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.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
586
Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 16, 2010, 11:52:29 am »
Replicating bugs would be retarded. I believe all the bugs left in GM7 occur in highly rare scenarios and actually replicating some of them (especially the ones regarding instance_deactivation) it would be an absolute nightmare to the verge of impossible to replicate them.
The only real incompatibilities would be that any written workarounds for the bugs might not work and to replicate bugs for the program so any written workarounds are still compatible is just about one of the most retarded concepts I can possibly conceive. :/
The only real incompatibilities would be that any written workarounds for the bugs might not work and to replicate bugs for the program so any written workarounds are still compatible is just about one of the most retarded concepts I can possibly conceive. :/
Quote
I know it's not a 'normal' scenario, but which is easier - convincing all possible GM -> Enigma converts to code properly and recode all their old stuff properly, or just make Enigma work with it?You don't need to convince anyone as it's not going to affect anyone.
587
Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 16, 2010, 10:49:41 am »
I completely agree with keeping everything compatible with gml but something like that is not a normal scenario, it's irrelevant, noone uses it and noone is supposed to use it.
It's like actively making Enigma return the previous script return value for a non-returning script like GM does. I'm not sure whether it does or not but actively making it do so would be pointless and a hindrance if that functionality is not desired in Enigma. Though it is a feature in GM and someone may perhaps use it stupidly the scenario is just not worth considering.
Will Enigma also include any bugs within GM so it is compatible?
It's like actively making Enigma return the previous script return value for a non-returning script like GM does. I'm not sure whether it does or not but actively making it do so would be pointless and a hindrance if that functionality is not desired in Enigma. Though it is a feature in GM and someone may perhaps use it stupidly the scenario is just not worth considering.
Will Enigma also include any bugs within GM so it is compatible?
588
Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 15, 2010, 06:51:37 pm »
Yes but I bet noone in the history of moving from GM to Enigma will ever use code in that format for the reasons mentioned above. I may be wrong perhaps one person may at some point may use it but it's really not even worth considering for the off change of slightly annoying that one person.
589
Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 15, 2010, 02:38:03 pm »
I would be highly surprised if there is one single user using that code that will switch from GM to Enigma, it's irrelevant. The reasons for this:
1) Most users only declare var at the top of a script.
2) Most people with the knowledge to use var would not make such a mistake.
3) I would also expect an average GM user switching to Enigma to be more intelligent.
1) Most users only declare var at the top of a script.
2) Most people with the knowledge to use var would not make such a mistake.
3) I would also expect an average GM user switching to Enigma to be more intelligent.
Quote
Slippery slope to all GM code being retardedThat above code is illogical it shouldn't even be used in GM, the same is not said for all gml.
590
Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 14, 2010, 01:49:57 pm »My thoughts ^Whoever uses that code in gml is retarded, who cares how gml handles it, it shouldn't be written.
Breaks this vCode: [Select]if (true)
{
var a;
a = 3.14;
}
show_message(string(a));
And by "breaks," I mean "fixes in a way that may piss off a very small percentage of GM users."