Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Santa portrayed as having a gay, black husband...

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Santa portrayed as having a gay, black husband...
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

This is a whole new level of "off the rails"

Someone download Ruby. Boom. Tangent.

Hey, what does everyone perfer? GCC, Clang, or Microsoft Compiler, and why?

GCC has cool extensions for C. Not so many for C++. Clang has amazing error messages.

I'm using D these days so I can't get them unfortunately, even though LDC's backend is LLVM.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

I couldn't get Clang to work on Windows for the life of me. It kept trying to use cl to compile everything, and MSVC is a steaming pile of doo.

I would love to use Clang, but I can't get it to work.

I dabbled in D for college, nothing major. Like a lot of its improvements over C++ but it's compiler error messages were too cryptic and even farrer off the mark.

If I go a scripting, I will use Python for sure. Drop dead simple.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I haven't figured what to use for a scripting language for a game with TONS of objects.

The backend is D and it's fast. So I'm trying to off-load as much to the engine as possible. No "iterate over a 2-D array to scan for stuff" using scripting. Have the engine do that, and give you the results.

Everyone uses Lua, so I've considered Lua since tons of modders will already be familiar with it. But Python is tempting.

[edit]

This link shows Lua at twice the speed and 1/10th the memory for one task.

https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=lua&lang2=python3

OTOH, it's much slower in a few tasks.

Also, LuaJIT appears way faster:

http://luajit.org/performance_x86.html

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

l j
Member #10,584
January 2009
avatar

For a game I'm developing quite slowly, I'm creating my own JIT-compiled language. The parser works and now I'm trying to write an interpreter for testing purposes. After that I'll probably throw together a compiler using Reflection.Emit. It's probably more accurate to say I'm writing a game for my own language instead of the other way around.

Some bullet hell shmups seem to use lua for scripting, but on my laptop it will lag if a lot is going on. I'm not sure if it's the lua interpreter being too slow or if the rendering code is bad.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I'm going to have to figure out some tests/benchmarks. I don't want to write code for 100/200/500+ separate objects and then find out I need to port or refactor them all.

I imagine Lua/Python is more than fast enough for 10 objects. Maybe... 100.

But what about 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

I'll also need to do some estimates on how many objects I'll have. It'll be at least 1,000.

Another thing I will do is "off-load" as much as I can to the binary side. Particles? NO SCRIPTING. Particles will only be able to do a restricted subset of things (things that I have binary code for).

The game is designed to be extremely moddable because I'm basically remaking a game that features TONS of mod development. The original game is slow-as-balls because EVERYTHING is 1) single-threaded 2) interpreted (::vomit::) 3) SCRIPTED. Every object. Every particle. And worse, because this binary system was never designed for this level of code, they do insane things in scripting like finite-element analysis physics, and huge amounts of 2-D iteration/etc in scripts that if the underlying system weren't so general, they could be done in binary at 100x/1000x the speed.

The benefit of the "everything is code" of the original game is that while the codebase is a disgusting pile of spaghetti, they can implement tons of crazy things that the original engine was never designed to support.

I'm also trying to figure out how to multi-thread the code as much as possible. But since I'm also providing heavy modding support, how do I design a multi-threaded API that doesn't have tons of gotchas--especially for modders (entry-level programmers)? Everything could use subscriber/publisher interfaces but then, will I have 10,000/100,000/1,000,000 message queues... all updated every frame?!

I've got to decouple the interface from the expectation that objects will be called in any predictable order, yet keep it simple enough for modders, and fast enough for many objects.

Most objects won't be that complex--especially when I specialize them into categories of binary object types. "weapons", "bullets", etc as opposed to every weapon being a living code object that re-implements tons of general object scripting code 10-15 levels of inheritance deep.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Bah, I just can't sit here and let comments like this go without challenge, damn you!!! ;)

That the bible has contradictions is a fact, and you might as well accept it.

I asked Bam, and now I asked you... QUOTE ME THE VERSES! SHOW me the alleged contradictions! Don't just make accusations and state that what you say "is a fact" without backing up what you say with evidence! That is, IF you have actually READ the Bible and are not just parroting what someone else said!

I have studied the Bible (I have read it cover to cover!). I have studied the alleged "contradictions" and proven the allegations to be false! I know EXACTLY which so called "contradictions" you are talking about, but I am not the one making the false claims against God's word, YOU ARE, so OUT WITH IT! SHOW ME the contradictions you claim exist or retract your statement. I won't sit here silent while someone LIES about the word of God. >:(

P.S: TRY and answer my question without a question, if that is at all possible!

