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.
1
Off-Topic / Re: "Take Creativity to the Next Level"
« on: September 13, 2010, 08:47:35 am »
Construct's logo looked like that before GM8's logo existed.
2
Announcements / Re: ENIGMA R4
« on: September 08, 2010, 08:37:07 am »
Stencyl's title of most hyperbolic description of a game engine has officially been toppled.
3
Announcements / Re: Around the Clock
« on: June 12, 2010, 08:08:31 pm »I don't see much benefit to trying to comply...There are good libraries for YAML written already. I'd say that's a pretty huge benefit.
5
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 08:39:13 pm »
Even in Game Maker, you can't access a local before it's been set once, which is the equivalent of declaring it for object locals. So you shouldn't be able to access a local declared with `local` in a later event.
EDIT: Never mind. I suppose that's another reason why frankensteining GML and C++, with your weird `local` and `global` scope system, and being able to `local` something in any event, is a horrible idea.
EDIT: Never mind. I suppose that's another reason why frankensteining GML and C++, with your weird `local` and `global` scope system, and being able to `local` something in any event, is a horrible idea.
6
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 08:04:32 pm »
Back to parsing. When will the type of a variable be changed by something after its first occurrence?
7
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:52:15 pm »
Clearly you're able to get GML and C++ to work together, with lots and lots and lots of exceptions for conflicts.
Clearly COBOL is working fine.
Clearly COBOL is working fine.
8
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:44:44 pm »
How is that an ad hominem?
I'm saying that the reason why you don't have many developers (or many people helping besides the GMC noobs who will blindly fight for you to the death) is that whenever they point out problems with the architecture, you defend it and say "F!@# you" instead of taking it into account. It's happened with several people who only have one or two posts.
I'm saying that the reason why you don't have many developers (or many people helping besides the GMC noobs who will blindly fight for you to the death) is that whenever they point out problems with the architecture, you defend it and say "F!@# you" instead of taking it into account. It's happened with several people who only have one or two posts.
9
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:41:48 pm »
And there you have the reason why you don't have a lot of developers.
10
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:40:30 pm »
That's exactly why I'm saying not to try to allow GML and C++ in the same place.
11
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:37:34 pm »
...Yes there is. GML is still parsed the same way, whether a variable is local or global. It just gets looked up in different places at runtime.
EDIT: Actually, the grammar is still probably context-free. I'm not sure.
However, I would still suggest not trying to allow GML and C++ in the same place, because they have conflicting semantics in many cases. This is what resulted in your global and local mess too.
EDIT: Actually, the grammar is still probably context-free. I'm not sure.
However, I would still suggest not trying to allow GML and C++ in the same place, because they have conflicting semantics in many cases. This is what resulted in your global and local mess too.
12
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:35:37 pm »
I'm being serious. When you frankenstein GML and C++ in such a way that the language's grammar is context-sensitive whereas the two ingredients weren't, you have a large problem.
13
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:30:54 pm »
Then maybe you should rethink EDL so that its grammar is context-free, like both GML's and C++'s are.
14
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 06:05:15 pm »
The point is that you don't have to build up a list at all. You can use the call stack like you'd use an abstract syntax tree, and you can tokenize as you go and then throw away the tokens after you've outputted the generated C++.
15
Proposals / Re: Tiering vs Components
« on: May 15, 2010, 02:43:22 pm »
The reason why I don't hack on Enigma is its horrible design. I don't really care too much if Josh succeeds or not, since I'd likely never use it.
I feel the same way about my code. When I have a bug and ask for help, instead of getting help I get a bunch of links to other engines which use entirely different methods.Hmm. That's happened... once? And it was because you were trying to code a physics engine from scratch, which works when you have exceedingly simple platforming, but without lots of study and hard work does not work for anything more complicated.