Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ANNOUNCE: HA! 0.1.6 released

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 7:40:31 AM

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.

More about : announce released

Anonymous
April 27, 2005 7:40:32 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:14:16 AM

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. :) 
Related resources
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:15:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:46:39 AM

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
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:46:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:58:06 AM

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
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:05 AM

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
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:06 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:06 AM

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... :) 
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:06 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:06 AM

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
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:07 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:07 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:08 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:08 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:09 AM

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. :) 
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:13:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 11:43:15 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:00:30 PM

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
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 4:30:29 PM

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.ht...
Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:14:50 PM

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!
April 29, 2005 1:59:09 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:59:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:59:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:23:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:22:27 AM

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
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:22:28 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:57:30 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 6:35:12 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 8:10:58 AM

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/
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:16:19 AM

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."
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:16:20 AM

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".
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:45:33 AM

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 =----
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:18:27 PM

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.
!