ANNOUNCE: HA! 0.1.6 released

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.announce,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

and there was much rejoicing:

http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip

(ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)

What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.

IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.

I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).

Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework. Check the HA! readme file
for a link to the dotnetfx.exe file.

Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform of
choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want. No I
haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux box
set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat and
Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)

Yes I know... HA! looks a fair amount like ADOM. That's because ADOM is my
favorite Roguelike, and I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel if
there's a look and feel I already like.
34 answers Last reply
More about announce released
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    Heroic Adventure wrote:
    > and there was much rejoicing:
    >
    > http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip
    >
    > (ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
    > nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)
    >
    > What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.
    >
    > IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
    > more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
    > spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.
    >
    > I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
    > roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).

    Sound interesting.

    > Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework.

    On second thought...

    DIE!

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    >
    > Sound interesting.
    >
    >> Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework.
    >
    >
    > On second thought...
    >
    > DIE!
    >

    LOL I expected that from you. :)
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer. :)

    If you're really interested, lemme know.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    Uzytkownik "Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> napisal
    w wiadomosci news:%zDbe.5337$lf2.1631@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

    > Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform
    > of
    > choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want.

    I tested HA on Mono, and it does not work, probably because mono tries
    to implement .NET 1.1, not 2.0; sadly, older versions of HA are also
    not so hot on running with Mono.
    It's your game, so you'll do as you like, but I think switching to
    mono runtrime could be a great idea (I do not know just how
    time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
    there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
    the game faster, nor portable.

    > No I
    > haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux
    > box
    > set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat
    > and
    > Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)

    Mono is multi-platform, it installs on Windows with a double-clik.

    regards,
    Filip
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    Filip Dreger wrote:
    > Uzytkownik "Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> napisal
    > w wiadomosci news:%zDbe.5337$lf2.1631@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    >
    >>Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform
    >>of
    >>choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want.
    >
    >
    > I tested HA on Mono, and it does not work, probably because mono tries
    > to implement .NET 1.1, not 2.0; sadly, older versions of HA are also
    > not so hot on running with Mono.
    > It's your game, so you'll do as you like, but I think switching to
    > mono runtrime could be a great idea (I do not know just how
    > time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
    > there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
    > the game faster, nor portable.
    >
    >
    >>No I
    >>haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux
    >>box
    >>set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat
    >>and
    >>Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)
    >
    >
    > Mono is multi-platform, it installs on Windows with a double-clik.
    >

    I just may do that then. I guess I had it in my head that I needed it
    to be on a linux box. Thanks.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Heroic Adventure wrote:
    > and there was much rejoicing:
    >
    > http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip
    >
    > (ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
    > nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)
    >
    > What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.
    >
    > IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
    > more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
    > spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.
    >
    > I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
    > roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).
    >
    > Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework. Check the HA! readme file
    > for a link to the dotnetfx.exe file.
    >
    > Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform of
    > choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want. No I
    > haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux box
    > set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat and
    > Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)
    >
    > Yes I know... HA! looks a fair amount like ADOM. That's because ADOM is my
    > favorite Roguelike, and I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel if
    > there's a look and feel I already like.

    24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?

    Can't risk it right now sorry!

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:

    I had wrote;

    24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?

    Can't risk it right now sorry!

    > I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer. :)
    >
    > If you're really interested, lemme know.

    Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    right now!!! ;)

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>right now!!! ;)
    >
    > I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.

    I would. I'd love to install one on R. Dan Henry's computer. ;)

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    ABCGi wrote:
    > chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > I had wrote;
    >
    > 24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?
    >
    > Can't risk it right now sorry!
    >
    >> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer. :)
    >>
    >> If you're really interested, lemme know.
    >
    >
    > Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    > risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    > right now!!! ;)
    >

    LOL I did misunderstand... :)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>right now!!! ;)
    >
    >
    > I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.

    FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
    now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    ABCGi wrote:
    > chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
    >> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer. :)
    >> If you're really interested, lemme know.
    >
    > Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    > risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    > right now!!! ;)

    As for now, I'm trying get get rid of as much MS from my computer as
    possible, not the other way around ;-)
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "If hackers will ever use virtual reality, it would show a bunch
    of text terminals floating around them..." -- The Sheep
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Heroic Adventure wrote:
    > FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
    > now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.

    Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
    toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
    immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
    fine print in that EULA, buddy...

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:00:06 -0400, Heroic Adventure
    <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:

    >Auric__ wrote:
    >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>>right now!!! ;)
    >>
    >>
    >> I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.
    >
    >FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
    >now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.

    I don't do .Net either. [shrug]
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    I hope you get hit by a garbage truck.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    > Heroic Adventure wrote:
    >
    >> FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
    >> now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.
    >
    >
    > Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
    > toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
    > immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
    > fine print in that EULA, buddy...
    >

    You're talking to an agnostic. Satan doesn't exist, nor does
    immortality. Life is what you get. Why worry about it? I'm never going
    to sell HA! so who cares?

    Try it or not, your choice. I'm not really interested in reasons why
    people don't want to. I'm just interested in feedback from those who
    actually play the game.

    C.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:00:06 -0400, Heroic Adventure
    > <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Auric__ wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>>>right now!!! ;)
    >>>
    >>>I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.
    >>
    >>FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
    >>now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.
    >
    > I don't do .Net either. [shrug]

    If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
    to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Twisted One wrote:
    >
    > If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
    > to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!
    >

    Actually, no I'm not dreaming. You do what you do, I do what I do. If
    you try it, great. If not, that's cool too.

    You're right though, 30 megs is a lot *just* for a Roguelike (crummy or
    otherwise), but I know plenty of folks who already have the Framework.
    I'm just letting folks know there's a new version of HA! (and what it
    requires) to play with.

    Try it or don't, your choice. :)
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:21:42 -0400, Heroic Adventure
    <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:

    >Twisted One wrote:
    >>
    >> If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
    >> to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!
    >>
    >
    >Actually, no I'm not dreaming. You do what you do, I do what I do. If
    >you try it, great. If not, that's cool too.
    >
    >You're right though, 30 megs is a lot *just* for a Roguelike (crummy or
    >otherwise), but I know plenty of folks who already have the Framework.
    >I'm just letting folks know there's a new version of HA! (and what it
    >requires) to play with.
    >
    >Try it or don't, your choice. :)

    Just want to add that I have nothing against .Net, in the same sense
    that I have nothing against Java. .Net was a better idea when I first
    heard about it, but the implementation seems to leave something to be
    desired.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    When talking nonsense try not to be serious.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Huge is relative... 16K was a lot once. Try and catch up to the rest of
    us.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Heroic Adventure wrote:
    > ABCGi wrote:
    >
    >> chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> I had wrote;
    >>
    >> 24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?
    >>
    >> Can't risk it right now sorry!
    >>
    >>> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer. :)
    >>>
    >>> If you're really interested, lemme know.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >> risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >> right now!!! ;)
    >
    > LOL I did misunderstand... :)

    heh When framework 2.0 comes out of beta perhaps :)

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    twisted0n3@gmail.invalid wrote:
    >Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
    >toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
    >immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
    >fine print in that EULA, buddy...

    The solution to that is to take a little walk to the edge of town, and
    see the tall handsome man in a dusty black coat. As an added bonus to
    healing your soul, he'll rekindle all the dreams it took you a lifetime
    to destroy.

    (Now I just need to write a roguelike with a town so I can implement
    him.)
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
    Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 28 Apr 2005 07:43:15 -0700, "chrisgwilliams@gmail.com"
    <chrisgwilliams@gmail.com> wrote:

    >Huge is relative... 16K was a lot once. Try and catch up to the rest of
    >us.

    30MB is pretty damn big for the folks on dial-up.

    IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
    a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
    language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
    to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
    files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
    transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
    we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
    disk (or similar) at the very least.

