Nonsense. LFS can do 20 cars + AI using next to no CPU at all (the graphics are what's holding it back), and Far Cry 2 can't manage one single car? That's just not it.
Why does an argument for a little more realism have to be transformed into an argument for complete and total realism in every case? You're making a heap of silly points I don't care about.
Then the game is not the game I want it to be, and I won't be buying it. That's all I'm saying. My perfect game would be a morph between the combat of Crysis, the exploration and freedom of Far Cry 2 with the physics of LFS (though I can accept something simpler if it's in the ballpark). Far Cry 2 isn't it, even though it looked promising a while, so I'm disappointed.
Last edited by wien, .
Well, since you need to use cars to get around, I think it's fair to want them to handle like something resembling a car.
I don't even get why they make them handle like that. They have a physics engine. It can't be that much more work to bolt some bodies and joints together to create a proper suspension model instead of coding up some NFS rail physics specifically for the cars. You don't need tire deformation and accurate slip curves to have somewhat believable vehicle physics.
Unfortunately it looks bad enough to put me off the game as it completely ruins my suspension of disbelief (not only the cars though.) I was really looking forward to it too. Loved Crysis and Far Cry, sans the alien bits.
Yes. How dare he come from a non-english speaking country. Ban accents from F1!
Oh, I wouldn't pay for it either. Waaay too much money for the little time I spend in front of the tube.
I just wanted to point out that the quality of a 720p60 broadcast will kill any SD TV dead when we're talking fast paced sports like hockey. The doubled framerate makes the picture oh so smooth. That's why I have a feeling what you saw was a normal SD signal upscaled to fit the LCD screen. That does look horrendous compared to a good CRT.
I have a feeling you haven't seen any sports at HD resolution and 60/50Hz, because there's absolutely no comparison.
Especially for hockey I'd assume. But whatever floats your boat I guess.Your 4:3 TV won't do much good when all channels broadcast in 16:9 though, and that will happen for SD channels too eventually (over here almost all OTA broadcasting is in widescreen already, and soon to be digital only).
Aw, now you've done it. Before you know it Intrepid will be in here ranting about how Alonso's recent speed is due to training in a kart.
Me too. I absolutely adore tech and engineering in general, but phones and media players are just boring. They're currently doing what my computer did a decade ago, just smaller and more fiddly. Whoopdee-doo.
But on topic, I guess this is like with everything else. As you grow older your brain gets "set" in a certain routine, and if you don't put effort in to break this routine every once in a while, learning new tricks gets harder and harder.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but if you don't really want to get left behind, exploring new and unfamiliar technology is a good way to exercise your brain. Perhaps start playing with an unfamiliar OS on an old discarded box? Try (and fail, repeatedly) to set up a home server with file storage and automated backup for instance?
But on topic, I guess this is like with everything else. As you grow older your brain gets "set" in a certain routine, and if you don't put effort in to break this routine every once in a while, learning new tricks gets harder and harder.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but if you don't really want to get left behind, exploring new and unfamiliar technology is a good way to exercise your brain. Perhaps start playing with an unfamiliar OS on an old discarded box? Try (and fail, repeatedly) to set up a home server with file storage and automated backup for instance?
No. It's not anyone's job to educate your ignorant ass on the physics required to understand GW. You're the one completely brushing aside metric shittonnes of data and research based on, by your own admission (explicitly or implicitly by opening your mouth), no knowledge whatsoever. No knowledge of either the data or indeed the core workings of science and physics themselves. What on earth makes you think you're qualified to even have an opinion on the subject? It's just rude and a damn insult to the people you're trying to have a "discussion" with. People who have at least put some effort in to understand the issue they're talking about.
The sad thing is that you're not even especially unique thinking the way to do. Thanks to ignorant blabbering fools like yourself, society is rapidly regressing to the point where actual knowledge and critical thinking is quickly brushed aside as snobbery and elitism (see McCain/Palin 2008). Any opinon is valid, and must be discussed on equal terms.
In the words of the great philosopher Ulrich; "Fooooooook".
Just make sure you keep that suspicious bastard Doakes off your trail.
I think you need to add some Factory classes, Singletons and at least one round trip to XML to be truly Enterprise 2.0 compliant.
I guess my argument is along the lines of "why is that a fundamental concept of the language?" I don't see the benefit of not providing free functions when you have functions that clearly are, conceptually.
Quite possibly, but it is one of my major pet peeves with most "pure OO" languages. It just seems like an arbitraty restriction. OO for the sake of OO.I can live with that. 
Edit to your edit: I don't see how intellisense will react any worse with your_project::math::<list> than Yourproject.Math.<list> (assuming C#)? If it's a public library function intellisense will show it either way. Private functions can still go inside classes where it makes sense of course (or anonymous namespaces in C++), so you won't get clutter from implementation details if that's what you're afraid of. I'm just in favour of calling a spade a spade and sin and cos are standalone functions. They just are. They should not be methods of a class, static or otherwise.
Edit to your edit: I don't see how intellisense will react any worse with your_project::math::<list> than Yourproject.Math.<list> (assuming C#)? If it's a public library function intellisense will show it either way. Private functions can still go inside classes where it makes sense of course (or anonymous namespaces in C++), so you won't get clutter from implementation details if that's what you're afraid of. I'm just in favour of calling a spade a spade and sin and cos are standalone functions. They just are. They should not be methods of a class, static or otherwise.
Last edited by wien, .
Absolutely. Math is a namespace. Trying to shoehorn it into the OO paradigm by having only static member functions seems counter-intuitive to me.
Quite frankly I get the feeling 1.03 is just a "get off my back" from Kunos. Finally giving the community a somewhat usable product so he can **** off and do his own thing with BRD without feeling too guilty about it. I will be hugely surprised if 1.03 is followed by regular patches in the future (though I certainly wouldn't mind being proved wrong. )
)That's a big if though. I have no idea how a lot of the code I wrote years ago actually works nor how it handles its state/data. As time goes by you forget the details, even if you work alone, and it's important that you can once the project reaches a certain size. OO is just a means of abstraction. It's not the One True Way, but it's certainly handy in a lot of cases.
Now obviously you can group state together in structures and make functions that work on these in procedural programming as well, but it's my view that then you're doing OO anyway. Just with less desirable syntax.
OO to me is simply data aggregation; grouping related data together in self-contained objects. I can't even imagine how you'd program anything of reasonable size without it. I realise my definition is a lot wider than most though. I cannot stand the popular notion that "everything's an object", because it's plainly false. Pure OO languages like Java often invent silly classes for abstract concepts like "Math" which are solely used to house standalone functions like sin and cos. How do you create an instance of Math? "I'll have 2 pounds of Math please." It doesn't make any sense.
You make a lot of claims, but I see few arguments to actually back them up. Kinda difficult to argue against. Why is learning procedural programming easier than OO when starting out? You've just asserted that it is, with no explanation as to why.
My claim (and DarkTimes'?) is that OO makes it easier to model concepts from the real world, and as such is easier to pick up for someone unfamiliar with computer programming. It's easier to relate to what they already know. You obviously cover functions (procedures) before you teach classes and objects, but I don't agree at all that OO should be omitted completely.
Don't some of you guys have religions or political affiliations you can hate each other over instead of motoring preferences? You know, like normal people? "Which group of people do you hate the most in LFS?" Who the hell even asks a question like that?
How about you try to focus your minds on the positive things in life lest you become hateful and cynical bastards, much like myself?
How about you try to focus your minds on the positive things in life lest you become hateful and cynical bastards, much like myself?
Well you have to admit that the ease in which the language lets you achieve a "well-written, clean and efficient program" should be one consideration when choosing the implementation laguage? They're not all the same in that respect.
For some tasks Python, Java, C# etc. may be perfectly good and as such the best choice (their standard libraries provide a lot of good stuff you don't have to write yourself), but I still don't see the benefit a GC specifically provides me in these languages. For me it fixes a problem I've never had, and does so by introducing a whole new class of problems I have to be careful to take into consideration. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make in many cases.
