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

2101
Announcements / Re: Anaphase
« on: April 14, 2010, 07:58:45 PM »
Procedure in general is as follows: (Subject to revision; pay attention)

Revision 0

-Have Code::Blocks and some SVN client, or a whole lot of creativity.
-Check out the SVN repository (from command line, use  svn co https://enigma-dev.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/enigma-dev enigma-dev )
-Go to Trunk
-Go to CompilerSource
-Open the Code::Blocks project. Find the dropdown that likely reads "release." If you're on Linux, set it to "Release-Linux"
-Hit compile (blue gear)
-Go back up to Trunk
-Run LateralGM, best with a terminal via "java -jar lateralgm16b4.jar"
---If that errors, paste output here
-Make something simple (just a single object drawing a graded circle is what I've been using as a preliminary)
-Under the "Enigma" menu, hit "Run"
-Open trunk/ENIGMAsystem/SHELL/ENIGMAengine.cbp
-Select your OS from the dropdown box once more (Debug is faster to build, release will run fastest)
-Press Compile
---If anything errors and you think you followed the above correctly, right click the error list, select "Copy Contents to Clipboard," and paste them all here.
-Press run.
---If it doesn't behave as expected, describe what went wrong here

Repeat the step starting at "Make something simple" until you're sick of finding bugs.
The most immediate concern is that everyone can achieve a simple circle.

2102
Announcements / Re: Anaphase
« on: April 14, 2010, 07:33:00 PM »
Anyone that would like to test at this point can checkout the SVN and operate the project. Windows users will need a copy of libzlib, available here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1052740/libzlib.a

Place that in additional/zlib if you're on Windows, otherwise Code::Blocks will know what to do if you select the correct build target.

Furthermore, no one I've talked to is proficient enough in Make to write a makefile taking parameters to indicate which graphics system and window system to use (Like GRAPHICS=GL, or just _ instead of = if need be). That being the case, either write one and post it here, (specifying systems is as simple as selecting which directories to iterate for sources), or you can join everyone else and test it by pressing Run in ENIGMA, then building the game in Code::Blocks (from ENIGMAsystem/SHELL/ENIGMAengine.cbp). You must hit "Run" in ENIGMA first, or your sources will not be authored.

Furthermore, instance_create is behaving very slowly on Ubuntu when an instance has not been recently destroyed. This indicates to me that allocation of memory for the new instance is painfully slow for one reason or another. I'm looking into the problem; it could be anything.

So yes, if you're intelligent enough to get what's available working for you, please feel free. If you're not, or would prefer not to anyway, just wait until ENIGMA's to the developers' liking (That includes Ism and me).

2103
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 12, 2010, 10:51:10 PM »
"Unless you have to agree to some contract/EULA/something before using that phone. Then yes."
Fair use.

2104
Off-Topic / Re: Stencyl
« on: April 12, 2010, 06:07:12 PM »
Yep. No one's given them more heat than Luda and I for their... "unique" ideology. Especially in the sense that their website is the best feature of their software. ...
But yeah, I figure I'll leave critiquing them to people who actually care to test their software for the rest of their development.

2105
Off-Topic / Re: Stencyl
« on: April 12, 2010, 04:20:27 PM »
Anyone care to "Join the Beta" and share thoughts? :P

2106
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 12, 2010, 04:14:13 PM »
"If apple wants to restrict who can put apps on their iPhone, it's their right."
On their store, yes. On their phone, no.

2107
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 11, 2010, 09:47:00 PM »
"So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform — which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry — were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone."

"We think John Gruber’s post is very insightful and not negative: ...
Steve"

Sounds like Noodle was right, to me.

Anyway, yes, ENIGMA clearly meets the definition of what they're trying to outlaw, but I believe you'll soon find that just because a wanna-be big, bad corporation wants to outlaw something, doesn't mean they're going to manage it. Take Yoyo's EULA as an example, not that I would suggest any of those morons have half the legal prowess of Apple. That said, however, what we have here seems to be a case of "Same shit, different company."

2108
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 11, 2010, 07:17:54 PM »
"In software engineering, a compatibility layer allows binaries for a legacy or foreign system to run on a host system."
That means WINE and the like. ENIGMA selects native code, and then compiles it natively. If anything, you should be arguing that it's a tool for "intermediary translation."