    OTOH, in exchange for the small file size and lack of runtimes, my apps
    are very definitely Windows-only. In theory (I'm not going to test it)
    one could take an app written for .Net and run it on Mono, which is (or
    should be) cross-platform. If I wanted cross-platform, I'd have to do a
    complete rewrite.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    EAT FLAMING POP-TART DEATH!
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
    > IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
    > a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
    > language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
    > to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
    > files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
    > transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
    > we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
    > disk (or similar) at the very least.

    You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
    additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.

    ..NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
    isn't.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    John wrote:
    > On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
    >
    >> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
    >> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
    >> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
    >> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
    >> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
    >> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
    >> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
    >> disk (or similar) at the very least.
    >
    >
    > You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
    > additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.
    >
    > .NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
    > isn't.

    I think you got your threads crossed... he isn't using .NET, I am.

    Besides, I never said anything about my app being small. My position has
    ALWAYS been "if you've got mono or the .NET Framework, feel free to give
    HA! a try..." I've been saying that for two years. Feel free to check
    the archives.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:59:09 GMT, John <E3uJGqQX@mailinator.com> wrote:

    >On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
    >> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
    >> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
    >> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
    >> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
    >> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
    >> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
    >> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
    >> disk (or similar) at the very least.
    >
    >You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
    >additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.

    Oh yeah, I can. My language of choice is Powerbasic. I can run my apps
    on any - *ANY* - 32-bit version of Windows. Clean install, nothing
    additional needed. No runtimes *AT ALL*. A simple hack might even let my
    stuff run on WinNT 3.

    >.NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
    >isn't.

    You missed the point - *I* don't use .Net.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    Linux is like a wigwam: no windows and apache inside.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <slrnd72n5d.eo3.E3uJGqQX@mailinator.com>, John wrote:
    > On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
    >> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
    >> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
    >> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
    >> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
    >> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
    >> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
    >> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
    >> disk (or similar) at the very least.
    >
    > You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
    > additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.
    >
    > .NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
    > isn't.

    If you *read* his post, he isn't using .Net.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>
    wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:53:29 -0700:
    > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>right now!!! ;)
    > I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.

    I would... If it was my enemy's computer. Then I'd remove the
    firewall and antivirus, set MSIE to full permissions, and install .Net.

    --
    <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
    "Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. [...] The
    streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a
    swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle." -Neal Stephenson, /. interview
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 29 Apr 2005 00:22:27 GMT, Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
    <kamikaze@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:

    >Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>
    >wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:53:29 -0700:
    >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
    >>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
    >>>right now!!! ;)
    >> I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.
    >
    > I would... If it was my enemy's computer. Then I'd remove the
    >firewall and antivirus, set MSIE to full permissions, and install .Net.

    Ouch. You're cruel.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    >>You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
    >>additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.
    >
    > Oh yeah, I can. My language of choice is Powerbasic.

    Powerwhat?!

    Basic?!

    Are you mad?!

    Please excuse me while I go throw up.

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:57:30 -0400, Twisted One
    <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:

    >Auric__ wrote:
    >>
    >> Oh yeah, I can. My language of choice is Powerbasic.
    >
    >Powerwhat?!
    >
    >Basic?!
    >
    >Are you mad?!

    Yes. Or if you prefer, damaged.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
    > I would... If it was my enemy's computer. Then I'd remove the
    > firewall and antivirus, set MSIE to full permissions, and install .Net.

    Man, don't you have *any* mercy for your enemies? I understand --
    beating them up, robbing them, dishonoring them, enamouring their women,
    but that? That's just plain cruelty!
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Gott weiss, Ich will kein Engel sein..." -- Rammstein /Engel/
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:57:30 -0400, Twisted One
    > <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>Auric__ wrote:
    >>
    >>>Oh yeah, I can. My language of choice is Powerbasic.
    >>
    >>Powerwhat?!
    >>
    >>Basic?!
    >>
    >>Are you mad?!
    >
    > Yes. Or if you prefer, damaged.

