Still applies, though. My client is platform independent between iOS, Android, PC, Linux, and Mac at compile time with a config header, just because the only things that I had to abstract was input, sockets, surface and window initialization for OpenGL, and sound. If you use SDL, then you won’t have to worry about any of that in the first place, either.
[QUOTE=Downsider;101637]Still applies, though. My client is platform independent between iOS, Android, PC, Linux, and Mac at compile time with a config header[/quote]
With what language?
I’m not worried about any of it, because I don’t care about the other operating systems much at all. CERTAINLY not operating systems for mobile devices.
Edit: I’ve known about SDL, and have had the opinion that it sucks, for years. I just took a quick look at some information on it and it seems to validate my opinion. It appears quite feature-deprived.
I used C++. And SDL is fantastic, not sure what you’re talking about, but you’re probably using it wrong. Most people just use it for low level abstraction between input, windowing, and sound.
[QUOTE=Downsider;101639]And SDL is fantastic, not sure what you’re talking about, but you’re probably using it wrong. Most people just use it for low level abstraction between input, windowing, and sound.[/QUOTE]
I haven’t used it. The information I looked at seemed like it was showing a lack of ability to even use all of OpenGL’s features with SDL, but I’m not sure if that’s true.
If I chose to use a library to do the work for me, SDL doesn’t sound like what I’d explore first, though. Unless the work is very complicated or extensive, I generally won’t use a library.
[QUOTE=Codr;101640] I generally won’t use a library.[/QUOTE]
Why?
I used to say that I didn’t like libraries until I got into assembly and realized that even at that level it required library like features to display windows. Now I just live with the fact that everything in programming is like the library of the library of a library’s library.
Libraryception!
[QUOTE=hosler;101641]Why?[/QUOTE]
The way so many of them are loaded with useless bullshit you don’t need, or do all kinds of shit you don’t need. (With no way to avoid either.)
Edit: Yes, I know, this is utter heresy in the age of “blame it on the processor if it’s too slow” and “there’s a library for that”. I don’t happen to be one of the people who find something appealing about having no idea what’s going on with my program because I’m sitting on top of 20 libraries all inefficiently communicating with each other.
[QUOTE=2ndwolf;101642]…[/QUOTE]
Sometimes it’s simply required that you use one.
Note also that I said if the work is too excessive.
[QUOTE=Codr;101640]
I haven’t used it. The information I looked at seemed like it was showing a lack of ability to even use all of OpenGL’s features with SDL, but I’m not sure if that’s true.
If I chose to use a library to do the work for me, SDL doesn’t sound like what I’d explore first, though. Unless the work is very complicated or extensive, I generally won’t use a library.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, most people only use it for input, windowing, and sound. OpenGL has nothing to do with those. I think you should use OpenGL directly, but use SDL for input, windowing, and sound, because then, all of a sudden, you can build cross-platform (Except sockets).
I’ve updated the first post with progress information you all can see how slowly this is going. I haven’t really worked on it that much over the past few weeks due to various reasons. I’m trying to get back to it, it’s just difficult.
Edit: The compiler’s syntax checking is really nice. It provides much clearer information on errors than Graal does. (And even Microsoft’s C++ compiler.)
I’ve updated the first post again to give a more generalized idea of what I’m going for here. If anyone can think of anything else that Graal doesn’t have or does badly, that I haven’t listed, feel free to post. Especially (but not only) if it relates to scripts. (Since that’s what’s currently being developed.)
Also, Downsider, I did read your last post. When the time comes, I may consider it, but I don’t know yet.
Someone needs to come up with a good name for the project, since I’m so bad at it. “Chalice” has been suggested as a way to mock Graal. But I think there’s probably something better.
Edit: Also, I’m nearly finished with the most bullshit part of the compiler. The rest is easy.
Cup
We went through that already.
2 Graal’s 1 Cup
I actually like “chalice”, has a nice ring to it. What’s your objection to it?
[QUOTE=tricxta;104510]I actually like “chalice”, has a nice ring to it. What’s your objection to it?[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with the project, and doesn’t seem suitable as a randomly-associated name, I guess. I may be wrong, but Graal made sense because there was only one server and its storyline revolved around grails. (I’m not sure if that grail storyline came along way after the initial game.)
I’m on the Chalice train as well until somebody can offer something better, cause I can’t.
Whatever the name will be, it has to have some ironic shitty misspelling in it.
[QUOTE=Onijustin;104517]Whatever the name will be, it has to have some ironic shitty misspelling in it.[/QUOTE]
“Relient”
Figure out where that came from.
“Open Graal”