Qbasicnews.com
December 04, 2021, 04:58:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I include Qbasic Cameos?  (Voting closed: January 12, 2003, 10:37:44 PM)
Yes - 9 (100%)
Total Voters: 10

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
  Print  
Author Topic: Cobra  (Read 97594 times)
Agamemnus
x/ \z
*****
Posts: 3491



« Reply #150 on: April 26, 2003, 03:54:41 PM »

Quote
Snap out it.


At this time I would like to make a plug about a new language I am designing.

Syntax will be similar to BASIC but changeable to C by using a bunch of clever macros.

There will be only three basic functions in the most basic layer: the IF statement, a code jump, and a variable set.

Functions will be redefinable and function syntax will be definable as well, globally for all the functions or locally for just that function. (as in #2)

It will be a clean and fast language that will translate to a compare, jump, and set. Extra native built-in speed-up functions will be extrapolated.

It will be able to have endless depths of variable tables but will be able to call all the variables. (j at depth 1, j at depth 2, and j at depth 3!)

 
It will be called.....



GPL (Global Programming Language)
Logged

Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."

Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Rokkuman
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1973



« Reply #151 on: April 26, 2003, 04:03:53 PM »

Oh good Lord, here he goes again... :-?

Ok, first of all, I don't know where the heck this came from... Nobody was talking about anyone's programming style, this was just a topic about how my game is comming along. I would appreciate if this topic wasn't locked because someone brought up an old, old, old, old, complaint about PureQB vs. Libs, because there is still alot that I plan to post into this...

Yes, for crying our friggin loud, WE ALL KNOW THAT LIBS AND ASSEMBLY AND C AND ALL THAT OTHER GOOD CRAP IS FASTER THAN QB, I know that QB is a super slow language, I can see that from many other commercial games, look at Cobra, then look at Marvel Vs Capcom 2, I think I can look at that and say to myself, "Hmmm.... I'm starting to think that whatever they used is probably somwhat faster than QB."

I don't program in QB to make the best games in the world, I program in it because I want to make the best games with the limits I have, so it's a cool Challenge. That's why I'd rather play a new QB Game, than a new Commercial game,(unless it happens to be an exception). When I do feel like making a super powerful QB Game, then I will use libs and C and all that other crap. But that's not my goal right now... Right now... it's to see how good I can do with what I have...


SO PLEASE BLITZ!!! LEAVE ME ALONE WITH YOUR ANTI PUREQB ARGUMENTS FOR CYRING OUT LOUD!!![/u][/size]

Now hopefully I've gotten my point across and this thread can just continue?
Logged
Blitz
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 853



WWW
« Reply #152 on: April 26, 2003, 05:14:57 PM »

Nah, i don't get you. What's so leet about not using a lib? I mean, what are you gaining? Does not use a lib you wrote youself make you a more skilled coder?

Apparently, this seems to be the general opnion. Do not use a lib, even if it's your own. Cuz using a lib would just be plain lame.

C'mon. What's the point? What are you trying to prove? The only thing that it shows is that you still haven't understood what programming is.

I'm sure allot of kids in this forum think my rant is BS, but you'll understand once you start to do some real programming. If you ever will. Please go to a C forum, any c forum telling them about your opnions and you'll see what flaming really is.
Logged

oship me and i will give you lots of guurrls and beeea
Rokkuman
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1973



« Reply #153 on: April 26, 2003, 05:21:10 PM »

Ok Blitz, look all over QBasic news, and I want you to quote the exact sentece from me, saying that I am against libs.

NOW !!!
Logged
Blitz
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 853



WWW
« Reply #154 on: April 26, 2003, 05:40:51 PM »

Allright dude, whatever. Actions say more then words. I've already said what i've wanted. Anymore and i'd just be repeating myself. I'm finished with this.
Logged

oship me and i will give you lots of guurrls and beeea
Rokkuman
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1973



« Reply #155 on: April 26, 2003, 05:50:48 PM »

Good, be quiet.
_____________________________________________________

Well, the only thing wrong with the keyhandler is that sometimes, QB thinks that the button is still pressed, even when it's not, causing the player to keep walking left, it only happens seldom through the fight though...
Logged
momoguru
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 131



« Reply #156 on: April 26, 2003, 08:58:27 PM »

i look at it like this...

programming in qb is like building a model ship in a bottle... its an ancient hobby, it takes more time to complete something even halfway decent and the tools for the job are very limited.

however... its an art form

sure you can cut the bottle in half to make it easier, yeah..you can 'pre assemble' large chunks of the ship before sliding it in. but in my opinion, why program in a 20 year old language only to use newer technologies to make it easier or better?

i enjoy pure qb, if i wanna make something outside of the scope of qb' abilities, then i don't use qb. id rather not inject my code with steriods, and it sound like ur having a roid rage spasm blitz Smiley
Logged

url]http://qb45.think-new.com[/url]
wizardlife
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1456


