Re: Game development
On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 02:32:00 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 01:45:25 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> *almost* :-) > ah, so that was trolling? You keep taking the bait. sure. just be sure to keep it fun enough for me, so i don't get bored. You think it's fun to lose what little credibility you had. > i'm so sorry... i was thinking that you're > just a lonely old man and have noone to talk with. When you have self professed fantasies about collecting dirty old men you will probably start imagining them everywhere you go. no need to imagine something that i clearly see with my eyes. yet my imagination adding some... juice to the scene. Ok you win, you're more perverted and sick than I am. Congrats. > or i just can't > realise that shitting their own pants is what they call > "trolling" this > times... o tempora, o mores... "shitting their own pants" Your wit knows no bounds. that's 'cause i'm endlessly smart. I agree, a true genius.
Re: Game development
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 01:45:25 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 00:44:00 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:13:28 + > > dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 20:59:20 UTC, ketmar via > >> Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:03:22 + > >> > dajones via Digitalmars-d > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle > >> >> aged men... > >> > ah, sure. it's always funny to see some old jerk having > >> > nothing more to > >> > do than running around whining how old is he. i'm enjoying > >> > collecting > >> > perverts, you know. > >> > >> So lets get this straight... > >> > >> 1. I reply to you for maybe the third time and you think I am > >> your own personal fan club. > >> 2. You are proud to draw the attention of old men because it's > >> "fun" to listen to them moan. > >> 3. You enjoy collecting perverts. > >> > >> I'm almost too embarrassed to troll someone who seems unable > >> to shoot anything but his own foot. > >> > >> *almost* :-) > > ah, so that was trolling? > > You keep taking the bait. sure. just be sure to keep it fun enough for me, so i don't get bored. > > i'm so sorry... i was thinking that you're > > just a lonely old man and have noone to talk with. > When you have self professed fantasies about collecting dirty old > men you will probably start imagining them everywhere you go. no need to imagine something that i clearly see with my eyes. yet my imagination adding some... juice to the scene. > > or i just can't > > realise that shitting their own pants is what they call > > "trolling" this > > times... o tempora, o mores... > > "shitting their own pants" > > Your wit knows no bounds. that's 'cause i'm endlessly smart. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 00:44:00 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:13:28 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 20:59:20 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:03:22 + > dajones via Digitalmars-d > wrote: >> >> You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle >> aged men... > ah, sure. it's always funny to see some old jerk having > nothing more to > do than running around whining how old is he. i'm enjoying > collecting > perverts, you know. So lets get this straight... 1. I reply to you for maybe the third time and you think I am your own personal fan club. 2. You are proud to draw the attention of old men because it's "fun" to listen to them moan. 3. You enjoy collecting perverts. I'm almost too embarrassed to troll someone who seems unable to shoot anything but his own foot. *almost* :-) ah, so that was trolling? You keep taking the bait. i'm so sorry... i was thinking that you're just a lonely old man and have noone to talk with. When you have self professed fantasies about collecting dirty old men you will probably start imagining them everywhere you go. or i just can't realise that shitting their own pants is what they call "trolling" this times... o tempora, o mores... "shitting their own pants" Your wit knows no bounds.
Re: Game development
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:13:28 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 20:59:20 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:03:22 + > > dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> > >> You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle aged > >> men... > > ah, sure. it's always funny to see some old jerk having nothing > > more to > > do than running around whining how old is he. i'm enjoying > > collecting > > perverts, you know. > > So lets get this straight... > > 1. I reply to you for maybe the third time and you think I am > your own personal fan club. > 2. You are proud to draw the attention of old men because it's > "fun" to listen to them moan. > 3. You enjoy collecting perverts. > > I'm almost too embarrassed to troll someone who seems unable to > shoot anything but his own foot. > > *almost* :-) ah, so that was trolling? i'm so sorry... i was thinking that you're just a lonely old man and have noone to talk with. or i just can't realise that shitting their own pants is what they call "trolling" this times... o tempora, o mores... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 20:59:20 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:03:22 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle aged men... ah, sure. it's always funny to see some old jerk having nothing more to do than running around whining how old is he. i'm enjoying collecting perverts, you know. So lets get this straight... 1. I reply to you for maybe the third time and you think I am your own personal fan club. 2. You are proud to draw the attention of old men because it's "fun" to listen to them moan. 3. You enjoy collecting perverts. I'm almost too embarrassed to troll someone who seems unable to shoot anything but his own foot. *almost* :-)
Re: Game development
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:03:22 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 15:44:32 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:17:17 + > > dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > >> On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:17:28 UTC, ketmar via > >> Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 > >> > Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d > >> > >> > if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody > >> > can talk > >> > for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore > >> > myself > >> > personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as > >> > nobody else > >> > wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong > >> > calling someone > >> > "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a > >> > distance. > >> > >> Ketmar the teenage albino freak wasting time replying to time > >> wasters. > > i'm proud of having my own fanclub. > > You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle aged > men... ah, sure. it's always funny to see some old jerk having nothing more to do than running around whining how old is he. i'm enjoying collecting perverts, you know. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 15:44:32 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:17:17 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: Ketmar the teenage albino freak wasting time replying to time wasters. i'm proud of having my own fanclub. When I was young and being on a network meant a BBS, the usual reply was "RTFM". I guess the modern age version of "RTFM" is to dump a URL: http://dlang.org/cpp_interface Unforunately, dlang.org lacks a proper C++ binding tutorial, so I guess this "RTFM" might turn into a "WTF! WTFM!".
