've ever seen. It's fine for interfaces that don't change on the fly but it really gets in the way if you want to do dynamic things like create widgets in response to user actions or loaded data. And it's too cavalier about getting in the way of the C++ compiler and linker, not to mention the additional build complexity. Now that I've gotten past that I don't have any complaints at all.
QT is already licensed under LGPL and GPL v3 which answers the question of who has the right to continue developing and distributing QT libraries. The answer is: you, me and everybody.
Furthemore, there is an agreement in place the ensure that QT continues to be licensed under LGPL. Here it is. Additionally, there is an open governance framework in place to guide ongoing development, which frankly places the QT project head and shoulders above Android in terms of community engagement, open development and good citizenship.
Slashdot Mirror
How about my word? I just tried glxgears running over ssh, it works fine, but slow. At 1920x1200 it's about .5 frames/second. I do not doubt it can be speed up considerably. This is over a dodgy wifi link.
Here's the thing, though, games are expensive to make, and getting more and more so every day. But are we getting better games for that bigger investment? Prettier games? Sure. Better sound? Yup. Good voice acting and mo-cap? Indeed. But are the GAMES getting better?
Well here's my data point: I just can't get into Skyrim. Everything about the engine is upgraded but the world is just not compelling enough to get involved in. Frankly, I don't care what my stats are any more, I can hardly even see them. The map doesn't look anything like a map. The inventory doesn't look like inventory, it looks like menues. You can't see your character as you change equipment. Dragon fights are all wait-for-it-to-sit-down and no strategy. Meh. I used to always use Oblivion to demo to people how immersive gaming has become and now that Skyrim is out, I still demo Oblivion and not Skyrim. I don't really care what Bethesda comes out with next.
Android 3.0+ features native gamepad support
Have you actually used a Kinect? You can't control things for shit. It's a novelty and maybe a convenience device for simple interface commands, no more.
I haven't used the Kinect but I have used Sony's "Move" controller and it sucks just as you say. For the games that support both, the gamepad controller is always much more usable, accurate and responsive. Note that "accurate" is already a joke for any console controller.
The console makers and the game makers have played favorites with the consoles for a long time and completely jacked the computer gamers.
It is because they are mesmerized by the possibilities of DRM and the control it may give them over customer's wallets. And they lost sight of the fact that the PC market is an order of magnitude bigger than all the consoles put together, and the mobile market is yet bigger. Not that I shed too many tears mind you. I would far rather that the likes of EA and Activision just whither away and not interfere with the rising indie industry.
Console makers have just abused their customers too much. The sun is setting on the console industry while mobile and indie gaming are rising.
Your solution is to know what templates you are instantiating. That is just discipline. I don't know about you, but when I am writing performance critical code I write my own templates.
Legal bomb. Try crashing your 50 pound plane into a house, person or car and see what happens.
The problem with large RC aircraft is that they are large enough to cause serious injury. Letting a small autonomous flying bomb fly off by itself into the great unknown... maybe if you could find a completely unpopulated area with no danger of forest fire, otherwise think liability.
I think that in practice some code bloat and resultant cache pressure seems to compensate for some optimization gain if the latter result in code bloat.
What code bloat? Gnu C and C++ use the same code generator. It is entirely up to you if you want to use the bloaty STL stuff or not. A disciplined programmer can create code that is just as tight in C++ as C. File this under "answers to common misconceptions" please.
Right, it would have to be a fixed wing, quite heavy to carry enough fuel, long range radio with regulatory problems, just for starters. My advice would be, stick to the playground just for now.
Properly designed C++ applications and frameworks don't have to be any slower than C.
Faster even, because of additional optimization possibilities in cases like method calls and lambdas. Speaking as an inveterate C hacker.
Nokia is irrelevant now as far as QT is concerned
Not entirely. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Nokia still has fulltime QT devs on staff. And it looks like QT has pretty much landed on the N900, about the only Nokia product that actually has legs in spite of Elop's efforts to kill it.
As far as I can see, neither format supports imperative concepts such as loops or other control flow.
Right, loops and other control flow belong in slots (program action code in case anyone doesn't know) not in the interface definition.
It was refreshing to see them being honest that it's not really going to be ready for production use until 5.2 or thereabouts.
Indeed. It's important to note that QT 4.x is already nice to work with, stable and mature. I would like to see QT foundation really take their time getting 5 right, there is no good reason to push it out in a hurry.
It makes interface designer tools easier to create. That said, I will stick with the on-the-metal c++ QT interface, it's easy enough to work with. The designer is nice for quick mockups.
This is just Google's way of destroying Qt...
You need either more or less drugs, I'm not sure which.
A tranquilizer dart should do it.
QT is among the prettiest and most capable of all widget sets, open source or proprietary. It's not much at the moment, but here is the beginnings of an interface I cooked up for an upcoming project. See, four independently navigable OpenGL windows, plus a few gratuitous native button widgets, which don't actually do anthing yet. Things to note about this code: it's clear and concise; it was easy to write; it's nice and robust. I managed to bypass the MOC so new widgets and actions can be hooked up on the fly, no need to recompile. I suppose QT 5 provides a similar capability, but I'm doing this already, with QT 4, and it's without any thick new layer of abstraction.
In general I really like QT, I just don't like the MOC. I mean, it isn't the most clumsy interface builder I've ever seen. It's fine for interfaces that don't change on the fly but it really gets in the way if you want to do dynamic things like create widgets in response to user actions or loaded data. And it's too cavalier about getting in the way of the C++ compiler and linker, not to mention the additional build complexity. Now that I've gotten past that I don't have any complaints at all.
QT is already licensed under LGPL and GPL v3 which answers the question of who has the right to continue developing and distributing QT libraries. The answer is: you, me and everybody.
Furthemore, there is an agreement in place the ensure that QT continues to be licensed under LGPL. Here it is. Additionally, there is an open governance framework in place to guide ongoing development, which frankly places the QT project head and shoulders above Android in terms of community engagement, open development and good citizenship.
Correct. I believe the QT foundation has a longstanding agreement in place to ensure that.
So the bottom line is, Apple has progressed from selling people things they don't need to selling people things they already own.
eh, should be.
the outcome I'm hoping for is whereby Google and Oracle collaborate on the future of Java
Neither should own the future of Java, which is just a language and as such should not be firmly in the commons.
You know you can't publish anything for Metro without Microsoft's express consent, right?
Great, I'm totally comfortable with that because I do not intend to ask Microsoft for anything, ever.
Microsoft has actually been behaving themselves recently.
I would suggest not being quick to accept that. Microsoft has always been quick with the "embrace" in "embrace, extend, extinguish". Lest we forget.