I don't appreciate this, it's regrettable that you would post this quote.

Ah well. I stand on God's word. And God says that anyone that denies God is a fool. So I'll agree with HIM.

I await your "contradictions".

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

There are multiple sites that list bible contradictions, this one shows them graphically, with links to sources:
http://bibviz.com/

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Err, huh? Most of those weren't even contradictory.

Eh, well. I think you're missing the point. Jesus is the Passover Lamb. His blood is what kept the Destroyer at bay from striking down the first born of Egypt, and us, not the blood of an actual lamb. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", and "the blood of bulls and goats could never wash away sin".

This goes over the timeline of Christ's death and resurrection quite plainly, and in detail :

http://letusreason.org/Doct145.htm

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

So what do you guys think about newly popular concepts like coroutines?

They're functions that can be called, then they "yield" which pauses their execution, then the next time you call them it continues from that point. So you can actually model a state machine really clearly for like, loading data from a file format, or a network packet.

However, the "it has state" kind of worries me. It's the complete opposite of a pure function. Pure functions have no state and modify no global state. The same input = same output. Which makes them much safer, and, multi-threadable.

Meanwhile, coroutines are kind of neat. They're a hallmark of Python, with generators being basically a coroutine that works as an iterator. Like, you want "every other index" it'll give 0, 2, 4, 6, ... every time you call it in the loop.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose astronauts were to find on the backside of the moon a pile of machinery there that had not been left by American or Russian cosmonauts. What would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly it would be some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence that had left the machinery there. You don't have to have an explanation of who these extraterrestrials were or came from or how they got there or anything of that sort in order to recognize that the best explanation for this machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. In fact when you think about it, requiring that would immediately lead to an infinite regress of explanations. You would need an explanation of the explanation but in order to recognize that as best you would need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation! So that nothing could ever be explained! At one point you have to have an uncaused cause or there would be nothing in existence today.

The reason extraterrestrials would be the "best" explanation (which is debatable; depending on what was found it might be smarter to guess it was another nation first) is not just that the machinery is complex and functional, but because we have reasons to believe that it could not have occurred naturally. There's a very distinct difference between a computer and a fly. They're both quite complex, and cannot spontaneously appear. The computer is assembled out of simpler parts, and simply fastened together rather crudely. The fly is not bolted together. The fly is built from the inside out. It begins as a pair of cells and develops into a fly through a series of reactions explainable by science without a "builder".

The only question is, could the fly have developed over billions of years through entirely natural processes? I believe it could, though science cannot yet explain every minute detail of it. It explains a lot more than "god" does. What remains to be seen is how "random" chaotic chemicals could form into simple organisms that eventually replicate into more complex life forms and eventually into the plants and animals that are so complex today. Of course, it's not a very common occurrence. There is evidence of simple lifeforms surviving on nearby planets or stellar objects, but nothing so complex as even a fly that we've found yet. There are still a lot of questions. The neat thing is that science offers us hope of eventually explaining more and more of this.

"Religion" offers no explanations at all. "Magic" isn't actually a very useful explanation for anything. You cannot control magic in the real world. Only in our fantasies. You can convince other people that you control it through deception and lies (which religious leaders have done for centuries), but we really have no evidence that magic even exists, let alone do we have any sense of control over it ourselves. Science still has a long way to go, but religion has even further to go.

Believe in your magician if you want to. It's lazy and ignorant, but at least it's easy to imagine.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Anyone heard of TypeScript? It's pretty neat. It's a Javascript superset that compiles to Javascript. But, it adds static type checking.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Anyone heard of TypeScript

Aww man... I was like 6 months too early in deciding the platform for my project. We wanted to go with Vue.js and TypeScript, but both were around the 1.0 mark (I think Vue.js was still 0.9) and in their infancy, so there wasn't enough support available and it felt too risky.

We ended up going with Kendo UI with jQuery, but our competitors bought us before we could fully develop the application and now I work for them... and we got raises and free lunch, but now I code in Python.

[edit] The bibvis.com project is pretty awesome! I really like how easy it is to use. I'm a little surprised that there are parts of the new testament that command believers to kill, I thought they had curated it pretty well against that.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

TypeScript is JavaScript plus compile time type checking and some more syntactic sugar. It is "transpiled" to JavaScript. Gives you the means to spot type errors while developing. I like it.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Interestingly, TypeScript is written by the lead architect of C#... and Delphi... and Turbo Pascal.