However, that particular clause illegalizes... practically everything.

2109
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 11, 2010, 03:13:34 PM »
int main() is an intermediate layer.
No? Well, then int game_step() is.
Therefore, all games containing more than one source file or function calling from the Apple iPhone API are hereby outlawed.

I'll bet any sum of money that the vast majority of iPhone games keep calls to make the main game screen, &c., in a separate, easy-to-call function. They can't outlaw ENIGMA without outlawing those.

Also, this message was posted from the Eclipse IDE. If that makes sense, *mumble mumble*.

2110
Announcements / Re: Anaphase
« on: April 11, 2010, 11:21:57 AM »
Fixed, and then some. Going to do some homework while I ponder my next move.

2111
Announcements / Re: Anaphase
« on: April 11, 2010, 10:42:53 AM »
For some reason, instance_destroy does nothing at all. Fixing...

2112
Announcements / Re: Anaphase
« on: April 11, 2010, 10:41:33 AM »

2113
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 11, 2010, 09:52:27 AM »
On a separate note,
"But you need to put it on the App Store or no one will be able to use it without jailbreaking. And then they'll notice and remove it."
How will they notice it? ENIGMA doesn't contain a DLL labeled make_enigma_games_work_for_iphone_lulz.dll. An ENIGMA game is indistinguishable from a standardly compiled C++ game: It IS a standardly compiled C++ game.

2114
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible
« on: April 11, 2010, 09:50:05 AM »
Their clause on originality is easily worked around; regardless of who (or, in this case, what) wrote the code, it is written in C++ by compile time.
Also, look at Unity. They use JavaScript. How does this fare with that license?

Furthermore, the "compatibility layer" can't really apply to ENIGMA; ENIGMA's API is entirely platform-specific code. Using ENIGMA's API is no different than making your own calls in a separate function, or using someone else's in library form.

This license has essentially no bearing on the project; if anything should make them kiss their hopes good bye, it's me neither owning nor intending to own an iPhone. The closest lexical match between their newly founded restrictions and the concept of ENIGMA is that ENIGMA would enable you to compile your code on multiple platforms without changing any of your own code. This isn't done dynamically, though, from a separate API such as SDL; it's a (usually) custom-coded (at compile time, by ENIGMA) part of your game.

It's worth mentioning that the only true function of the parser is to add semicolons and declare variables. That's hardly a cause for license violations; the newest was targeted primarily at Flash compilers. They don't want Flash games being compiled and sold.

So basically, to accuse ENIGMA of being illegal on the iPhone would say that Unity (for one) and most libraries/user-defined functions are also illegal. The trick is that the parser does a lot of coding for the user, ultimately producing an "original" C++ source code.

Argument, as synopsis:
i. ENIGMA lacks a compatibility layer; it's just a library-esque implementation of GML-like functions, making it no different from an entirely user-coded library. Since the API they will be using is a static set of simple functions designed solely and entirely for the iPhone, it is not a compatibility layer.
ii. ENIGMA games' source is originally C++. Since ENIGMA is not a compiler, but a parser, the original code they will be compiling is still C++.
iii. ENIGMA does not "link to Documented APIs" at all. GCC does the linking for ENIGMA; GCC is an authorized tool.
iv. To outlaw ENIGMA is to outlaw anyone else doing any coding for you, as well as to outlaw the creation of functions for the sole purpose of calling one or more Apple Documented API functions.

2115
Off-Topic / Re: The grand c++ vs everyone else debate
« on: April 11, 2010, 12:17:39 AM »
"You couldn't just plop dependent typing into C. But that would give an error, since the size of x could be smaller than 25. You'd have to be checking that i is less than the size of the array, and then you'll pass the type checker with no runtime information."
So, we've gone from it fixing things for you, to it informing you a check is a good idea, to it actually erroring if you don't check. At this point, I can't even tell if you're referring to one concept, let alone one language.

"Libraries definitely cannot provide everything that a high-level language can provide. Stop arguing this. Using C's macro language is a horrible idea to make it higher-level. It's disgusting. And what do you mean by "a separate parser"? Something like what you're doing with Enigma and EDL? Because that is very, very far from being the best option."
Since all of this is either opinionated or unreinforced, I've no response.