    What was it? Mercury poisoning? Childhood sexual abuse? Traumatic
    exposure to COBOL in college?

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:16:19 -0400, Twisted One
    <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:

    >Auric__ wrote:
    >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:57:30 -0400, Twisted One
    >> <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Basic?!
    >>>
    >>>Are you mad?!
    >>
    >> Yes. Or if you prefer, damaged.
    >
    >What was it? Mercury poisoning?

    Not that I'm aware of.

    >Childhood sexual abuse?

    No. That is something you should *never* joke about, for any reason.

    >Traumatic exposure to COBOL in college?

    Never saw a line of COBOL until I was 20. Nasty, nasty language.

    Actually, it was just exposure to BASIC, early and often. I learned to
    program on an old TRS-80, followed by Commodore 64s at school and an
    Apple //c at a cousin's house. All of them had ROM BASIC. Then my mother
    bought what was probably a 286, and it included MS BASIC. By the time
    QBASIC came around, I didn't give any thoughts to learning other
    languages - I barely knew they existed.

    If I have to, I *can* program in C and C++, and I know enough x86
    assembly to step through a program, but I'm only really comfortable in
    BASIC. [shrug] Damaged goods I may be, but I can put the knowledge I
    have to use.
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    I want my tombstone to say "Exceeded TTL".
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    {snip}
    >time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
    >there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
    >the game faster, nor portable.
    {snip}

    Actually, use of bytecode -can- in some cases make code faster. I
    have no experience with Micro$oft's .NET platform, but I've used Sun's
    Java for some time. A well-written runtime environment, when it
    compiles the bytecode, can compile it for the specific machine in
    question. This means that the specific processor can be taken into
    account; if your machine has an AMD XP processor, the features that
    only exist in the AMD XP series can be used. Most Windows binaries
    are compiled for the lowest common denominator (586s?), so they can't
    take advantage of this.

    Of course, this isn't always the case. But it has been known to
    happen.

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

    Zachary Palmer wrote:
    > {snip}
    >
    >>time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
    >>there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
    >>the game faster, nor portable.
    >
    > {snip}
    >
    > Actually, use of bytecode -can- in some cases make code faster. I
    > have no experience with Micro$oft's .NET platform, but I've used Sun's
    > Java for some time. A well-written runtime environment, when it
    > compiles the bytecode, can compile it for the specific machine in
    > question. This means that the specific processor can be taken into
    > account; if your machine has an AMD XP processor, the features that
    > only exist in the AMD XP series can be used. Most Windows binaries
    > are compiled for the lowest common denominator (586s?), so they can't
    > take advantage of this.
    >
    > Of course, this isn't always the case. But it has been known to
    > happen.

    CPUID instructions allow precompiled binaries the same advantages, you
    know -- code can detect certain CPU features and select from among
    different code paths to use whatever's optimal for the hardware it's
    currently running on, e.g. by loading the members of a global struct
    with function pointers pointing to whatever to use on the current
    architecture.

    typedef struct opt {
    f_pointer_1_t some_number_crunching_job
    f_pointer_2_t some_other_crunching_job
    } opt;

    extern opt optimized_routines;

    ....

    if (etc. etc. cpuid blah blah) {
    optimized_routines.some_number_crunching_job = number_cruncher_amd_xp;
    } else {
    ...
    } ...

    ....

    foo = optimized_routines.some_number_crunching_job(bar, baz);

    Of course, making it too fine grained will introduce too much overhead
    from function call indirection, plus result in bloated structs and
    if-blocks and a general spaghettiish feel to some of the code.

    The truly adventurous can experiment with actual self-modifying code,
    reaching into itself to amend some of its own image's call instructions
    to point to optimized routines. That gets rid of the indirection but
    non-wizards need not apply. :)

    --
    http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm
    Reichstag fire -> 9/11
    Communist "arsonist" -> Iraq "weapons of mass destruction"
    Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games