And it's designed and operated by... Microsoft.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/TypeScript

So it's got big corporate backer. One guy (the one I found out about it from) mentioned for scripting he used to use LuaJIT (and maybe Python), but now he uses exclusively TypeScript and said he's quote, "twice as fast" writing working code.

He said Apple banned JIT by saying in the ToS no program can "download or install" any program and the ToS is confusing enough that some minimum-wage dropout working for iOS verification team might easily confuse it. Also, I think iOS disables running code in the heap and will possibly flag it with their anti-virus software running. So all JIT's are slow and LuaJIT is only 3x faster than Lua instead of 100x+ faster, on iOS platforms.

He said he used to fret it, but now that TypeScript is becoming popular, has huge platform support (it can run without any support and just run as Javascript which compiles away the typechecking), that he doesn't "need" Lua anymore and can work with it on his iOS target games.

Now, granted, can V8/JS/whatever run THOUSANDS of scripts quickly? Can it do it with low RAM usage? (Lua has a crazy low memory footprint for most stuff.) I don't know. But it's certainly worth considering. As much as I hate many of Javascript's decisions (object-based inheritance?! all numbers are floats?!?), the overall ecosystem is incredibly expressive and powerful.

And, with the shared community interest (JS needs to run fast for MANY multi-billion dollar companies to make their money), it makes sense to hop-on and ride the wake of an existing project instead of swimming on your own. The only real question is, is this wake travelling the direction we want to go, or, will we bump off the edges? That is, does JS have some hidden gotchas that using it as a scripting engine (not the normal purpose for JS) will blow up in our face?

If I ran JS--and I'm tempted to try--I'd want a modified JS. I'd want to throw away making new objects. In fact, 99% of the code structure should be STATIC. So I wonder if it'd be SLOW AS HELL to dynamically recreate what is a static structure of THOUSANDS of pre-coded objects.

If I only had say, 10-100 objects on the screen at any time, like a fighting game or whatever, I might be okay. But the loading time could be INSANE if I have to load 10,000 object types.

Come to think of it, there IS one game that is actually similar to my game--in a very abstract sense. Factorio. Which is Allegro + Lua. So there's another point in Lua's favor. It runs with tens of thousands of objects, all animated and interacting in the world. But they might be exploiting a specific design mechanic to optimize how often their scripts run, in a way that I might not be able to in my game.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I didn't notice his LINK (couldn't think of a contradiction on his own). Fine, I'll reply with a link as well.

http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/bible-contradiction-did-jesus-die-before-or-after-the-passover

Incidentally, if you check the video on the skeptics link, and go to the actual Youtube page, you will see I responded to all their videos three years ago. ;D

bamccaig said:

we have reasons to believe

Wow, lots of "beliefs" here. Not a lot of empiracle science.

Quote:

evelops into a fly through a series of reactions explainable by science without a "builder".

No, not one, but TWO builders, as you see, it takes TWO flies to make a baby fly. Perhaps you never heard the tale of the birds and the bees? All life, requires life. A fly has never popped MAGICALLY into existence out of nothing in the history of the world. It came from pre-existing life, two flies before it. This is an absolute fact.

Quote:

I believe it could

There goes that word "believe" again.

Quote:

Of course, it's not a very common occurrence.

That's an understatement. It's not common at all, in fact, it has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN EVER!!!

Quote:

There is evidence of simple lifeforms surviving on nearby planets

Wow! Do you make this stuff up as you go? Where's this evidence? There's no such thing as a "simple lifeform", even the "simplest" cell we know of is more complicated than the systems on the space shuttle! The idea of a so called "simple cell" that Darwin imagined, blobs of goo... was proven wrong once we invented powerful microscopes.

Quote:

"Magic" isn't actually a very useful explanation for anything.

I agree. And an entire universe magically popping into existence out of nothing is magic on the greatest scale possible! Science has proven that all energy and matter is eternal, and so requires an eternal source, not your MAGICAL big bang. And aliens that already live here doesn't answer the question of who made them, and who made the universe they live in... but then, belief in aliens is as much a religion as anything else as I have yet to see proof they exist. It's certainly a piss poor explanation, heck, it's laughable as it doesn't explain where the universe came from!!! ;D

You have a ton of BELIEFS, and a ton of pseudo-science with a whole lot of unproven theories, many which actually defy known laws of physics.