WWW
« Reply #157 on: April 26, 2003, 10:58:32 PM »

Quote from: "momoguru"
i look at it like this...

programming in qb is like building a model ship in a bottle... its an ancient hobby, it takes more time to complete something even halfway decent and the tools for the job are very limited.

however... its an art form

sure you can cut the bottle in half to make it easier, yeah..you can 'pre assemble' large chunks of the ship before sliding it in. but in my opinion, why program in a 20 year old language only to use newer technologies to make it easier or better?

i enjoy pure qb, if i wanna make something outside of the scope of qb' abilities, then i don't use qb. id rather not inject my code with steriods, and it sound like ur having a roid rage spasm blitz Smiley


I agree 100%. An excellent metaphor for the process. I still don't think Blitz will understand it or agree with it... but you've stated it very well. I use QB for quickie things, for pureQB projects to 'prove it can be done' and nothing else. If I'm using assembler, I'll use a compiler that supports it inline, thank you.
Logged

LooseCaboose
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 981



« Reply #158 on: April 28, 2003, 12:52:42 AM »

Quote

f**k man, i'm so tired of hearing libless, no lib, pure qb. I understand someone not wanting to use anyone elses code. But for gods sake, there are somethings you can't and shouldn't do in qb. It's code generation is to clumsy and too much crap. And some things you simple can't do in it. You don't want to use anyones code, that's perfectly fine.

But for f**k sake, do it in C or Assembly. Or even pascal if you like. But do not do lame things as storing the binary code in strings and calling it with call absolute. Or using poke and peek when it's clearly not enough. Why are you limiting yourself? Is it anyless of value or anyless your code if some parts are written in C or asm ?

Pot this is kettle, kettle meet pot.

One could easily say that writting a blitter for a 486 without a modern graphics card in assembly code, when modern cards have builtin blitters and DirectX/OpenGL provide API functions that do the job perfectly fine. Perhaps your reasons for doing this are for the fun or challenge of it, not too disimilar to Megaman's reasons for coding in pureQB.

IMHO assembler is hardly worth learning these days unless you plan to do low level system or embedded programming. There are plenty of high class libraries and code already available for most functions, and many of these libraries arent even written in asembley either (For example, the standard C library is written in C in many implementations).

Quit getting arogant and nasty to people because you think you are a better programmer than they are. Everybody here is learning, some are futher ahead than others.

Quote

It will be called.... GPL (Global Programming Language)

Not to be confused with the GPL (GNU Public License) of course.

Quote

Syntax will be similar to BASIC but changeable to C by using a bunch of clever macros.

Do you mean that your language will have a preprocessor. Remember that C has very good reasons for having a preprocessor and macros, think why Java (which is based on C) doenst have one. Your language sounds interesting, but Im not sure I understand how it will be useful compared to other languages.  

Megaman, sorry for continuing the off-topic trend in this thread (perhaps we need a rant forum wildcard?). Keep up the awesome work with Cobra and dont worry about the whole libs argument, code Cobra without them if you want, just dont get the mindset that libs are evil (I dont think you have though).
Logged

esus saves.... Passes to Moses, shoots, he scores!
relsoft
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3927



WWW
« Reply #159 on: April 28, 2003, 07:09:55 AM »

"if it's fun to  learn, then learn it. If it's not... who the hell would learn a 'not-so-fun' lang?"

ASM is fun dude.
Logged

y smiley is 24 bit.


Genso's Junkyard:
http://rel.betterwebber.com/
toonski84
__/--\__
*****
Posts: 2567



« Reply #160 on: April 28, 2003, 08:22:34 AM »

Sheeeesh.  You ignore one thread because it got too damn long and look what happens.

Megaman: For christ-sakes, use a new thread once and awhile.

Others:  So the man doesnt want to use conventional or efficient programming practices.  It's not like you're making the game.  Live and let use spaghetti code on an ancient language, that's what I say.
Logged

i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry
relsoft
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3927



WWW
« Reply #161 on: April 29, 2003, 12:39:06 AM »

Well, portability wise, my routines are useable with lil modifications in *both* C and Pascal. :*) (Ask Wiz)

I mean, emulators(good ones) are made in mixed languages. Like C+ASM , Pascal+ASM but never Pascal+C.

Assembly survived because of the many things it can do very fast that most compilers now just don't have. ie the sharps #.

And with a compiler such as Delphi and VC++, it's easier to add asm statements in code using the asm statements. An you don't even have to do hard stuff when doing that.  ie no Es:[Di] but

set active device context(Ds surfaces)
The write to [Edi], even DX progs use ASM. look at the amazing DX water simulation at gamedev.net. I saw the source(It can be optimized since he use lots of push) but even then it ran on my cyrix at full speed. That considering it uses a per pixel ATN for refraction.

I rest my case.
Logged

y smiley is 24 bit.


Genso's Junkyard:
http://rel.betterwebber.com/
LooseCaboose
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 981



« Reply #162 on: April 29, 2003, 01:46:51 AM »

Quote

Well, portability wise, my routines are useable with lil modifications in *both* C and Pascal. :*) (Ask Wiz)

Thats only one side of portability. Try and get any of your asm code running on Linux or Solaris (even on the x86 line) and you will have to make substantial rewrites. Try to get your asm code running on a different architecture (such as a sparc or mac) and you will be starting from scratch. The C code I posted for the blitter challenge could be easily modified to work with many different operating systems and architectures.

Quote

Assembly survived because of the many things it can do very fast that most compilers now just don't have. ie the sharps #.  

Im assuming you are talking about C# and J# which were never intended to compile fast native code. C# in particular is a .NET language an is primarly aimed at creating byte code which runs in the .NET interpretter (similar to Java).

C and C++ on the other hand are capable of doing just about everything that can be done in assembler (there are some exceptions such as modifying interupt vectors and bootstrapping). A good compiler can produce highly optomized object code given the right compile commands.

Quote

And with a compiler such as Delphi and VC++, it's easier to add asm statements in code using the asm statements.

Agreed, gcc has a lovely set of extensions for doing this. But its still really bad practice to mix assembler and high-level code (unless you have a good reason for doing so).

Quote

even DX progs use ASM. look at the amazing DX water simulation at gamedev.net. I saw the source(It can be optimized since he use lots of push) but even then it ran on my cyrix at full speed

Id believe that, although I would ask why he used asm code when it runs at full speed on an old cyrix machine. Alternatively have a look at the quake2 source, argueably one of the fastest 3d engines of its time and not a single line of asm in the opengl version (asm is used for the software renderer, but thats unavoidable). You will probably find that most games which do have asm code in them, use it for drivers (as I mentioned earlier) for sound, graphics etc, however with the introduction of libraries and SDKs such as OpenGL and DirectX this is unnecessary.

Im not saying asm isnt fun to code in (Im writting the exec code for MINIX in sparc/x86 asm at the moment) but I wouldnt recommend it as a language for people to learn these days unless they are heading for system programming. Graphics and sound programming is more portable, flexible,  and poses little in the way of a performance hit (modern hardware) with a high-level SDK.

Like I said /everyone/ here is learning, and everybody has their own goals and of way learning. Im merely voicing an opinion, what I do object to is people criticizing and abusing other people directly for their opinions. Were all here to help each other.
Logged

esus saves.... Passes to Moses, shoots, he scores!
relsoft
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3927



WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 29, 2003, 05:58:19 AM »

huh?  As you may already have known, it's not the language but the logic behind the algo itself.  It's not your compiler that is portable its your brain.  
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=13959&messageid=1051547901


"Give an idiot DX, and hell make a dumb DX game, but give someone like Rich Geldrich(or Glenn) QB and he'll make a damn cool game"

look: http://www.rpgdx.net/showcontest.php?contest_id=1


Now, don't preach me about Asm portability in linux, Zsnes and a lot other emulators has been ported with it.  And what lang did Zsknight made Zsnes? C+ ASM. Specifically, NASM.

Look at this codes:

QB:
X=X+1

ASM:
mov ax,x
inc X

Same logic different implementations. Now I'm sure you could convert this to a linux flavored progging lang in no time.

If you look closely, RelGFX's sprite routines uses the same algo as the ASM blit I posted here. Talk about portability. As long as you know the logic behind the algo, nothing would stop you from porting it to your language of choice.

Re: the DX water simulation
  He used ASM because Delphi could only go as fast.  So adding asm would make it fly on a 233 vis-a-vis a pure delphi one which would run but crawl on a 233.


And where did I lambast somebody here?
Logged

y smiley is 24 bit.


Genso's Junkyard:
http://rel.betterwebber.com/
toonski84
__/--\__
*****
Posts: 2567



« Reply #164 on: April 29, 2003, 08:28:06 AM »

wait, is this guy saying asm isnt good for coding?  bah.  trust me, buddy, you want asm code.  it's your friend.  and mixing low-level and high-level coding is how you make a large project fast.  i've always seen it that c/c++/decent-basic/pascal make it possible to create complex code that can perform numerous tasks easily, while asm is what you use for individual tasks like blitting.  and no matter how good your compiler is, it's not better than the brain at optimizing, so until that happens asm is the faster choice.

now, as portability goes, unless you're dealing with a mac, the cpu instructions are the exact same, right?  so you'd only have to deal with the os-specific stuff, which is most of it, but in most cases comes in routines so generic they can be switched out.  like routines you create for yourself, makewindow, updateregistry, etc.
Logged

i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!