No programming... This became dull...

[Jocke The Beast]

Rel: outstanding as usual

Doctor: That doesn't look like a roguelike? :wink: In other words : get your ass back to the roguelike compo and stop coding anything else then roguelikes !!! *goes away singing...drunk as never before...*

[marzecTM]

@spotted cheetha: as i tought no clue of c++ :p but don't be afraid you are not alone ( just screwing with you ... )

[Spotted Cheetah]

Not alone, but it certainly annoys me that my sort of art not interests anybody :evil:

Today i typed in 15Kb of source code: I was really impressed with the results. It dealed five times faster with those RGBA images what i used in Panthera XBasic what i developed for almost a year! Just in one day! This is certainly annoying :lol:

[shiftLynx]

Looks good!

C++ and classes: i found them certainly useful at first, but later when i had 180Kb of source they became annoying... For example i needed a function ALONE but it was in a class. So the whole class needed to be allocated yet again for that single function or to rewrite the function outside the class. So it is better to work with C...

Graph_Get(...);
Graph_Put(...);
Graph_Box(...);
Mouse_Status(...);
...

This scheme looks clean, and it looks like being object - oriented. But when i need i can use any function alone not needing to bother the others or allocate memory. This is more efficient.

This is the purpose of static member functions:

[syntax="c++"]
#include <stdio.h>

class SomeClass
{
/*
* This is a regular member function, so must be called through an instance
* of SomeClass.
*/
public:
void someMemberFunction()
{
printf("This is from inside an object.\n");
}

/*
* This is a static function, so it can be called without class instantiation.
*/
static void someStaticFunction()
{
printf("This is from the static function.\n");
}
};


int main()
{
SomeClass inst;

inst.someMemberFunction();
SomeClass:omeStaticFunction();

return 0;
}
[/syntax]

[Spotted Cheetah]

Probably... Plain C is just cleaner - this C++ is a good way to completely mess up. Not to mention that in plain C you not need to allocate memory for those classes (Of course i experienced that building data and functions together is an advantage. But with my naming convention i can perfectly track the things not messing up with those datas).

So back to C! It is faster, better, cleaner!

[DrV]

I think you missed shiftLynx's point - you do not need to allocate memory for a class to call static member functions.

[Spotted Cheetah]

Not try to force me back to C++ I went in it because i thought that it is better because of somewhat than usual C, but after all it is just a code - organization system. I think i not really need it as i not mess up in C. It simply not worth for me to mess with it.

[marzecTM]

it is better, it offers you all that c does plus some nice things like very nice oo ( though still not full oo ), templates etc. etc. if you are not capable of using the tools correctly though it will of course be a mess.

and btw, programming in qb is not retro, code for teh c64 or amiga 500 and call that retro.

[shiftLynx]

It's probably a better idea to recreate retro games using modern technology. That way you won't be wasting your time, people other than yourself will play it (if it requires too much effort to play, very few people will play a game) and you'll be learning something new along the way. Retrospec is a good example of a gamedev group dedicated to remaking retro games: http://retrospec.sgn.net/

Of course, if you really feel that writing programs for an obsolete platform in an obsolete language is fun, then whatever. But remember that only you and maybe a couple of other people will ever play the game, so it's a little bit pointless to say the least.

cux: nbsafd jt kbwb't cjudi. :p

[Spotted Cheetah]

Better...

I certainly miss '//' for comments :lol:

Probably the problem with me is that it is certainly hard for me to learn anything new (always...), but if i once learned something i can do all what is possible in it. For example there is my VGA tweaker program: i think it was only me who ever tweaked the refresh rates and who first set up a program what correctly converted between human - readable values and VGA registers. Just to mention that after i played around with VGA stuff for years i got that far that i could create something what was never before (now not talking about that it is obsolete).

Now i think C will not become obsolete. So there will nothing bad in it if i not move to C++ what although i tried and learned for a half year, i could not get it correctly. In C i am just far more powerful, and if i want to finish ever anything i need especially that: to know everything well about the language to not run in hidden surprises.

I did not mean that Basic is retro, just that i used Basic for retro since others programmed in it. And DOSBox is certainly not a hard stuff: if it had a little better installation and it would integrate in right - click menus, i doubt that even the lowest end user could not get that "right click on the game and hit \"run with DOSBox\"". As i experienced the usual configuration runs most of the games perfectly. So for retro - writers the only thing what they have to make sure is that the usual - configured DOSBox runs their game well. They should set up the initial setup for DOSBox. Probably a special DOSBox starter filetype would not hurt what includes the program name and DOSBox settings to use - so it would work by just double - clicking if the retro programmer sets up this starter file properly. Just to mention that original retro not needs to be something unable to configure... (Oops, great idea! I am calling DOSBox right now to make this startup filetype )