Law of biogenesis: Life only comes from pre-existing life. This has been observed and proven.

Law of thermodynamics: Energy conservation states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The universe MAGICALLY popping into existence from absolutely nothing defies this law on the greatest scale possible. Plus there is absolutely no evidence for it what so ever.

Information (DNA) requires intelligence.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. NEVER in the history of the world has ANYTHING with form and function been designed out of chaotic events. EVER.

Sorry buddy, but REAL science supports an intelligent, all powerful Creator, your pseudo-science has absolutely NO evidence what so ever to support it. Not even a shred. 8-)

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

...

So...

How about them Mets?

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

dusthillresident
Member #16,778
December 2017

Neil Roy said:

Law of biogenesis

This is the same old tired garbage that fundamentalists have been spewing for decades, it's just absolute rubbish.

Also that link he posted is a prime example of what I was referring to earlier when I said 'I know how religious apologetics works'. It doesn't matter how blatant a contradiction is - whatever it is, extremist literalist religious people invent all kinds of 'reasons' for why it's not actually a contradiction, often stretching and twisting the words of their holy book beyond recognition in the process.

If you have two accounts of an event and the accounts don't agree on what day the event happened - yes, that is actually a contradiction. As I said already, you don't have to believe the bible has no contradictions in order to be a Christian. There are plenty of Christians who aren't extremist literalists. But it's just absolutely stupid to deny reality when it's right in front of you - the bible has contradictions. It's not my responsibility to convince you that the sky is blue.

And now I'm not going to waste another second on Neil Roy.

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Religious logic: If I get a Christmas present that doesn't say who it's from, I'll take it as proof that Santa is real ;D

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Neil Roy said:

REAL science supports an intelligent, all powerful Creator

It absolutely does not.

Quote:

NEVER in the history of the world has ANYTHING with form and function been designed out of chaotic events. EVER.

You, sir, know nothing of Chaos. There is order and symmetry in everything, even chaos.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

It's really sad. God is all around us, but you'd rather worship the Creation, instead of the Creator, at the same time denying He had any hand in it.

Good quote Edgar!

Romans 1:25 (NIV)
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I don't want to fuel the burning conversation, but I believe, abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory are completely orthogonal to, and do not diminish or refute the idea of a Creator.

It's only if you believe in the strictest "this book of analogies and stories, somehow = literal" that it becomes a problem / "threat" to your worldview.

But there's no reason an abstract "Creator" that can create the entire universe over billions of years, can't guide single-cells to become the building blocks for us over the last few billion. If he built the entire universe, physical constants and relationships, and formed our planet to be within the habitable region... ensuring cells divide the right way is not unthinkable or much of a stretch.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

jmasterx
Member #11,410
October 2009

Why must there only be one God that created everything? It's very hierarchical... The CEO of the Universe.....

Why do I never hear about creationism where it's a team of Gods that created it all?

Most innovation comes from teams; not individuals. We also tend to specialize.

Is it because it's easier to follow and describe a single entity than an array of them?

Greeks seemed to follow multiple Gods. Why in modern times do I only seem to hear about 1 God?

It's like Santa... it's far more reasonable to believe that Santa is a corporate figure (Mascot) of SantaCorp and that there are a lot of 'Santas' all around the world to actually deliver the toys. They all dress like the mascot.

Same with the reindeer... Every 'Santa' gets 8 reindeer, who are all employees of SantaCorp.

When I look at it like this, Santa is so much more plausible.

Same with religion. If I did believe in creationism, I could wrap my head a lot better that a collection of super-organisms created and crafted the Universe than 1 single entity.

I don't like God objects in programming. I don't like them in traditional hierarchical corporate structures, and I don't like them in religion.

In keeping with this theme, I personally find the bible to be a great set of guiding principals to have a happy, functional, homologous society. But it requires at least majority consensus to work. If I follow The Bible perfectly, but no one else does, then my being a perfect citizen is meaningless and does not practically help society as a whole. If everyone does though, then we have a great society >:(

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

jmasterx said:

Why must there only be one God that created everything? It's very hierarchical... The CEO of the Universe.....

I never said there had to be.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

jmasterx said:

Why must there only be one God that created everything?

Because Mrs. Claus was a ho, and she got cut out of the will.

It's really sad. God is all around us, but you'd rather worship the Creation, instead of the Creator, at the same time denying He had any hand in it.

Why would one separate the two? God is everywhere, Edgar. :-/ I hope one day you will see the light.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"



Go to: