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

Proposals / Re: Documenting stuff in a more centralized location
« on: May 21, 2010, 04:17:50 PM »
Heh, fuck that.

Proposals / Re: Documenting stuff in a more centralized location
« on: May 21, 2010, 03:22:45 PM »
And yes, I seemed to be avoiding the real problem here and that is a blatant lack of central docs. I'm torn between the love of my life, SVG, and a format that most people can actually work with. Even printing to PDF doesn't really help. Would you care to propose an easily navigable and at least remotely eye-pleasing format? Especially if the program is even moderately pleasant to work with.

Proposals / Re: LGM-ENIGMA options panel.
« on: May 21, 2010, 03:20:43 PM »
Ism: That was of the first things I did.

Proposals / Re: LGM-ENIGMA options panel.
« on: May 20, 2010, 07:43:45 PM »
Nope. Bitches not marked executable if not so, otherwise opens in archive manager anyway. Even though I just picked Sun Java 6 Runtime.

Proposals / Re: Documenting stuff in a more centralized location
« on: May 20, 2010, 02:45:24 PM »
Those are all just broken after various switches between R3 and 4. R3 supported everything you've named off; I'm waiting for a "good opportunity" to install the new instance system for some of those.

Proposals / Re: LGM-ENIGMA options panel.
« on: May 20, 2010, 02:23:55 PM »
Well, my Jars open with the archive manager.

Proposals / Re: LGM-ENIGMA options panel.
« on: May 20, 2010, 08:51:14 AM »
Without doubt, versioning will be easier with any sort of directory/archive based "format." Extensibility will also be increased. Now, each approach has some different problems. I've gradated these here:

Storing as a Directory:
This is a radical approach that will make copying and sharing tedious. Copying a directory makes the kernel iterate file hierarchy, which there doesn't seem to be a good platform at doing. The alternative is to zip the file yourself, which can  be time consuming. The benefit is that the IDE or user can use their own compression scheme, and manipulating resources becomes faster and relatively infallible. Version control would be operable immediately at the push of a button. Selecting the file to load in ENIGMA could be a pain in the ass unless a manifest file is configured: it would just be a directory with an extension; how would ENIGMA know if you just wanted to explore it or if you wanted to explore it?

I would like to propose a solution, part of which I implied in that paragraph. When exploring for a file to open, LGM/the IDE could check for a file called EGMmanifest.egm. If found, it reads it for version, and if the version is sane, it opens it or errors that it is too new/old. Otherwise it just opens the directory. Problem with this is, it would take a lot of work (at least in the APIs with which I am familiar) to specify that behavior when exploring directories. Perhaps Java makes that easier.

That introduces the problem of associating ENIGMA projects with ENIGMA. When you double click a GMK, you get Game Maker. Causing that on Windows/Linux would be a hack at best. For that, I propose that double clicking the .EGM manifest will open the file in ENIGMA. To enable this with mime types, the file could be prefixed with EGM as the first line by standard. Thus, to open their project, users would double click the directory, then double click the manifest. Relatively painless, but somewhat annoying after time, especially with orphaned folder windows.

Storing as a Zip Archive:
This has worked for Java for executables for a long time. Not a lot needs written to a Jar at runtime, if anything, but the functionality is out there. This could make writing slow; the question is whether it would be slower than GM's method of packing everything each and every save. Logically, how could it be? But we've yet to see. Association becomes a real prick on Linux, as Linux doesn't care that the extension is a Jar, it sees the ZIP magic number at the beginning of the file. So Linux users would have to Right Click->Open With->LateralGM. Windows users could just double click though, which is who we're really concerned about not offending with trivial tasks.

Sharing would be fast and easy. Versioning would be kind of a pain in the ass, since the entire thing needs compressed, so you have to wait for that, then the versioning application gets to run on it, so you wait for that, then it gets compressed again... Depending on how often that was, I'd be annoyed.

Storing as a PNG-like format:
Basically, this avoids the above problems of file association, and takes a different approach to attaining an extensible format. This would be the most difficult for third-party applets to manipulate, as they would, unlike in the other two methods, need an understanding of a special format. It would also introduce problems for versioning amid all the plugins.

Consider that in the other two methods, versioning was ready either all the time or as soon as the file was automatically unpacked by a completely unrelated third-party compression tool (even though zip is embedded into Java's language, it still has nothing to do with ENIGMA). Here, a third party would actually have to do a little research to figure out how to open the file.

