Profile: UbahNecro
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Linux

  • Also, programming languages are all cross platform (except for Assembly languages which are processor-dependent). All you need is a suitable compiler or interpreter for the language (i.e. Borland ported their ObjectPascal/Delphi and C++ compilers to Linux).

    Borland had to write an entirely different Library called the Component Library [for] Cross-Platform (CLX) when they developed Kylix, cause the VCL was too Win32 Dependent to port - it would have basically required them to rewrite large parts of it to take advantage of Linux Libraries.

    They chose Qt, because it was Win32/Linux cross platform and the new Library [CLX] would facilitate single-source recompilation on both platforms regardless of which platform the application was developed on. If anyone using Delphi 6 (which included both VCL and CLX) used VCL to develop a new application, the applications would have to be rewritten to CLX for all the UI-related elements for it to be able to compiler for Linux, since VCL was a Win32-only framework.

    I did Linux development (client-side) and know how hard it is to port applications between both especially when a GUI or system-level interface (as DirectX is) is involved. There are big issues that can stop other types of applications also. Note that PostgreSQL didn't have a Native Win32 version of their RDBMS until version 8 - until then it ran on top of the Cygwin Linux Emulation Layer (which you could somewhat equate to what WINE is on Linux for Windows applications).

    Any game developer who wants their game to be cross platform will do the smart thing: use OpenGL for graphics rendering and use 3rd party [cross platform] solutions to fill in the gaps. It's dumb to have a game that is Linux-only since Linux's market share will not recoup the development costs of an MMO-type game. So you're pretty much doing ONLY Windows or BOTH Linux and Windows. Linux-Only is not a good business decision at this point in time for an MMO or pretty much any game that costs alot to develop.

    Apple is also a UNIX-type OS (with different Libraries, they have Cocoa instead of Win32 :) ) and would be a better bet. Win32 + Apple > Win32 + Linux > Apple Only > Linux Only.

    Can probably sell more games for a cell phone than for only Linux.

    Anyawys I am going AWOL again from the forums as I am a bit busy :)

    See you next month?

  • Posted: 10/24/08 9:52 AM
    General Discussion
• • Linux

  • 100% wrong about what exactly?  You may be right that it's to difficult to make Directx available for other OS as it would cost Microsoft to much money, but you have also be wrong on some of the points you made.  It seems like you think you know a lot, but in actuality you know about as much as  I do.

    Do you work for Microsoft? I don't, I know for sure you don't. Cuase if you did, you'd know better. All I know is that you are wrong. Anything beyond that isn't really a factor in the context of what this discussion has become. If you are still trying to prove me wrong after having given you MUCH proof of how you are (and you have given me nothing?), I would have to say you are dumber than I had thought you were...

    My comment about ComSci I was a bit in jest, but also quite serious. Indeed, most people around here who go into Computer Science or related fields (Engineering, e.g.) do take several ComSci-related courses in High School. In other words, this know this shit before they graduate high school. 5 Computer Science courses in High School, Years of ComSci-related training in the Navy (alot of that Targetted at UNIX but also includes custom/embedded systems), and years of College later (I didn't graduate yet, but almost there!) - it would be a travesty to have your line of thinking after all I have learned.

    You are the type of programmer that cause start-ups to fail and go bankrupt. These ideas you have aren't realistic, that is the reason why they weren't implemented.

    Apart from the fact that it would be incredibly and exceedingly difficult to port DirectX to Linux/UNIX - those OSes have such non-factor Desktop Market-shares (speaking of computer desktop users, what gamers fall into) that it wouldn't be worth the investment anyways.

    Borland International, Inc. has two programming tools called Delphi and C++Builder. In 2001 they ported Delphi to Linux and named it Kylix. By the time 2003 came along the project was cancelled. They had to rewite their entire Visual Component Library for Linux to use Qt (CLX it was called there) and it was buggy. By that time both Delphi and C++Builder were ported to Linux. Part of the biggest issue, however, was the existence of 10-20 popular Linux distros in use which made it near impossible to support Linux as a host OS for a native application (Jave and web applications are fundamentally different).

    The entire VCL had to be REWRITTEN to be cross-platform because of the Win32 dependencies of it. They rewrote it to use Qt as an underlying graphics framework: CLX was only an abstraction of Qt which was only an abstraction of Win32/Xlib. This is only an application framework - nothing on the level of a system component like DirectX (so much of a system components that it can't even be uninstalled after you install it). Please do tell me how DirectX can be ported to Linux/UNIX more easily than Borland's VCL. Those are hundreds of thousands - millions (developers, licenses, marketing, support, etc.) of USD wasted in this product. Microsoft is not stupid - they tried it with Macintosh - an infinitely better Consumer OS than Linux, especially, now that it's a UNIX-type also with more marketshare. Good Luck.

    Reference: Borland sold the DevTools devision off: http://www.codegear.com for information on the projects they have that didn't fail horribly.

      Then you fling insults around at people like it's no big deal to do so.  I think if you take this attitude with you it's goign to be difficult finding a job in programming.

    Lol? Don't be stupid, and you won't be called out as stupid...

    Not may people know everything about how a computer works or how each programming langauge works or how each operating system works.

    No, I just know how the Operating Systems I have studied work. I administered a Unix network in the Navy (HP-UX). I know how UNIX works (and Linux also). Programming languages only differ in semantics and the scope of capabilities that their developers or standards committee wishes for them. We can get rid of programming languages and use 1's and 0's and what I said still makes sense as long as the Windows and UNIX/Linux platforms differ.

    This is not like porting something that was originally coded for Windows Vista to Windows XP (back porting), this is a cross platform port of a system component and it is difficult. It's like saying you can go recompile Windows a device drive on Linux - an ignorant statement to make, at best.

    In any case, this has very little to do with what the discussion was about. DirectX is not portable to Linux, and making it portable to Linux would require several extensive rewrites of it. The Linux and Windows driver models aren't even equivalent. Do you know what DirectX encompasses? It is only partly comparable to OpenGL (which is quite limited in scope, comparatively).

    Most people specialize in a certain aspect of it and these people are the ones likely to know the best answers.  Not us who are for the most part are guessing based on some general knowledge that we have gained through reading some programming books or taking some computer/programming classes. 

    Disagree. I am not guessing. I am telling you the facts. If that is the way you think about what you are saying, then you really don't have the right to post anything in this thread. At least have a little faith in what you're telling people. Know what you're talking about, or shut the hell up.

    Yes, there are Domain Specialties, but these concepts are domain-independent and do not require any experties (i.e. if you don't have a Ph.D. and are an expert in AI, STFU). Let's not go there.

    Lol. Pwn yourself some more, sir.

  • Posted: 10/24/08 9:34 AM
    General Discussion
• • Linux

  • You're still 100% wrong, and don't change the subject.

    Lol.

    Looks like you skipped ComSci 101...

  • Posted: 10/19/08 2:36 AM
    General Discussion
• • Linux

  • MFC is not the Windows API. There is no reason to rewrite the Windows API in C++, since the C code is callable from C++. Lol. Where the hell do you get these retarded ideas from. MFC is a wrapper around the Windows API. It is what we call an Application Framework. There were other frameworks. For example, Borland's ObjectWindows Library used to compete with MFC. Now Borland has the Visual Component Library for Delphi and C++Builder. There is also Qt, wxWidgets, FOX, etc. Anything that can be done with these frameworks can be done with the Windows API. They are just there to ease development and make applications easier to maintain and structure (they are object oriented frameworks)
    Think what you want. I'm tired talking to you. This is beyond rediculous, and you definitely aren't a software developer (like I am) because you wouldn't even think twice about embarassing youself posting this dribble.

    You were not accurate on your points. All of your points are incorrect and WRONG. You actually have no damn clue what the hell your talking about. Go to Wikipedia or something and get a clue, IMO. I just realized that I never really met a stupid person before, until I started posting on this forum in this thread.

    ROFL. Win32 has nothing to do with how much RAM windows can access. That is a design in the OS, not the API. DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE 32-BIT VERSIONS OF WINDOWS SERVER (WIN32) THAT CAN ACCESS UP TO AND OVER 4GB RAM? Please, continue to talk this shit and own yourself on pretty much every point. Win64 is not all that different from Win32 except it includes functions that are exclusive to 64-bit architectures. Same for Win32, it included functions that were not included in 16-Bit Windows. All Windows OSes are backwards compatible, for the most part (Win32 can run Win16 Apps, Win64 can run Win32 Apps).

    Also, Windows XP 32-Bit can access almost 3.5 GB of RAM. Please be more incorrect. Maybe you can only access 2GB because you have a crappy MOBO with only 2 DDR RAM slots for 2GB Max.

    The way you are explaining this is not only wrong, but beyond rediculous. You are pretty much incomprehensible of this so I will have to say farewell and quite reading and posting in this thread.

    Bye Bye friend. Hope you learn something soon.

    P.S. I used to think no one was stupid until I started participating in this thread. First the Linux shit (which the person never replied to my posts on that cause he knew he was dead wrong) and now this dreadfully obvious Windows stuff which doesn't even relate to the topic of the thread...

  • Posted: 10/07/08 9:30 AM
    General Discussion
• • Linux

  • Win32 API is Windows API. It is a term that sprung up in the mid-90s to differentiate it from the Win16 API. One is for 32-bit applications and one is for 16-bit applications. There is also Win64 which includes APIs that can be used neither in 16 nor 32 bit applications.

    If you don't understand any of this, that is the reason why you disagree.

    You simply don't know what you're talking about.

    I don't laugh at you, but I did write these essays to hopefully educate you on some of these things.

    If you still believe that Windows API and Win32 API are different things than you need more help than I can give you.

    I didn't read the rest of your post, because I would only end up writing another essay trying to debunc the false stsatements in your post. Everything that needs to be said are in my other posts. Feel free to read them.

    Must be getting desperate if you are now trying to argue that Windows API and Win32 API is not the same thing. Windows 16/32/64-Bit Application Programming Interfaces = Windows API.

    I'm suprised you would even go along with this argument. It's a rhetorical question to ask any distinction between the two (beyond the obvious i.e. you can't use 32-bit functions in Win 3.1x except for those supported by Win32s subsystem).

    Just stop... This is beyond educational and bodering on the rediculous.

  • Posted: 10/06/08 10:36 AM
    General Discussion