> Sticking to ANSI usually makes things easier in the long run, right?
Compared to finding working compilers that support STL, and templates, properly, then yes, it is easier to use ANSI.
In writing game code, no. C++ provides some nice paradigms: Abstract types via classes, inheritance, over-ridable behaviour via "virtual", templates, operator overloading, namespaces, etc. You can simulate all those in C, but it is much harder to read, then "native" C++.
In C/C++ you still abstract key components out, i.e. sound, graphics, networking, so the language doesn't matter for the "design". C++ just makes the implementation easier in some areas.
While I absolutely love Be, I think this is a little late for QNX. Windows, unfortunately (or fortunately* depending on how you look at ) has most of the desktop market.
Where does QNX fit in the OS schema of things:
Is it a Desktop OS?
A server OS?
Is anyone actually using QNX ?
What can it do, that Linux and Be can't?
Sorry for my ignorance, but maybe someone can help answer the questions...
--
*fortunately, meaning that since 90% of the desktop run Windows, a windows developer can get pretty good sales, if their app is good enough.
An artists "paints" with his mouse, chisel, hammer, chainsaw (dam, I love those ice sculptures!)
A programmer has a screen as their "canvas", with his/her "brushes" being their "keyboard." A well crafted API, with clean, commented code is just as much a thing of beauty.
Here is the key: *BOTH people create something!
While code isn't as visible to the consumer, it can still be elegant.
As a programmer, we constently changing between the macroscopic design, and microscopic implementation. I would imagine artists go thru the same thought process. Yes? No?
In that one in a million time when the artist's ego get out of line, a funny respons is: "You can have game without artists, but you can't have a [computer] game without artists;-)"
And of course when the programmer's ego's get too big, a good response is: "Programmer art. Ugh. For the love of my eyes, no!"
Seriously, artists need coders, coders need artists. Without the other, you got, crappy games. (Yes, I love text adventures, but I want my eye candy now;-) Quake 3... mmmm.
Maybe YOU enjoy waiting 20 mins a day for your game to rebuild, but I sure don't! Multiply that out by a few hundreded re-compiles over a year, and that is a lot of "loss productivity". I can't fix bugs because I'm waiting for the dam system to compile, especially when VC++'s linker "freezes" Win2K up. *argh*
You can have games with 100% realism, and 0% plot -- that are fun (flight sims or shooters, ala Rogue Spear or Counter-strike come to mind) Basically anything with mindless destruction;-)
You also can have games that have 100% plot, 0% realism, and are fun -- Myst (as easy as it was) or adventure games, like Grim Fandago, Monkey Island (awesome memories plaything those with a friend)
And then we get odd ball games, that rock. Like "SOUL CALIBER" No blood, no cutting off of limbs or apendages, or guts. Just a nice background story, and a blast to play. Realism? Sort-of. Plot? Sort-of. Fun? Hell, yeah!
BUT... realism and plot are tricks we can use to make the game more interesting. After all, the key issues in game design are FUN, and BALANCE.
Game designers abstract the "tedious" stuff out, so as not to make the game boring.
e.g. I just use this health pack, from 20% health right back up to 100% health, *riiiiiiiight*;-) or I could wait 5 months, for my body to heal naturally. *boooooooring*
Lots of people complain about the "linearity" of single player games, but I treat it like a movie. I play it once, have a fun time, and enjoy the next game. Thief 1 & 2 were definately something I had a blast playing -- late at night, lights out, 3d sound on -- the physical environment set the perfect mood!;-)
What some people find fun, may be boring to others.
e.g. some find chess/go to be be "lacking."
Others live for card games. Others want to frag their buddies 24x. Other's love the strategy of RTS's. I loved teamplay for ages. Some find virtual craftsman and selling to be fun.
Games are starting to do a good job on "representing realism" via 3D graphics, 3D sound, and force feedback.
But plot on a LARGE scale, is still a VERY hard problem to solve.
We see that stories and books have been around for thousands of years. The "general plot" is nothing new. So we see singler player action/adventure games, are like an "interactive" book. Drakken , Tomb Raider, Thief were cool - because the story didn't advance until I did.
There is a reason we haven't seen massive multiplayer games with a good plot. Because it's dam hard to have *everyone* be able to effect the outcome. It's WAY easier to "guide" someone thru a linear story.
Fun in games: Games have been fun from the start.
Realism in games: We arrived there when Mortal Combat had the "bloody" FINISH HIM.
Plot in games: We're only 25% way there...
Putting a "ban" on "familiar" game design elements, like orcs, character classes, etc, won't really "solve" the problem of having a game with more plot.
> I wholeheartedly disagree. I still run Office 95 on my P3. Why? Simple - it runs a *lot* faster than any of the more recent versions, and it offers all of the features that I am interested in.
Exactly!! I still run Office 95 on my AMD 1.2Ghz. I don't need all the bloatware of Office 2000.
P3-500's ARE fast enough to run office. People don't upgrade their hardware to run office faster.
It's that the rights of the artists aren't being respected that I think is the problem.
That's exactly the issue!
Now, most artists would just be happy that they have more listeners !
BUT...
*SOME* artist's don't want their work(yes, work. Those songs just didn't appear out of mid-air one day) being copied without their permission. *cough Metalica-in-it-for-the-money cough*
If geeks are not going to respect other's people "property" aka copyrights, why should we expect other people to honor the ones we hold dear, like the GPL.
That's the "crime" of napster. People not respecting other people's work.
To muddle the issue, Napster also provides one nice advantage: It makes it very easy to listen and try out new music.
I know a lot of people have bought new albums, specifically because they were able to hear the whole album first. But copying someone's work, when they the didn't give you permission, still doesn't make it right. (No, it's NOT stealing, it's "unauthorized reproduction." BIG DIFFERENCE.)
Oh well, this is will probably get modded down as flamebait, since I'm just expressing my opinion.;-)
Strange, that Bill Joy is on the board of napster, but doesn't agree with it's principles...
>> Property and inheritance taxes mean that you will constanty have to pay for whatever you own.
> Once you own it, you shouldn't need to keep paying on it.
"Corporation sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is a corporation sole; so is a bishop;
> btw, don't bother looking for signatures in GNU C++ anymore--they got sacrificed on the altar of strict ANSI C++ compliance, like so many other good GNU C++ features.
Can you list what other nice features GNU C++ had, that got pruned? (wasn't #pragma pack(n) another one?)
What was the first version of g++ that had the signatures removed?
> Now, the only kind of object you can pass is of class "A" or a subclass of "A".
Right, since the language wouldn't let you call foo(b), because while B has the "same interface" as A, it doesn't have the same type.
(You could cast B over to type A, but that is unsafe, and leads to run-time errors, not compile time error checking, so we won't go there.)
> For static type safety, however, all that really matters is that the argument to "foo" is an object that has a "method1(int)" and a "method2(char*)".
I would imagine this is done for performance reasons, and it keeps the compiler "simple" to write. The compiler would have to keep track of, "does this class have a matching function accepting all the correct paramaters/return type"
What are the downsides of allowing the compiler to accept foo(b) as valid code?
> GNU C++ had support for it in the form of the "signature" extension
Cool, will have to check that out.
> (templates may seem to give you similar functionality, but they don't really).
Right, generic programming, is an orthogonal issue.
> The additional requirement that the argument is of class "A" or a subclass is an additional restriction that may or may not model some aspect of the problem you are trying to solve and you may want to express it sometimes.
Could you expand a little more why is it so bad of having classes A & B inherit from a common "interface" class (with potential virtual functions)? Does it lead to class-inheritance bloat?
I think this would be one time, where MI (multiple inheritance) would actually be usefull.
P.S.
Thx for the discussion. This topic makes/. worthwhile.
The OpenSSH teams needs to take a lesson from Mesa. OpenGL is a trademark of SGI. Just change the name of OpenSSH, and you never have to worry about these stupid trademark infringements again.
Changing the aspect ratio does NOT remove aliasing.
If an edge of a polygon goes (in screenspace) from lets say (3,0) to (0,1) the slope is an 1/3. A repeating decimal can not be represented exactly on a quantized grid.
Slashdot Mirror
Eros has some great white papers
What is a Capability, Anyway?
Where Capabilities Come From
Comparing ACLs and Capabilities
My $0.02 as a game programmer...
> Sticking to ANSI usually makes things easier in the long run, right?
Compared to finding working compilers that support STL, and templates, properly, then yes, it is easier to use ANSI.
In writing game code, no. C++ provides some nice paradigms: Abstract types via classes, inheritance, over-ridable behaviour via "virtual", templates, operator overloading, namespaces, etc. You can simulate all those in C, but it is much harder to read, then "native" C++.
In C/C++ you still abstract key components out, i.e. sound, graphics, networking, so the language doesn't matter for the "design". C++ just makes the implementation easier in some areas.
While I absolutely love Be, I think this is a little late for QNX. Windows, unfortunately (or fortunately* depending on how you look at ) has most of the desktop market.
Where does QNX fit in the OS schema of things:
Is it a Desktop OS?
A server OS?
Is anyone actually using QNX ?
What can it do, that Linux and Be can't?
Sorry for my ignorance, but maybe someone can help answer the questions...
--
*fortunately, meaning that since 90% of the desktop run Windows, a windows developer can get pretty good sales, if their app is good enough.
First DVDs, now electronics.
:-(
WTF?
If I bought it, *why* can't I *use* it wherever I go?!
Can someone explain the rationale for dvd region codes? (Aside from the obvious answer of "money"
All those people who believe the earth is less then 10,000 years old, please SHOW me the scripture where you are inferring that.
Please read the orginal hebrew of Gen 1:2 paying close attention to the Hebrew words of hayah, tohuw and bohuw.
i.e.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/creation.htm
--
"Science explains the HOW. Religion explains the WHY."
> the federal government doesn't hold copyright on anything it creates, as it belongs to the people.
Cool !
You wouldn't happen to know a reference where I could read this?
An artists "paints" with his mouse, chisel, hammer, chainsaw (dam, I love those ice sculptures!)
;-)"
;-) Quake 3... mmmm.
A programmer has a screen as their "canvas", with his/her "brushes" being their "keyboard." A well crafted API, with clean, commented code is just as much a thing of beauty.
Here is the key: *BOTH people create something!
While code isn't as visible to the consumer, it can still be elegant.
As a programmer, we constently changing between the macroscopic design, and microscopic implementation. I would imagine artists go thru the same thought process. Yes? No?
In that one in a million time when the artist's ego get out of line, a funny respons is: "You can have game without artists, but you can't have a [computer] game without artists
And of course when the programmer's ego's get too big, a good response is: "Programmer art. Ugh. For the love of my eyes, no!"
Seriously, artists need coders, coders need artists. Without the other, you got, crappy games. (Yes, I love text adventures, but I want my eye candy now
*shrugs* -- just a game programmer...
> and people don't realize the fun of waiting.
Maybe YOU enjoy waiting 20 mins a day for your game to rebuild, but I sure don't! Multiply that out by a few hundreded re-compiles over a year, and that is a lot of "loss productivity". I can't fix bugs because I'm waiting for the dam system to compile, especially when VC++'s linker "freezes" Win2K up. *argh*
*mod up as funny*
[No Text]
Grr: Something is wrong: parent=146, dups=1
Why are wizards allways grumpy old men? Or dwarfs 1/2 size? Etc.
I don't mind the "tolkieneque" world, we just need to stop type casting all the character races to the "tradional" fantasy.
Just my $0.02 as a game programmer....
;-)
... realism and plot are tricks we can use to make the game more interesting. After all, the key issues in game design are FUN, and BALANCE.
;-) or I could wait 5 months, for my body to heal naturally. *boooooooring*
;-)
Realism and Plot are independent of a fun game...
You can have games with 100% realism, and 0% plot -- that are fun (flight sims or shooters, ala Rogue Spear or Counter-strike come to mind) Basically anything with mindless destruction
You also can have games that have 100% plot, 0% realism, and are fun -- Myst (as easy as it was) or adventure games, like Grim Fandago, Monkey Island (awesome memories plaything those with a friend)
And then we get odd ball games, that rock. Like "SOUL CALIBER" No blood, no cutting off of limbs or apendages, or guts. Just a nice background story, and a blast to play. Realism? Sort-of. Plot? Sort-of. Fun? Hell, yeah!
BUT
Game designers abstract the "tedious" stuff out, so as not to make the game boring.
e.g. I just use this health pack, from 20% health right back up to 100% health, *riiiiiiiight*
Lots of people complain about the "linearity" of single player games, but I treat it like a movie. I play it once, have a fun time, and enjoy the next game. Thief 1 & 2 were definately something I had a blast playing -- late at night, lights out, 3d sound on -- the physical environment set the perfect mood!
What some people find fun, may be boring to others.
e.g. some find chess/go to be be "lacking."
Others live for card games. Others want to frag their buddies 24x. Other's love the strategy of RTS's. I loved teamplay for ages. Some find virtual craftsman and selling to be fun.
Games are starting to do a good job on "representing realism" via 3D graphics, 3D sound, and force feedback.
But plot on a LARGE scale, is still a VERY hard problem to solve.
We see that stories and books have been around for thousands of years. The "general plot" is nothing new. So we see singler player action/adventure games, are like an "interactive" book. Drakken , Tomb Raider, Thief were cool - because the story didn't advance until I did.
There is a reason we haven't seen massive multiplayer games with a good plot. Because it's dam hard to have *everyone* be able to effect the outcome. It's WAY easier to "guide" someone thru a linear story.
Fun in games: Games have been fun from the start.
Realism in games: We arrived there when Mortal Combat had the "bloody" FINISH HIM.
Plot in games: We're only 25% way there...
Putting a "ban" on "familiar" game design elements, like orcs, character classes, etc, won't really "solve" the problem of having a game with more plot.
[No Text]
> It doesn't matter if you trust them or not, they will do this.
Not without customers they won't!
> I wholeheartedly disagree. I still run Office 95 on my P3. Why? Simple - it runs a *lot* faster than any of the more recent versions, and it offers all of the features that I am interested in.
Exactly!! I still run Office 95 on my AMD 1.2Ghz. I don't need all the bloatware of Office 2000.
P3-500's ARE fast enough to run office. People don't upgrade their hardware to run office faster.
> Contracts are not all "lawful".
Correct. A contract for murder is not a valid contract.
Just a tip, the phrasing might be better if it was worded: Not *all* contracts are "lawful."
That's exactly the issue!
Now, most artists would just be happy that they have more listeners !
BUT
*SOME* artist's don't want their work (yes, work. Those songs just didn't appear out of mid-air one day) being copied without their permission. *cough Metalica-in-it-for-the-money cough*
If geeks are not going to respect other's people "property" aka copyrights, why should we expect other people to honor the ones we hold dear, like the GPL.
That's the "crime" of napster. People not respecting other people's work.
To muddle the issue, Napster also provides one nice advantage: It makes it very easy to listen and try out new music.
I know a lot of people have bought new albums, specifically because they were able to hear the whole album first. But copying someone's work, when they the didn't give you permission, still doesn't make it right. (No, it's NOT stealing, it's "unauthorized reproduction." BIG DIFFERENCE.)
Oh well, this is will probably get modded down as flamebait, since I'm just expressing my opinion.
Strange, that Bill Joy is on the board of napster, but doesn't agree with it's principles...
> Once you own it, you shouldn't need to keep paying on it.
Which means you DON'T own it!
*cough allodial title cough*
Another solution is to become a corporate sole:
Gee, I wonder why the Queen is a corporate sole !
OpenSSH needs to take a lesson from Mesa & OpenGL
> btw, don't bother looking for signatures in GNU C++ anymore--they got sacrificed on the altar of strict ANSI C++ compliance, like so many other good GNU C++ features.
Can you list what other nice features GNU C++ had, that got pruned? (wasn't #pragma pack(n) another one?)
What was the first version of g++ that had the signatures removed?
Thx !
> Now, the only kind of object you can pass is of class "A" or a subclass of "A".
Right, since the language wouldn't let you call foo(b), because while B has the "same interface" as A, it doesn't have the same type.
(You could cast B over to type A, but that is unsafe, and leads to run-time errors, not compile time error checking, so we won't go there.)
> For static type safety, however, all that really matters is that the argument to "foo" is an object that has a "method1(int)" and a "method2(char*)".
I would imagine this is done for performance reasons, and it keeps the compiler "simple" to write. The compiler would have to keep track of, "does this class have a matching function accepting all the correct paramaters/return type"
What are the downsides of allowing the compiler to accept foo(b) as valid code?
> GNU C++ had support for it in the form of the "signature" extension
Cool, will have to check that out.
> (templates may seem to give you similar functionality, but they don't really).
Right, generic programming, is an orthogonal issue.
> The additional requirement that the argument is of class "A" or a subclass is an additional restriction that may or may not model some aspect of the problem you are trying to solve and you may want to express it sometimes.
Could you expand a little more why is it so bad of having classes A & B inherit from a common "interface" class (with potential virtual functions)? Does it lead to class-inheritance bloat?
I think this would be one time, where MI (multiple inheritance) would actually be usefull.
P.S.
Thx for the discussion. This topic makes
So basicaly, what you are calling "type" is the "interface" to the object?
The OpenSSH teams needs to take a lesson from Mesa. OpenGL is a trademark of SGI. Just change the name of OpenSSH, and you never have to worry about these stupid trademark infringements again.
*shrugs*
> Also, the fact that languages like C++ and Java tie inheritance hierarchies to static type checking is an unnecessary and idiosyncratic restriction.
Can you provide some examples of what you mean?
And can you provide some examples of a language that doesn't do this?
Thx
Changing the aspect ratio does NOT remove aliasing.
If an edge of a polygon goes (in screenspace) from lets say (3,0) to (0,1) the slope is an 1/3. A repeating decimal can not be represented exactly on a quantized grid.