Re: Game development
On Saturday, 10 January 2015 at 15:44:32 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:17:17 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:17:28 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 > Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d > if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody > can talk > for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore > myself > personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as > nobody else > wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong > calling someone > "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a > distance. Ketmar the teenage albino freak wasting time replying to time wasters. i'm proud of having my own fanclub. You are **proud** to draw the attention of nerdy middle aged men... jeez I though I had problems.
Re: Game development
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:17:17 + dajones via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:17:28 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 > > Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d > > > if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody can > > talk > > for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore > > myself > > personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as > > nobody else > > wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong calling > > someone > > "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a > > distance. > > Ketmar the teenage albino freak wasting time replying to time > wasters. i'm proud of having my own fanclub. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:17:28 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody can talk for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore myself personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as nobody else wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong calling someone "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a distance. Ketmar the teenage albino freak wasting time replying to time wasters.
Re: Game development
On 1/10/2015 12:28 AM, Ras wrote: On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 13:22:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On 1/9/2015 2:35 PM, Ras wrote: No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has full support for DirectX. D has built-in support for COM and can interop with DX just fine. So how can I get started with Directx programming in D? Could you give me a link to maybe a binding or some projects on github? You can find bindings for DX 9 & 10 as part of the Win32 API bindings at [1]. Some work was done on a DX 11 binding for the Aurora graphics project [2], but I don't know how complete it is. If you need DX 11, though, it should serve as a good starting point. [1] https://github.com/CS-svnmirror/dsource-bindings-win32/tree/master/directx [2] https://github.com/auroragraphics/directx
Re: Game development
On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:26:19 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:35:04 + Ras via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 18:03:48 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + > NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and >> the logic in D? > i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with > native > performance". No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has full support for DirectX. so i was wrong here. i'm sorry. yet you'd better explain your reasons right in the question next time, so other people can jump right to the answering, without guessing first what you *really* want to do and *why*. as you talking about "full support for DirectX", i'm supposing that your engine will support 3D environments? so you'd better start with writing the engine itself, and don't think about D here. just don't use things like multiple inheritance or excessive templating. when you'll get a solid working engine, it will be time to discuss how to build D interop with it, exploiting your engine's architecture as much as possible. or just start writing the engine in D. maybe you'll consider using OpenGL instead of DirectX, as we not only have bindings for OpenGL, but OpenGL is much more portable. so eventually your engine may be ported to MacOS X, for example, without rewriting the whole rendering part. Well i had to know if it was possible.
Re: Game development
On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 13:22:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On 1/9/2015 2:35 PM, Ras wrote: No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has full support for DirectX. D has built-in support for COM and can interop with DX just fine. So how can I get started with Directx programming in D? Could you give me a link to maybe a binding or some projects on github?
Re: Game development
On 1/9/2015 2:35 PM, Ras wrote: No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has full support for DirectX. D has built-in support for COM and can interop with DX just fine.
Re: Game development
On Friday, 9 January 2015 at 06:17:28 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 08/01/15 22:02, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > am i fobidding someone to reply? O_O > > but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are > not > welcome. Well, it's one thing if you make that decision about people who are in contact with you personally. It's a bit different if you are unilaterally deciding to make that decision as a member of a collective forum of people, because in that case it's a bit of an imposition on the rest of us. and if i'm not reacting, it's painting *me* wrong. i.e. just because _you've_ decided that he's a timewaster, doesn't make it OK for you to try and make him feel unwelcome in a forum that belongs to a wider community. if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody can talk for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore myself personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as nobody else wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong calling someone "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a distance. It's not about intelligence, and I'm surprised that an intelligent man like you would think otherwise. It's not reasonable to generalize community based upon only one member of said community, but it still happens. Everywhere, to everyone, because humans are like that. Instead of admitting of being unwelcoming, you swing the other way and accuse people of being not intelligent enough. That's absolutely ridiculous behavior that should not be acceptable in any friendly community.
Re: Game development
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 05:35:04 + Ras via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 18:03:48 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + > > NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > >> engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and > >> the logic in D? > > i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with > > native > > performance". > > No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The > reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has > full support for DirectX. so i was wrong here. i'm sorry. yet you'd better explain your reasons right in the question next time, so other people can jump right to the answering, without guessing first what you *really* want to do and *why*. as you talking about "full support for DirectX", i'm supposing that your engine will support 3D environments? so you'd better start with writing the engine itself, and don't think about D here. just don't use things like multiple inheritance or excessive templating. when you'll get a solid working engine, it will be time to discuss how to build D interop with it, exploiting your engine's architecture as much as possible. or just start writing the engine in D. maybe you'll consider using OpenGL instead of DirectX, as we not only have bindings for OpenGL, but OpenGL is much more portable. so eventually your engine may be ported to MacOS X, for example, without rewriting the whole rendering part. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:27:53 +0100 Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 08/01/15 22:02, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > am i fobidding someone to reply? O_O > > > > but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not > > welcome. > > Well, it's one thing if you make that decision about people who are in > contact > with you personally. It's a bit different if you are unilaterally deciding > to > make that decision as a member of a collective forum of people, because in > that > case it's a bit of an imposition on the rest of us. and if i'm not reacting, it's painting *me* wrong. > i.e. just because _you've_ decided that he's a timewaster, doesn't make it OK > for you to try and make him feel unwelcome in a forum that belongs to a wider > community. if he is intelligent enough, he will understand that nobody can talk for the whole community, so in the worst case he will ignore myself personally. if he is not intelligent enough... oh, well, as nobody else wants to be a judge, i will be one. i don't feel wrong calling someone "timewaster" if he *is* one. and i can smell 'em from a distance. this has nothing in common with "elitism", though. someone can't sing, someone can't program. both skills can be trained, but not by asking meaningless questions. > Also, I don't know if you've ever had any contact or experience of this > person > in some other online space, but if not, it seems a bit harsh to jump to such > judgement straight away, even if you've previously had bad experiences with > people asking questions in a similar style. it's like a doctor. often good doctor can see that something wrong with another man without taking him to the clinic first. i'm a "timewaster doctor" with a long practice. ;-) yet i'm still waiting for three bells ringing before making my verdict. now i have five bells ringing. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 21:25:24 + (UTC) Justin Whear via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:02:26 +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not > > welcome. > > Ironically this is exactly why I'm putting you on my ignored authors list. yet i see that you're still reading my posts and even answering. i have to inform you that your twitlist is not working. T_T signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 18:03:48 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and the logic in D? i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with native performance". No i dont. I want to use D language for as much as possible. The reason I want to use C++ for the engine is that it always has full support for DirectX.
Re: Game development
On 9 January 2015 at 02:53, Ras via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Hello, > > I want to write the game engine in C++ and write all the game logic and ai > etc in D. How would i do this? I do this extensively. You can check out how I do D bindings for my engine: https://github.com/TurkeyMan/fuji/tree/master/dist/include/d2/fuji And also a project that uses it: https://github.com/FeedBackDevs/feedback You're welcome to use my engine if you like. It's pretty comprehensive, portable, and it's always nice to have other user feedback. I can also provide some level of engine support.
Re: Game development
On 1/8/15 1:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 1/8/15 4:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The dpl-generated docs are now the default on dlang.org. I don't know what "dpl-generated" means. I'm not seeing any differences. Oh, sorry. They aren't the default yet, but they'll be soon :o). -- Andrei
Re: Game development
If you can't suffer someone's posts, please use your newsreader's filtering features to not see their posts. I know it's not perfect, but by and large it does improve things. Isn't it better for the community to politely reign in those who misbehave? Elitism is terribly damaging, we want D to be what people think of and talk about rather than 'oh, those guys are assholes'.
Re: Game development
On 08/01/15 22:11, market via Digitalmars-d wrote: just gtfo ketmar... just do it. Sorry, no. Not acceptable either.
Re: Game development
On 1/8/15 4:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The dpl-generated docs are now the default on dlang.org. I don't know what "dpl-generated" means. I'm not seeing any differences. -Steve
Re: Game development
On 1/8/15 1:25 PM, Justin Whear wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:02:26 +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not welcome. Ironically this is exactly why I'm putting you on my ignored authors list. Ironically you're replying to the message you weren't supposed to see :o). All, especially market and ketmar and those who like to get into diatribes: please help maintain a civil atmosphere on this group. We've kept a really nice atmosphere for a long time now, and it's sad to see it's become quite a bit less so in recent times. If you can't suffer someone's posts, please use your newsreader's filtering features to not see their posts. I know it's not perfect, but by and large it does improve things. I'd like to attract your attention to a much more important AND urgent matter. The dpl-generated docs are now the default on dlang.org. Sadly the conversion is imperfect and there are still quite a few issues that stay unresolved, most of them trivially simple and embarrassingly parallelizable. Please join those of us who are chipping in to fix them. Thanks, Andrei
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:02:26 +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not > welcome. Ironically this is exactly why I'm putting you on my ignored authors list. --Justin
Re: Game development
On 08/01/15 22:02, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: am i fobidding someone to reply? O_O but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not welcome. Well, it's one thing if you make that decision about people who are in contact with you personally. It's a bit different if you are unilaterally deciding to make that decision as a member of a collective forum of people, because in that case it's a bit of an imposition on the rest of us. i.e. just because _you've_ decided that he's a timewaster, doesn't make it OK for you to try and make him feel unwelcome in a forum that belongs to a wider community. Also, I don't know if you've ever had any contact or experience of this person in some other online space, but if not, it seems a bit harsh to jump to such judgement straight away, even if you've previously had bad experiences with people asking questions in a similar style.
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:11:47 + market via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 21:03:09 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:56:40 + > > Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d > > wrote: > > > >> On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 20:15:50 UTC, ketmar via > >> Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> > but i can't see any reason to try to help someone who > >> > doesn't even know > >> > what he wants, and didn't take time to ask a proper > >> > question. been > >> > there, seen that. trying to refine such questions and/or > >> > answer to 'em > >> > is just a waste of time, he will make everyone who's trying > >> > to figure > >> > out what he *really* wants sick and then he will go away. > >> > > >> > >> I'd prefer if you would respond to such people by staying > >> quiet. This has several advantages: > >> > >> • No one accuses you of scaring newbros away > >> • It does not take any of your time > >> • You won't get sick > >> • Only people that spend to much time here in the first > >> place will invest in answering the question* > >> > >> Disadvantages: None. > > i read your opinion. and happily ignored it. > > just gtfo ketmar... just do it. hello, honey! i really miss you! i hope you're ok. please, don't leave me for such a long time... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 21:03:09 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:56:40 + Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 20:15:50 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > but i can't see any reason to try to help someone who > doesn't even know > what he wants, and didn't take time to ask a proper > question. been > there, seen that. trying to refine such questions and/or > answer to 'em > is just a waste of time, he will make everyone who's trying > to figure > out what he *really* wants sick and then he will go away. > I'd prefer if you would respond to such people by staying quiet. This has several advantages: • No one accuses you of scaring newbros away • It does not take any of your time • You won't get sick • Only people that spend to much time here in the first place will invest in answering the question* Disadvantages: None. i read your opinion. and happily ignored it. just gtfo ketmar... just do it.
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:56:40 + Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 20:15:50 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > but i can't see any reason to try to help someone who doesn't > > even know > > what he wants, and didn't take time to ask a proper question. > > been > > there, seen that. trying to refine such questions and/or answer > > to 'em > > is just a waste of time, he will make everyone who's trying to > > figure > > out what he *really* wants sick and then he will go away. > > > > I'd prefer if you would respond to such people by staying quiet. > This has several advantages: > > • No one accuses you of scaring newbros away > • It does not take any of your time > • You won't get sick > • Only people that spend to much time here in the first place > will invest in answering the question* > > Disadvantages: None. i read your opinion. and happily ignored it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:54:46 +0100 Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 08/01/15 21:15, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > so maybe it's better to ask me and/or try to figure out my behavioral > > patterns before telling me that i'm alienating newcomers? maybe i have > > a solid reasons for acting like this... > > Thing is, you weren't obliged to reply to him at all, and it's not like he > was > singling out as the target of his question. > > If you've decided you don't like him or his question, why not just leave it > be, > let others reply as they will, and not spend any of your time on it? am i fobidding someone to reply? O_O but yes, i want to create an impression that timewasters are not welcome. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 20:15:50 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: but i can't see any reason to try to help someone who doesn't even know what he wants, and didn't take time to ask a proper question. been there, seen that. trying to refine such questions and/or answer to 'em is just a waste of time, he will make everyone who's trying to figure out what he *really* wants sick and then he will go away. I'd prefer if you would respond to such people by staying quiet. This has several advantages: • No one accuses you of scaring newbros away • It does not take any of your time • You won't get sick • Only people that spend to much time here in the first place will invest in answering the question* Disadvantages: None.
Re: Game development
On 08/01/15 21:15, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: so maybe it's better to ask me and/or try to figure out my behavioral patterns before telling me that i'm alienating newcomers? maybe i have a solid reasons for acting like this... Thing is, you weren't obliged to reply to him at all, and it's not like he was singling out as the target of his question. If you've decided you don't like him or his question, why not just leave it be, let others reply as they will, and not spend any of your time on it?
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:41:07 + Phil via Digitalmars-d wrote: > This isn't the best way to get more people involved in the D > community... he doesn't come here for D, nor for doing something productive even for himself. i know this type by their first words. you can see me willingly helping people that come for something, even with simple/newb questions. but i can't see any reason to try to help someone who doesn't even know what he wants, and didn't take time to ask a proper question. been there, seen that. trying to refine such questions and/or answer to 'em is just a waste of time, he will make everyone who's trying to figure out what he *really* wants sick and then he will go away. so maybe it's better to ask me and/or try to figure out my behavioral patterns before telling me that i'm alienating newcomers? maybe i have a solid reasons for acting like this... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 07:41:07PM +, Phil via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 18:03:48 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + > >NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > >>engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and the > >>logic in D? > >i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with native > >performance". > > This isn't the best way to get more people involved in the D > community... He does not speak for the rest of us. T -- Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Question: Why is top posting bad?
Re: Game development
This isn't the best way to get more people involved in the D community... On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 18:03:48 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and the logic in D? i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with native performance".
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:31:49 + NVolcz via Digitalmars-d wrote: > engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and the > logic in D? i bet he thinking that D is a fancy "scripting language with native performance". signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:53:46 UTC, Ras wrote: Hello, I want to write the game engine in C++ and write all the game logic and ai etc in D. How would i do this? I would not recommend writing a game engine (make games not engines) and why do you want to write the engine in C++ and the logic in D? I suspect that it is easier to write everything in the same language. There are several D gamedev frameworks and engine out there, http://code.dlang.org/, there are projects that don't use dub (fuji for example). But some of them are certainly not up to date so you will have to check the commit logs for activity. Best regards, NVolcz
Re: Game development
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:53:46 UTC, Ras wrote: Hello, I want to write the game engine in C++ and write all the game logic and ai etc in D. How would i do this? Manu Evans has pretty much this, he's active on this newsgroup, maybe he can help you: https://github.com/TurkeyMan/fuji . But "writing a game engine" is not something you can simply do quickly or that someone can do for you. It can take years depending on what the engine is supposed to do. Connecting C++ with D is a trivial detail compared to all the work involved.
Re: Game development
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:53:45 + Ras via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Hello, > > I want to write the game engine in C++ and write all the game > logic and ai etc in D. How would i do this? first, you have to write your game engine in C++. just fire your favorite text editor and start coding. second, you have to write your game logic in D. just fire your favorite text editor and start coding. third: now you have to connect the first and the second, but don't be afraid: you will never come to this part, actually. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 19/12/2010 14:21, Ary Borenszweig wrote: Seeing the enemy being literally eaten by hundreds of upgraded zerglings has no comparison. :-) I'm more of a Protoss guy myself... Reaver drop FTW! (I'll need to re-evaluate things with Starcraft II) BTW, its funny to try to make some parallels between the races and languages: Protoss == Java. Very powerful, teleports ready made structures from other dimensions (= all the libraries, middleware, app stack that is readily available). But still needs some setup (pylons). And very expensive in resources (slow), and very dependent on energy (GC-activity / having enough free memory). Humans == C++: also quite powerful, but dirty, smelly, crude, oily, smoke filled, patchy. Breaks often and needs constant repairs (SCV repairs, otherwise blows up in flames). Non elegant. Can mount a good defense/offense anywhere on the map (siege tanks, bunker forward build attacks). But not as agile. Ruby == Zerg. Utter chaos. Units can evolve into other units (dynamic typing). Very good for rushes and early game attacks (= rapid application deploying, kekekeke Rails Rush, gg). Very fast, very agile (=agile). Nydus Canals = Monkey Patching (likes to break abstractions). -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 19/12/10 4:41 PM, Caligo wrote: You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Some game developers do that. The vast majority do not. I don't think it's fair to insult developers in general based on the actions of a few. You might as well say there's no honor in software development because some people write viruses and other malware.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Christopher Nicholson-Sauls" wrote in message news:ienfgr$2st...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/19/10 14:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was >> unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least >> one >> thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: >> Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of >> course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be >> unethical. >> (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) >> > > (On the upside, that means you get to grow an epic beard.) Heh, I actually do have a beard. Although it's not quite Stallman-level.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Max Samukha" wrote in message news:ien42a$26q...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/20/2010 08:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote: >> bearophile wrote: >>> Many games are like drugs. >> >> Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs. > > You didn't play StarCraft when you were a teenager. I always got bored pretty quickly with RTSes. Pikmin's the only RTS that's held my attention for long, and it's very non-standard as far as RTSes go. I've always been more 2D platformer, 1990's single-player FPS, shmup, puzzle (not so much falling block though), action RPG, and adventure.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 14:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message > news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >>> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >>> of >>> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >>> reality, >>> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >>> kinds >>> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >>> That >>> is why to me there is no honor in game development. >> >> This is bullshit. >> Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >> game >> development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >> not like this, >> for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >> until >> you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >> the future, but >> it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >> games are generally >> more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >> everybody >> should be able to comprehend) >> There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", >> e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow >> > > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was > unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least one > thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: > Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of > course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be unethical. > (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) > (On the upside, that means you get to grow an epic beard.)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Christopher Nicholson-Sauls Wrote: > That's a (sadly common) problem with people, though; not with games. > The same can be validly stated for television (which I usually avoid, > anyhow), sports, over-reliance on restaurants (a personal pet peeve), > and checking the D newsgroups... oh shi- I hope Walter won't spend 6 hours per day checking the D newsgroups... :3
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > Yea, and another thing is the matter of art in general: If you're an > ultra-utilitarian like Christopher seems to be (and even most programmers > aren't ultra-utilitarian), then art can be seen as lacking significant > contribution to society. I think, the effect of art is quite tangible, so I see no reason to not call it utilitarian.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 14:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.30.1292776925.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >> of >> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >> reality, >> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >> kinds >> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >> That >> is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said >> it's >> worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the >> expense >> of people like you. >> > > The old "games as drugs" argument. > > First of all, anyone who's a slave to psychological tricks is an idiot > anyway. Casinos use many psychological tricks to induce addiction and yet > most people are perfectly able to control themselves. > > Secondly, if you see movies, music, comics and novels as the same > "dishonorable escapism", then I'll grant that your reasoning is at least > logically sound, even though you're in an extremely tiny minority on that > viewpoint. If not, however, then you're whole argument crumbles into a giant > pile of blatant bullshit, and clearly far too much of an imbicile to even > continue discussing this with. > >> If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my >> early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. >> > > Fine, but that does make you the exception. > >> You sound way too angry and unhappy. > > I just have no tolerance for such obvious lies and idiocy. > >> Instead of playing video games, you >> should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's >> "designed to make programmers happy." >> > > I realize you mean that in jest, but I actually have been using Ruby (Rake) > as the build system for a big web project. It gets the job done, but I'm not > exactly impressed with it. > Take a look at Thor sometime. It's a replacement for Rake, and for some jobs can be better. Rails/3.x is apparently adopting it (or has adopted it... I haven't made the jump to 3 yet). https://github.com/wycats/thor -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/20/10 04:25, Max Samukha wrote: > On 12/19/2010 09:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >>> >> >> Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be >> ways in >> which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally >> considered >> to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. >> >> Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole >> drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :) >> > > I have no clear opinion about games, though I do believe they carry some > similarity with drugs in the way they make a person neglect stuff > important for his survival in the reality he was born into. That's a (sadly common) problem with people, though; not with games. The same can be validly stated for television (which I usually avoid, anyhow), sports, over-reliance on restaurants (a personal pet peeve), and checking the D newsgroups... oh shi- -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Caligo Wrote: > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense > of people like you. The fact is all humans build their own reality - yes - because they're not fond of the raw nature. What you try to say is actually "Hey, they live different lives! HATEHATEHATE!!!"
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/2010 09:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be ways in which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally considered to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :) I have no clear opinion about games, though I do believe they carry some similarity with drugs in the way they make a person neglect stuff important for his survival in the reality he was born into.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/20/2010 08:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote: bearophile wrote: Many games are like drugs. Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs. You didn't play StarCraft when you were a teenager.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
bearophile wrote: Many games are like drugs. Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Games as worthless as movies and music or any kind of art. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense of people like you. You are right saying games suck, since the new generation "games" are not games, they are just garbage "simulators". But you should understand, for this kind of things there is always good and a bad practice. Popularity favors bad practices better than good. Can you say movies suck? or music in general? This is exactly same. You guys gave an example to a very bad practice, a corporation, by definition(?) nothing but profit. Now i am going to tell you about a good practice. Outcast - Probably most of you never heard of it. For me, it had everything that define a game.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:ielrdu$2p8...@digitalmars.com... > "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message > news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >>> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why >>> some of >>> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >>> reality, >>> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >>> kinds >>> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >>> That >>> is why to me there is no honor in game development. >> >>This is bullshit. >>Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >>game >>development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >>not like this, >>for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >>until >>you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >>the future, but >>it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >>games are generally >>more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >>everybody >>should be able to comprehend) >>There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW >>"unethical", >>e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow >> > > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was > unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least > one thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: > Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of > course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be > unethical. (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) > s/This is at least one/There is at least one/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >> of >> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >> reality, >> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >> kinds >> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >> That >> is why to me there is no honor in game development. > >This is bullshit. >Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >game >development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >not like this, >for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >until >you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >the future, but >it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >games are generally >more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >everybody >should be able to comprehend) >There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", >e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least one thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be unethical. (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. This is bullshit. Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make game development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are not like this, for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or until you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in the future, but it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player games are generally more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example everybody should be able to comprehend) There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Patrick Down wrote: bearophile Wrote: Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of warcraft :-) He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/ I've never played WoW, but I have played Empire, and let me tell you, it wastes a lot more than 6 hours a day! Yes, Empire has been blamed for many students flunking out of university, and at least one divorce!
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Christopher Nicholson-Sauls" wrote in message news:iekles$79...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/18/10 14:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message >> news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... >>> "Caligo" wrote in message >>> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to society. I've rarely played any, >>> >>> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. >>> First >>> of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >>> considering the "I've rarely played any". >>> >>> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine >>> any >>> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >>> endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to >>> society >>> are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they >>> do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. >>> >>> Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there >>> (mostly >>> baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, >>> interestingly >>> enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they >>> actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they >>> all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways >>> to >>> benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time >>> by >>> now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever >>> done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless >>> wanker.) >>> >> >> Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be >> dull to qualify as a significant a contribution. >> >> >> > > There's also the classic example: a game was instrumental in the > development of UNIX. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game) > > This wasn't arbitrary either; it was something Thompson wanted to do, > and he needed a better OS to do it in... so his toy got new polish. > Some of this polish became things we now take for granted and hardly > know how to live without (like a hierarchial filesystem). > > Do I mean to say that without the game there would be no UNIX? No; but > I do mean to say that games have *always* been a valuable tool for > finding the limits of systems, and for inspiring innovative ways to > expand those limits. > > The same research and development that provided pixel shaders to game > developers, also provided them to medical imaging developers. The same > that provided CPU technologies such as SSE to enable more complex > simulations in games, also provide for more complex simulations in > supercomputers. And many of these sort of technologies were original > conceived just to make games more awesome. Amazing. > > So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you > don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a > driving force behind a lot of innovation. > Yea, and another thing is the matter of art in general: If you're an ultra-utilitarian like Christopher seems to be (and even most programmers aren't ultra-utilitarian), then art can be seen as lacking significant contribution to society. But if you do believe in the value of art and still cherry-pick videogames as dishonorable or lacking significant contribution, then you're just simply being a dumbfuck and an elitist (like Roger Ebert).
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Caligo" wrote in message news:mailman.30.1292776925.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some > of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape > reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all > kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. > That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said > it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the > expense > of people like you. > The old "games as drugs" argument. First of all, anyone who's a slave to psychological tricks is an idiot anyway. Casinos use many psychological tricks to induce addiction and yet most people are perfectly able to control themselves. Secondly, if you see movies, music, comics and novels as the same "dishonorable escapism", then I'll grant that your reasoning is at least logically sound, even though you're in an extremely tiny minority on that viewpoint. If not, however, then you're whole argument crumbles into a giant pile of blatant bullshit, and clearly far too much of an imbicile to even continue discussing this with. > If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my > early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. > Fine, but that does make you the exception. > You sound way too angry and unhappy. I just have no tolerance for such obvious lies and idiocy. > Instead of playing video games, you > should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's > "designed to make programmers happy." > I realize you mean that in jest, but I actually have been using Ruby (Rake) as the build system for a big web project. It gets the job done, but I'm not exactly impressed with it.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Max Samukha" wrote in message news:iekuac$qr...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/18/2010 10:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Caligo" wrote in message >> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>> >>> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >>> society. I've rarely played any, >> >> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First >> of >> all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >> considering the "I've rarely played any". >> >> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine >> any >> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >> endevors >> generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are >> *only* >> significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they >> make >> life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > I hear you! People please legalize drugs. They make my life suck so much > less. > Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be ways in which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally considered to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Caligo: > Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense > of people like you. Many games are like drugs. That's very bad. But people need to play too, and there are instructive games too, for example games that develop your intuition about how dynamic systems work (SimCity and its followers), there are some smart games too. This is a game, but it's not so terrible for the mind of people, it's not a bad drug: http://armorgames.com/play/2205/light-bot Bye, bearophile
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Patrick Down wrote: > bearophile Wrote: >> Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of >> warcraft :-) > He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/ I've never played WoW, but I have played Empire, and let me tell you, it wastes a lot more than 6 hours a day! I've been hesitant to play another round after last time, when I spent almost a full week just conquering the world. Got way behind on my work. I personally like the DOS version best. It reminds me so much of some of my early games. Same beautiful graphics and easy controls.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense of people like you. If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. You sound way too angry and unhappy. Instead of playing video games, you should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's "designed to make programmers happy." On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > > IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to > > society. I've rarely played any, > > I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First of > all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" > considering the "I've rarely played any". > > But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any > more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the > endevors > generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are *only* > significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they make > life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly > baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly > enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they > actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentous crap? Fuck, they all > remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to > benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by > now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever > done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless wanker.) > > >
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
bearophile Wrote: > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Seeing the enemy being literally eaten by hundreds of upgraded zerglings has no comparison. :-)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 05:19:50 -0500 bearophile wrote: > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) rather The Battle for Wesnoth ;-) Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/18/2010 10:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Caligo" wrote in message news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to society. I've rarely played any, I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" considering the "I've rarely played any". But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the endevors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. I hear you! People please legalize drugs. They make my life suck so much less. Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentous crap? Fuck, they all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless wanker.) Countless hours of my life have gone to waste while I've been killing zergs and protos. Still, my life sucks so much less because of that gorgeous feeling the unpunished killing gives me. The only thing I keep regretting (at the rare moments when I am not high) is I could have created something useful instead. Maybe, yet another programming language, in which more cool games could have been written.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 04:19, bearophile wrote: > Christopher Nicholson-Sauls: > >> So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you >> don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a >> driving force behind a lot of innovation. > > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) > > Bye, > bearophile Touché. ;) But I said 'game' not 'cult.' :D -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Christopher Nicholson-Sauls: > So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you > don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a > driving force behind a lot of innovation. Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of warcraft :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/18/10 14:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message > news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... >> "Caligo" wrote in message >> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>> >>> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >>> society. I've rarely played any, >> >> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. First >> of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >> considering the "I've rarely played any". >> >> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any >> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >> endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society >> are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they >> do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. >> >> Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly >> baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly >> enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they >> actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they >> all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to >> benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by >> now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever >> done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless >> wanker.) >> > > Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be > dull to qualify as a significant a contribution. > > > There's also the classic example: a game was instrumental in the development of UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game) This wasn't arbitrary either; it was something Thompson wanted to do, and he needed a better OS to do it in... so his toy got new polish. Some of this polish became things we now take for granted and hardly know how to live without (like a hierarchial filesystem). Do I mean to say that without the game there would be no UNIX? No; but I do mean to say that games have *always* been a valuable tool for finding the limits of systems, and for inspiring innovative ways to expand those limits. The same research and development that provided pixel shaders to game developers, also provided them to medical imaging developers. The same that provided CPU technologies such as SSE to enable more complex simulations in games, also provide for more complex simulations in supercomputers. And many of these sort of technologies were original conceived just to make games more awesome. Amazing. So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a driving force behind a lot of innovation. -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >> society. I've rarely played any, > > I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. First > of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" > considering the "I've rarely played any". > > But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any > more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the > endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society > are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they > do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly > baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly > enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they > actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they > all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to > benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by > now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever > done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless > wanker.) > Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be dull to qualify as a significant a contribution.
