ENIGMA Development Environment
Website is in read-only mode due to a recent attack.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Josh @ Dreamland

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: November 02, 2009, 09:07:57 PM »
Yes, I do remember you. You were the one that helped answer questions on that topic I since stopped supervising. Wow, that was a long time ago.
I hope at some point to implement a system for updating variables that comes across as easily as that library did.

And yes, waiting for R4 would be a good idea, I believe.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 30, 2009, 05:36:48 AM »
Mmm, to run with execute_string(), assuming I ever feel like implementing it?
Or maybe they'll include GCC with their game like ENIGMA does, who knows?

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 29, 2009, 07:33:38 PM »
;_________; ?

And yes, but that's true for static linking as well. Assuming that's an easy option with Scintilla. Can't really think why a game would want a Scintilla interface...

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 29, 2009, 02:30:58 PM »
Funny how both you named are no longer under development, last I checked.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 29, 2009, 07:30:47 AM »

You're comparing the size of an OS to the size of a game. How the hell often do you need to update a GM sized game?

There's no doubt DLLs are good in other cases. It's why most people are content to use SDL's ten DLLs instead of statically linking. But, ENIGMA is designed to be all-in-one, like GM. (Although GM does include a DLL in its actual runner, you can't see it, so it looks less messy).

Which reminds me, you say static linking is ugly... Static linking produces one standalone executable. I always liked my games to be standalone; means I can just drag one item over without fear of missing a DLL. Dave used to send me projects of his in all sorts of different libraries. First SDL, then Ogre... There were others I can't remember. Each time, I'd need him to send five different DLLs until it worked. He'd send two he could remember at a time, but it's still not very convenient.

Ideally, yes, it's good to be able to update large projects without having to redownload all the compiled code. A whole damn operating system is a great example of that, as I can scarcely think of one operating without it.

They are also useful in extensibility, such as Pidgin's plug-ins.

How many GM games honestly require DLLs for that purpose? GM would not make it that hard to do, actually, but I've never seen an instance where that was even implemented, much less required. Not to mention, one in every two hundred million people on the GMC knows any DLL-ready language. So having a well-used plugin system is unlikely.

At its prime, in a community full even moderately capable C++ programmers working on things other than games, are DLLs useful? Oh, certainly. In a community full of developers who rival companies like Valve (who externalize everything), are DLLs useful? Yes. On a forum whose immediate intended population has twenty people that know C++ and are willing to contribute code to everyone that does not, are DLLs all that useful? No more than static linking.

Those who develop specifically for ENIGMA can bear that in mind for later. For now, all GM DLLs can be assumed to be closed source and of course are not static, which is basically the only reason external_define() exists. A lot of the better GM DLLs are open source anyway, if only poorly so. Like 39Dll. Source is included, no license.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 28, 2009, 04:13:45 PM »
NONSENSE! MAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *filinaeny goes off daep edn*

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 27, 2009, 07:29:58 PM »
Code isn't supposed to be all that big. If you want small updates, make your resources external, not your code.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 27, 2009, 04:22:31 PM »
What he meant by that was, DLLs are a practical way to use code you don't understand that runs fast in GM. In ENIGMA, the only point to having them is because people are set in their 39Dll-loving ways.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 27, 2009, 07:55:08 AM »
Just for a little bit.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 26, 2009, 08:06:00 PM »
That error was extinguished a long time ago. Now I'm moving on to complete support for the rest of the language. (The little bit I have not yet implemented)

Also, yes, definitely a Linux version, as that's the operating system I'm on. I will, however, boot into Windows to make sure DLLs work.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 24, 2009, 12:27:14 PM »
I'm currently on Ubuntu myself, as it's the only distro I can boot with my card, as stated. Can't wait 'til my Fedora-oriented clock()-based FPS regulator stops working.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 22, 2009, 08:03:02 PM »
Clock() isn't accurate enough on Linux.

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 22, 2009, 07:31:07 PM »
So, you've dropped the yacc idea and any resulting simplicity and have moved on to wanting a recursive descent model. My original syntax checker resembled one, actually; It had a file full of inline'd functions that would each do simple error checking. Examples being must_follow_operator(), and expect_semicolon(). I hated it, and later scrapped the entire thing, mostly because it's nice to see all the code (or at least a lot of it) in one place.

Also, I later realized how much simpler it is if you do such checking only when necessary, especially for GML. Since a semicolon is almost never expected, it made no sense to skip one each time.

General ENIGMA / Re: Problem with activating account
« on: October 22, 2009, 07:12:36 PM »
I was honestly stumped by this one. I think its intention is to seem human so it can sneak in advertisements subliminally for a short lived period. Meaning it'd have to be able to tell if anyone replied to its post.

[view alt text]

Announcements / Re: Progress
« on: October 22, 2009, 07:03:55 PM »
For the fifteenth time, go for it. Show us all how fast and easy it is to write. Outdo me.

<JoshDreamland>   Out of curiosity, what parser generator was GCC made in?
<segher>   none
<segher>   both C and C++ use a hand-written parser
<segher>   dunno about fortran and ada
<segher>   (much) older versions of GCC used a bison parser
<segher>   the hand-written parser is much smaller and faster than the old bison parser; more importantly though, it allows for much better diagnostics on errors
<segher>   oh, bison is nice for small parsers
<segher>   then again, most jobs i need small parsers for i would do in perl or haskell :-)

Why don't you write it in Perl or Haskell, also?