Well they are exactly the same thing when you get down to it. Allocating and releasing resources. Memory is just one of many a normal program will have to handle.
GCs bother me because they only handle the memory part. Also, because they usually do delayed collection when handling memory, you don't get deterministic destruction either (PHP5 is the only exception I can think of, but that has it's own fun problems). All this means that for any resource, other than memory, you have to manage cleanup manualy and this is a huge problem when you take things like exception safety into consideration.
The slight convenience of not having to clean up heap-allocated memory (which C++ can handle just fine through smart pointers or similar), is just not worth it in my mind. I want deterministic destruction dammit.
Last edited by wien, .
Why not build a dirt cheap HTPC or something? You can get one for next to nothing if you go with integrated graphics (AMD 780G for instance which has HDMI) and low-end everything. It'll give you a lot more customisability than a locked down box will.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Umm, and if you open it for writing both times? The second time will fail unless I've gone senile since the last time I tried that. And what about mutex and database locks? Locks of any kind really. Letting the GC handle those would be silly.
I don't find a GC any more convenient nor more "rapid" than using RAII. manually making sure I clean up resources at the right time no matter how the program flow goes is a pain in the backside and I don't want to do it. Just a shame no "modern" languages support RAII properly.
EDIT: Consider this example with a function locking some resource before doing some work that may fail with an exception:
Java:
public void foo()
{
someResource.lock();
try
{
functionThatMayThrowException();
}
finally
{
someResource.unlock();
}
}
C#:
public void foo()
{
using(Lock lock = new Lock(SomeResource))
{
FunctionThatMayThrowException();
}
}
C++:
void foo()
{
scoped_lock lock(some_resource);
function_that_may_throw_exception();
}Which is faster and easier to get right?
Last edited by wien, .
Well, for what it's worth it's listed in my version of CUPS (latest Ubuntu alpha), but I can't tell if that means it's fully supported. Probably is though.
I'm sorry but WTF? How does not caring about printer brand make you a 2nd-class citizen? I don't care, and up until you went on a rampage I didn't think anyone else cared so passionately either. Is it really that much of an issue to switch to another brand that works if you're buying anyway? This isn't attitude from my side, it's pure practicality. Buying hardware of any kind includes making sure it can do what you need it to do. Printers and torque-wrenches alike. Why is pointing that out an insult all of a sudden? If you're not comfortable with making these decisions yourself, just ask. The people at the store will probably be happy to help you find a product that works for you and your system. No-one will try to ridicule you as a 2nd grade citizen if you do, for ****'s sake. We all have our areas of expertise.
I also appreciate you pointing out my elitist attitude. I'm sorry I can't live up to the impressive standard you've displayed in this thread.
I get it, but they are issues this theoretical technophobe buying an OEM Linux computer we've been discussing would most likely never come across.
My Vista OEM license cost me ~1000 NOK (about £100). Actual OEMs obviously get a better deal, and it's probably cheaper in the UK, but it's still a lot more than zero. And if you buy your Linux PC from an OEM like I've been saying all god damn night long, you won't have to hire some guy to set it up any more than you have to with Windows. Not once have I said any Windows user can switch to Linux without extra cost or trouble. That's you projecting again. All I've said is that for a large percentage of users (like my mom, and my neighbour, some of my friends), if they're buying a computer anyway or know someone with the skills to set it up for them, Linux is a fine choice, and in more cases than not it will happily work with their existing printers/monitors/digital cameras as well. If not, and buying new compatible hardware is too expensive, then stay with Windows!!! It's no skin off my back. I really don't care as long as I don't have to maintain the box.
All I want is for people to realise that alternatives to Windows are out there, and very often they'll do everything they need at less cost and effort compared to Windows. I know they can. I've seen it. Why does pointing that out warrant insults for my "elitist attitude"?
Last edited by wien, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG