Eclipse++

[prefix]

So..many…kids....whining... lol :D I think eclipse is good, its a great way to learn how to make an MMO, and i've learned alot from using it. Stop bitchin and act like 1"%! human beings. PLEASE :D

[The New World]

If you all just got a copy of the Dark GDK, it's pretty easy to do most of the stuff marsh is doing. :P The methods are the only catch.

[Xavi]

@prefix:

> So..many…kids....whining... lol :D I think eclipse is good, its a great way to learn how to make an MMO, and I've learned alot from using it. Stop bitchin and act like 1"%! human beings. PLEASE :D

Who's wining? I sense a happy and uplifting atmosphere!
@Yukiyo:

> If you all just got a copy of the Dark GDK, it's pretty easy to do most of the stuff marsh is doing. :P The methods are the only catch.

Your avatar cracks me up every time I see it, just thought I'd let you know haha

[smuczerproductions]

if you make it in c++ woulent that allow someone to be able to esily (well, mor esily the now) port it to 3d, or something like that? not complicated 3d stuff, but simple stuff like the classic runescape or old psp games.

[Marsh]

Not really, i mean easier then vb6 i suppose. But there is so many 3D engines already no point in converting a 2D one.

[Kinjiru]

@smuczerproductions:

> if you make it in c++ woulent that allow someone to be able to esily (well, mor esily the now) port it to 3d, or something like that? not complicated 3d stuff, but simple stuff like the classic runescape or old psp games.

You would be better of building a 3d engine from scratch, than trying to port eclipse

[chuchoide]

Screenshots are pretty cool! Can't wait for this.

[Marsh]

Honestly it will probably never get finished. Was just a fun project of mine.

[chuchoide]

D:

so, this project is now dead?

[Admiral Refuge]

@Chu:

> D:
>
> so, this project is now dead?

I believe marsh made it, just to learn C++.
He used .net, DarkGDK, and an asynchronous network library (the name escapes me).
It's a really simple algorithm, and anyone with basic knowledge can reprogram this using the same libraries he did, with a little work.

[Xavi]

@ÅÐмiядζ:

> I believe marsh made it, just to learn C++.
> He used .net, DarkGDK, and an asynchronous network library (the name escapes me).
> It's a really simple algorithm, and anyone with basic knowledge can reprogram this using the same libraries he did, with a little work.

Well why post it on eclipse if your not actually going to do it? Just saying.

[pipo109]

:renzo: Nice love it

[In7el3ct]

@Xavi:

> Well why post it on eclipse if your not actually going to do it? Just saying.

Well why not? It's his forum, and it **is** a version of eclipse.

[Marsh]

I wasnt aware if i was going to finish it or not at the time.

[pipo109]

it looks like its gonna be real nice, if there's anything i can do to help marsh let me know!!

[Kimimaru]

I don't see why you shouldn't hand over the source to a person who is willing to help and knows a good amount of C++ programming.

[Marsh]

People seem to say or think they know alot more of a language then they actually do. Once they have the source they tend to not know what to do with it. A experienced c++ programmer could just do it better themselves.

[shadowchris]

@Marsh:

> People seem to say or think they know alot more of a language then they actually do. Once they have the source they tend to not know what to do with it. A experienced c++ programmer could just do it better themselves.

That would be considered closed source…. Which would be a bad idea. Don't be like Xtreme worlds*shot*;D.

[Marsh]

It probably won't be either.

[shadowchris]

Well good luck with the people that will actually use it  :rolleyes:.

[Marsh]

I think you missed what we were talking about.

[manbearpig]

nice work marsh

[Godlord]

@Kimimaru:

> I don't see why you shouldn't hand over the source to a person who is willing to help and knows a good amount of C++ programming.

This is C++.net actually. There are big differences between the .net influenced C++ and the actual C++, although both suck compared to C and/or D.

@shadowchris-Anti:

> @Marsh:
>
> > People seem to say or think they know alot more of a language then they actually do. Once they have the source they tend to not know what to do with it. A experienced c++ programmer could just do it better themselves.
>
> That would be considered closed source…. Which would be a bad idea. Don't be like Xtreme worlds*shot*;D.

@shadowchris-Anti:

> Well good luck with the people that will actually use it  :rolleyes:.

If people wanted to use it, they would have to know C++.net anyway, to do anything worthwhile with it.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Chief]

So, what's the difference between C++ and C? without saying C++ sucks, explain pl0x?

[Godlord]

@LOL:

> So, what's the difference between C++ and C? without saying C++ sucks, explain pl0x?

* Non-portable and non-standardised templates.
* Existence of the bool type, which shouldn't be used as bitmaps or bit sets are more efficient.
* Stream operators.
* Classes and therefore virtual methods, polymorphism and inheritance.
* libc vs. libstdcpp, where the latter actually enforces the OOP paradigm.
* Almost all libraries are written in C for C. C++ generally uses C libraries.
* Name spaces, which you don't even need.
* C generally uses implicit typecasting, while C++ generally uses explicit typecasting.
* C++ uses new and delete operators instead of malloc, calloc, realloc and free or any similar functions for memory management. On top of that new and delete call the constructor and destructor methods of a class respectively.
* C++ uses a commenting style C89 doesn't support.
* A lot of new keywords prevent old C code from working.
* goto is prohibited in C++ whilst it is discouraged in C. Which are both wrong, since Assembly relies on branching all the time.
* C++ can use C functions, but it requires 'extern "c"'.
* libc for C++ is not conform to either C89 or C99.
* Enumeration constants can be of any size in C++, whereas they can only be of type int in C.
* C allows struct, union, and enum types to be declared in function prototypes, whereas C++ does not.
* A struct, union, or enum declaration in C++ is a first class type, while in C it is not.
* In C, a function prototype without arguments, e.g. 'int foo();', implies that the parameters are unspecified. Therefore it is legal to call such a function with one or more arguments, e.g. 'foo(42, "hello world");'. In contrast, in C++ a function prototype without arguments means that the function takes no arguments, and calling such a function with arguments is ill-formed. In C, the correct way to declare a function that takes no arguments is by using 'void', as in 'int foo(void);'.
* C does not allow a given typedef to be duplicated in the same scope, whereas C++ allows repeated typedefs.

Regards,
  Stephan.