From: sevagK on 12 Mar 2006 17:24
> > See the indicater yourself if you have not yet poked out both your
> > eyes. Everytime Randall posts something, even if it has nothing to do
> > with Betov or Rosasm, you'll see a nutty Rene post insanities like the
> > one above showing everyone the bare fact: Betov has no competence to
> > respond to Randall's knowledge level.
> If René has no competanse, then who wrote RosAsm ?
An incompetent person wrote it. That's why it has the smallest
userbase of all the assemblers. Most people recognize this fact.
>:)) If it was not René,
> then I would like to know who is responsible for the most efficient
> programming tool I ever had the pleasure of working with.
To you maybe. I spent 10 minutes on it trying to do a trivial thing
and already broke the If-end_if macro. It's the most retarded
conditional branch macro I've experienced in any assmebler.
Then I tried to undo some texts... 1 character at a time undo. He
doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature.
Just about all Rosasm 'features' are a pale shadow of the same
features that appear in better assemblers.
> If Randall Hyde has any competanse, then who wrote HLA? If it was not
> Randall I like to know who is responsible for this catastrophy.
Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of HLA. But that's not
surprising... Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of MASM, FASM,
GOASM, NASM, TASM or AS.
It's no surprise that the assembler dragging at the bottom of the heap
was written by an incompetent.
From: Bertrand Augereau on 12 Mar 2006 17:48
First, I think Tim's statement is a bit provocative in the gaming
industry where most coders value performance and tight code :)
Second, he's probably right we'll need higher level languages than the
industry standard (ie C++) to leverage efficiently implicit parrallelism.
A more functional way, with less side effects is certainly desirable!
Third, please Wannabee, don't make a jerk of yourself, you don't know
jack about the game industry and what is involved in the production of a
game engine (certainly more than artworks).
From: Betov on 12 Mar 2006 18:17
"nessuno" <fmdf66(a)yahoo.com> ?crivait news:1142193449.687919.318470
> Just one more thought. Did I understand well that a RosAsm executable
> must be produced from a single file? Did I understand well that you
> can't link together different object files to produce a single
You understood perfectly, and it is delibaratly made
that way in order to make it impossible for any user,
to do what you want to do. RosAsm is not a C-Side Tool.
< http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 12 Mar 2006 18:20
"nessuno" <fmdf66(a)yahoo.com> ?crivait news:1142193421.944800.252890
> Some months ago, when I heard about RosAsm in this NG, I really wanted
> to give it a try but later I discovered that it can't work on my
> operating system and I don't want to purchase a MS-Win licence only to
> run Ros Asm. I hope one day to see it running on a free and open source
> operating system, no matter which.
Good position, but you miss the point that i begun writing
RosAsm the first day i heard of ReactOS:
< http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html >
[Don't dream... not yet ready for everydays usage...]
< http://rosasm.org >
From: o//annabee on 12 Mar 2006 19:26
P? Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:48:09 +0100, skrev Bertrand Augereau
> First, I think Tim's statement is a bit provocative in the gaming
> industry where most coders value performance and tight code :)
> Second, he's probably right we'll need higher level languages than the
> industry standard (ie C++) to leverage efficiently implicit parrallelism.
> A more functional way, with less side effects is certainly desirable!
> Third, please Wannabee, don't make a jerk of yourself, you don't know
> jack about the game industry and what is involved in the production of a
> game engine (certainly more than artworks).
Sure. I am not claiming I know. But I wrote a 3DEditor once, able to
create things like a simple plane, for instance, saved in my own file
format. It was in no way even a challange.
Yet I still will say that creating artwork is the major part of a 3D game
nowadays, which is why I will be more interessted in things like randomly
created terrain and such things, to compensate for the need for real art.
I have gathered rather many papers on this in the past, and have a rough
understanding of the areas which will require most time. And my guess is
that theese areas are
1. fast rendering, and good physics, e.g to even make a simple geometry
playable is takes some hard work. I will be focusing on dynamic scenery.
Where the player is able to change the environment.
2. Creating artwork is a _very_ significant part. To say its not is just
3. Defining a playable game. That is an interssting idea. A good story,
and a good balance between the story and the playability. I have seen many
awsomely technical games, that are just terrible boring to play.
I am not saying I know. I am saying a have a rough picture. And I dont
think my picture is horribly unrealistic. But I am very ready to listen to
anyone having something to say about it, not that I am thinking its going
to be you :))))
One thing that is for sure, is that the hardest part is to come up with a
good idea for the game itself. Even a textbased game can be immensly fun,
if the playablity is very high. And the lastest in technical graphic will
not make much diffrence if the gameplay suck.