Mirage Source 4

[Helladen]

> All apart from three are perfectly valid, but they're (with the exception of the last point. That should've happened, and will be happening.) more down to VB6 than EO, don't you think? 
>
> Well, at least you can actually list some general issues to go with that statement, but I still feel it's an exaggeration to call it a "bloody mess".

That's more than enough to note that it is a bloody mess. I wouldn't work in that ever again. The language is definitely a core problem yes, but it is why it shouldn't of been kept going this long.

[Guest]

> I think C++ is a fine language if you like to waste time coding your own memory management. Although, more control is good for companies not individuals. Results matter not control, if you can't get results control is useless. C++ is much older than Visual Basic 6, so your point is invalid. Try again. 

If you hadn't rage-deleted the PM where you blatantly said "old language = bad language" then I would've had more evidence.

> No centralized project. Like our source code has a Dream library that the client, toolkit, and server uses to get rid of redundant code. For example, you have so much code that is duplicates of something in another project (ModConstants as an example).

Make's it even messier - dealing with two projects in one. Having two separate projects allows you to modify the code based on the needs of the client and server.

> Poor networking. WinSock is garbage, Lidgren networking is way better.

Completely irrelevant. We're talking about why an engine is unclean, comparing a significantly older library to a newer one isn't fair.

> Outdated and poorly supported language that is literally unused by anyone with half a brain.

And yet it's still around? Time and time again Microsoft has "ended support" for it, yet, surprisingly, it's still around? Funny that. Once again, irrelevant.

> Poor source management. There's so much recopied code that could of been shortened by a function to make the source cleaner. For example, packets could of been handled much better as could of loading data in the server. There's just so many horrible things done with it.

Finally a decent relevant point.

> No classes. Procedural programming is redundant in itself. OO is a much better designed programming language. This is an issue with the language lacking it, another reason not to use it.

Said it yourself, it's a VB6 problem, not an EO problem, irrelevant x4.

To sum up, 4/5 points are irrelevant. There are problems in EO. It's just that you don't know it enough to have a decent argument so I suggest you stop trying until you actually know what the hell you're on about for once instead of trying to use your massive ego to get through arguments.

[JeffSventora]

C++ may be older, but C++ follows a standard that is updated every now and then, essentially "newer versions". And wasting time managing memory? You do realize that memory access is one of the slowest operations on a computer right? Control over that can greatly increase your app's performance if you know what you're doing. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe WinSock is the lowest level of network capabilities available on Windows, in other words, Lidgren uses WinSock.

[Stach]

From what I read he is referring to VB6 more than EO. And another point I'd like to make is if you think EO is so terribly bad why don't you help fix it rather than sit there and talk about how bad it is.

[Harris6310]

Stop arguing in my topic. :-(

Mirage Source 4 is good enough for some people, such as me.

[Helladen]

> C++ may be older, but C++ follows a standard that is updated every now and then, essentially "newer versions". And wasting time managing memory? You do realize that memory access is one of the slowest operations on a computer right? Control over that can greatly increase your app's performance if you know what you're doing. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe WinSock is the lowest level of network capabilities available on Windows, in other words, Lidgren uses WinSock.

Lidgren handles networking much more effective than WinSock by itself. I'm not sure to be honest if Lidgren even uses WinSocket, I'm not that into programming. 

> If you hadn't rage-deleted the PM where you blatantly said "old language = bad language" then I would've had more evidence.

I didn't feel like talking with your stupid ass. I wasn't mad.

> - snip -

To sum the rest of what you said… Stop using Visual Basic 6, then! If you use a poor engine to make a game and people call you bad, then the same goes for using a poor language to develop one. You're limiting yourself by using outdated technology. A centralized project is not dumb. If you use Visual Studio then managing multiple projects is easy, and even managing it in Visual Basic 6 isn't very difficult. You edit one line instead of two, that's more effective. Even reusing functions and subs with a library to get things done quicker, it is common sense man. Use your brain somewhat and stop acting like I'm the stupid one.

[Guest]

The only reason I'm still using Visual Basic is to not be a scumbag developer by supporting Crawle. I've moved on to other languages already.

[Helladen]

> The only reason I'm still using Visual Basic is to not be a scumbag developer by supporting Crawle. I've moved on to other languages already.

I figured you were supporting Visual Basic 6\. Glad to know that you prefer a different language. ;3

[Mal]

> C++ may be older, but C++ follows a standard that is updated every now and then, essentially "newer versions". And wasting time managing memory? You do realize that memory access is one of the slowest operations on a computer right? Control over that can greatly increase your app's performance if you know what you're doing. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe WinSock is the lowest level of network capabilities available on Windows, in other words, Lidgren uses WinSock.

> Lidgren handles networking much more effective than WinSock by itself. I'm not sure to be honest if Lidgren even uses WinSocket, I'm not that into programming. 
>
> I didn't feel like talking with your stupid ass. I wasn't mad.
>
> To sum the rest of what you said… Stop using Visual Basic 6, then! If you use a poor engine to make a game and people call you bad, then the same goes for using a poor language to develop one. You're limiting yourself by using outdated technology. A centralized project is not dumb. If you use Visual Studio then managing multiple projects is easy, and even managing it in Visual Basic 6 isn't very difficult. You edit one line instead of two, that's more effective. Even reusing functions and subs with a library to get things done quicker, it is common sense man. Use your brain somewhat and stop acting like I'm the stupid one.

Wow. Just.. lol. Like comedy overload in this topic.

1) Lidgren uses the Socket class. The socket class is a wrapper around the Winsock API, which in turn is as close to the metal as you can get on a Windows platform; simply put, Winsock is THE networking API used by Windows. Jeff is correct.

2) Helladen seems to be talking more out of his ass with a partial understanding of shit rather than with no understanding of shit. I'll clean it up for him, or at least try to:

A) "No centralized project" - He means an assembly that allows for reusable code to be used in both the client, server, and any other project that utilize a collection of native methods, e.g. constants, enumerations, etc.

 "Poor networking" - See my #1 and #2 points above; aside from those, yes, the networking is bad. It's synchronous and blocking, and that is bad.

C) "Outdated and poorly supported language" - Agreed, but you could have kept the "unused by anyone with half a brain" and other such insulting or subjective statements to yourself.

D) "Poor source management" - Agreed. If you actually slowed down enough to think about these problems you would have noticed that A ("No centralized project") is the root of this; there isn't a library containing a collection of reusable native methods.

E) OO isn't a programming language. It's a programming paradigm, and procedural programming is a paradigm that even C derivatives use (e.g. C++ and C# are both multi-paradigm languages).

Anywho.

[Growlith1223]


Anyways, why are you guys fighting? just be glad there's another engine on here ._.

[Helladen]

> E) OO isn't a programming language. It's a programming paradigm, and procedural programming is a paradigm that even C derivatives use (e.g. C++ and C# are both are multi-paradigm languages).

When I say OO programming language, I meant that. I understand that a language can be whatever it has support for, and it is up to the programmer to decide how to program using the set rules of the paradigm. Lidgren being a wrapper yes, which was corrected above if you read, so your points are invalid and not really constructive to the argument.

I also said I wasn't a programmer by trade or cared much for it, so I'm not saying I'm a programming guru… I'm just annoyed by Mirage still being alive after 13 years.

[Mal]

> When I say OO programming language, I meant that. I understand that a language can be whatever it has support for, and it is up to the programmer to decide how to program using the set rules of the paradigm. Lidgren being a wrapper yes, which was corrected above if you read, so your points are invalid and not really constructive to the argument.
>
> No need to point out useless things. My points still remain. I said I wasn't a programmer or cared much for it, so I'm not saying I'm a programming guru…
>
> Poor networking. WinSock is garbage, Lidgren networking is way better.
>
> Lidgren handles networking much more effective than WinSock by itself. I'm not sure to be honest if Lidgren even uses WinSocket, I'm not that into programming.
>
> No classes. Procedural programming is redundant in itself. OO is a much better designed programming language.

Do you have downs or are you otherwise mentally handicapped? I'm not insulting you; I'm just trying to figure out why your mouthing off bogus rhetoric pertaining to programming then following up with "I'm not that into programming" or "I'm not a programmer", failing miserably at simple reading comprehension, and then acting defensive when you're called out on the aforementioned. It's funny. 

[Helladen]

> Do you have downs or are you otherwise mentally handicapped? I'm not insulting you; I'm just trying to figure out why your mouthing off bogus rhetoric pertaining to programming then following up with "I'm not that into programming" or "I'm not a programmer", failing miserably at simple reading comprehension, and then acting defensive when you're called out on the aforementioned. It's funny. 

I read all of what you said and understand it clearly, but your points are still invalid. Maybe you're the ones with downs who laughs over bogus. I never said you were insulting me, but what I was saying that I'm pointing out design flaws not to use the engine. We already went over all this, no need to repeat.

[Mal]

> I read all of what you said and understand it clearly, but your points are still invalid. Maybe you're the ones with downs who laughs over bogus. I never said you were insulting me, but what I was saying that I'm pointing out design flaws not to use the engine. We already went over all this, no need to repeat.

Yeah, you suck something awful at reading comprehension, kiddo. I was stating that I wasn't insulting you by way of my question; as it were I was asking a question based off of logical information. You act like "your point is invalid" helps you when, in fact, it does not. Your terminology is bad, your reading comprehension sucks, and you know duck all about networking; other than that what I posted that was in agreeance with you will remain as so.

Anywho. /endtopic