Plugins would need a method not only for writing and reading their extension from the file, but for unpacking to a directory for versioning, which is just an example of a functionality that someone may wish to implement that would be lost because individual plugins would have to be designed around it: If the plugin wasn't built to support versioning or numerous other functionalities brought to the table by other plugins, then it simply never will unless the author of the versioning plugin or X new plugin specifically codes a method for all the extensions. In case the sheer amount of information in that paragraph made my meaning unclear, I am saying that coordination between formats that are entirely plugin-dependent can be difficult for a new, unrelated plugin.

Also, the "reading" part of this format is likely to get messy due to Ism having no way of knowing (as far as I can tell) how they (plugin/extension programmers, though they don't exist) label their extensions to the format. Not to mention that the order of plugin loading is  likely to change from instance to instance of installed versions, so Ism can't just iterate the plugins asking if this is their work: they could be called prematurely. Basically, Ism would have to make calls to each plugin who has registered itself as a format editor to ask, "Is this your doing? If so, undo it." These methods would all be called (until one fessed up to it) on every extension.

Announcements / Re: Fixed those Makefiles
« on: May 20, 2010, 08:16:05 AM »
luis, flexaplex:
Mark decided he'd take a different approach to the woeful inadequacy of computers' floating point capabilities. While it is true that most languages cannot correctly compare fifths/tenths added together (it is a repeating decimal in binary and therefore can not be represented in a single string of bits of any size), or that sin(pi) == 0 (it's actually 1.2246063538223773e-16), Mark decided that GM should have that capability. That being the case, he made his comparison operators not compare the entire double.

If GM evaluates 1.0000000000001 > 1 as false, Mark is an idiot. ENIGMA will evaluate 1.0000000000001 > 1 and 1.000000000000001 > 1 as true, 1.0000000000000001 > 1 as false. This is because 1.0000000000000001 is simply outside the precision of a floating point value. In actuality, both ENIGMA and GM will store more bits of precision than they check, which is all the solution really needs at this point.

Because of this, I was going to replicate the behavior in ENIGMA by casting to float before comparisons. IEEE tells us that this isn't as simple as just chopping off a large part of the significand, since doubles implement larger exponents as well. But I'm assuming FPUs have a special path just for the occasion.

Announcements / Re: Fixed those Makefiles
« on: May 19, 2010, 06:56:25 PM »
Scratch that. As it happens, sin(180*pi/180) = 1.2246063538223773e-16.

GM implemented a threshold for such in its == operators. I guess ENIGMA will have to do the same. Morbidly disappointing, really.

Announcements / Re: Fixed those Makefiles
« on: May 19, 2010, 05:34:04 PM »
Well, mod is easily fixed by--and this needs done soon anyway--creating a file of syntax quirks and in it placing #define mod %. I will do that soon enough; but it won't work for everything because the syntax checker doesn't actually unroll macros yet, even though everything else does.

I'm not sure what's causing your other bugs, Ism, if they are bugs at all. We'll check the outputted C++ next we talk.

Off-Topic / Re: WebM released
« on: May 19, 2010, 05:27:44 PM »
I thought it would be Google's right to release their work into the public domain if they get the patent. *shrug*

Serp's really been pushing ( <-- pun ) the idea of switching to git. But I prefer SVN due to the fact that I find SourceForge less likely to go down and I prefer the history of my files be immutable; even when the file is deleted in later revisions.

Announcements / Re: Fixed those Makefiles
« on: May 18, 2010, 09:11:13 PM »
Retro: All my makefiles use *.o to quickly link. The link target is depended on by Windows' and Linux' targets. The assumption is that you're using one of those. I separated it to avoid reprinting all its dependencies.

Off-Topic / Re: c++0x
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:48:14 PM »
C++: It is easier when you are blind


Off-Topic / Re: c++0x
« on: May 18, 2010, 05:35:40 PM »
GCC's had and whored most of those for a while now.
It's not like template<> wasn't already ambiguous in some cases.
Fortunately, I believe lambda is the only exception to this not being a problem. I believe they introduced a couple more syntax quirks that I was going to add to ENIGMA anyway... I imagine it will all blow over well.
They've had typeof for a while. __typeof, it was. I just defined it as int for ENIGMA, because expression types don't really matter to my parser, as they are all just abstract names to it. I may need to fix that as they start pulling shit like typeof(something awful) :: some_member... Hopefully that never really happens, or by the time it does, a project I've had my eye on that can tell GCC to export XML reaches fruition.
Or becomes unnecessary as GCC decides to implement an alternative, which is even less likely.