Proof of the hardware/software company conspiracy

[FrOzeN]

Ah ok, I'll have a look into this.

---
Anyway brew, now that you've recovered that nanosecond, why don't you fix the logic error in your program. For example, displaying the icon for a channel operator has more precedence than a squelched user. At least the code I posted works correctly (well, apart from the two missing semi-colons which I would of noticed upon compiling).

[Warrior]

Have our ways of computing really changed since windows 2k? Yet look at that, it takes 16 times less RAM to run then vista, and 15 times less disk space. That is not only the result of more features, but because of bad programming practices as well. Back in the '70s if frozen said that, he would've been guilotined. Now today's world of software companies believe that it's product's success lies within the time it takes to produce and the number of useless features, further promoting high level programming languages and a slower end product. What fools.

Of course they have, that's something that hopefully you could see. There have been many advancements both hardware and software in computing.

How can you draw the conclusion that the resource requirements are a result of bad programming? It's definitely a possibility, but it's impossible for you to definitively know that due to the closed nature of the Windows Operating System.

It's impossible to know for sure, but it is possible to take a reasonable guess. I think this is what you're doing, or at least trying to do.

The difference is, the toolchain for Windows has not really changed much since the Windows 2k days. The Core OS much less, it's compiled from the same language today that it was back then. Give or take a component or two.

The really high level .NET stuff has not been implemented extensively in Windows yet, as far as components are concerned. How can you talk about bad programming practices, you. I'd understand if it was somebody with a degree, or a fair amount of experience but you? You've barely gotten your feet wet in the world of programming when compared to the programmers at Redmond.

The world of technology evolves rather quickly, and as things like digital entertainment become more and more a part of everyday life they will continue to climb.

People want the innovations of tomorrow, yesterday. If they don't get them they complain that the market is stagnated, if they do get them then they complain about the inherent need to upgrade your hardware.

In short, I do think there is a fair amount of logic in your stance about High Level bloat, I just think you take it to an extreme. At a point you trade off functionality for raw speed, even if the speed gain is negligible.

Come on man, we're in the era of Dual (even Quad) core processing. What's not to like?

[brew]

Anyway brew, now that you've recovered that nanosecond, why don't you fix the logic error in your program. For example, displaying the icon for a channel operator has more precedence than a squelched user. At least the code I posted works correctly (well, apart from the two missing semi-colons which I would of noticed upon compiling).

You know what's funny? It worked the first time. Remember? But you changed it to use static returns yourself.
What's even funnier is this:

grr. okay, so i did what myndfyre suggested. now it looks like this:

Code Select Expand


unsigned int GetIcon(unsigned long client, unsigned long flags) {
if (flags & 64)
return 17;
if (flags & 32)
return 16;
if (flags & 8)
return 15;
if (flags & 4)
return 14;
if (flags & 2)
return 13;
if (flags & 1)
return 12;
switch (client) {
case CLIENT_CHAT: //0x43484154:
return 11;
case CLIENT_W3XP: //0x57335850:
return 10;
case CLIENT_WAR3: //0x57415233:
return 9;
case CLIENT_W2BN: //0x5732424E:
return 8;
case CLIENT_D2XP: //0x44325850:
return 7;
case CLIENT_D2DV: //0x44324456:
return 6;
case CLIENT_DSHR: //0x44534852:
return 5;
case CLIENT_DRTL: //0x4452544C:
return 4;
case CLIENT_JSTR: //0x4A535452:
return 3;
case CLIENT_SSHR: //0x53534852:
return 2;
case CLIENT_SEXP: //0x53455850:
return 1;
}
}


Honestly. If someone's going to post in a topic, they should read the entire thing before posting.

[FrOzeN]

Anyway brew, now that you've recovered that nanosecond, why don't you fix the logic error in your program. For example, displaying the icon for a channel operator has more precedence than a squelched user. At least the code I posted works correctly (well, apart from the two missing semi-colons which I would of noticed upon compiling).

You know what's funny? It worked the first time.

No, the logic in your first code is only more correct than your revision of it. It is still not completely right. Maybe you should have a look at the flag specifications. Secondly, MyndFyre suggested for you to put your flags check above your switch statement, not to completely reverse your flag check.

[brew]

Anyway brew, now that you've recovered that nanosecond, why don't you fix the logic error in your program. For example, displaying the icon for a channel operator has more precedence than a squelched user. At least the code I posted works correctly (well, apart from the two missing semi-colons which I would of noticed upon compiling).

You know what's funny? It worked the first time.

No, the logic in your first code is only more correct than your revision of it. It is still not completely right. Maybe you should have a look at the flag specifications. Secondly, MyndFyre suggested for you to put your flags check above your switch statement, not to completely reverse your flag check.

I reversed it like that in order to keep the flag precedence, actually. Sorry, it's just that i'd like to see who's squelched etc over channel operator (i have other things to show all the flags). IIRC a number of other bots do this as well. My bot doesn't follow the standards-- so what? it also has three columns instead of two, and the listview name coloring isn't the same as starcraft's either. I thought the topic here was supposed to be about how that code was compiled to that pos assembly that you saw in the first post, not the logic of my function based on the "standard".

[Warrior]

Anyway brew, now that you've recovered that nanosecond, why don't you fix the logic error in your program. For example, displaying the icon for a channel operator has more precedence than a squelched user. At least the code I posted works correctly (well, apart from the two missing semi-colons which I would of noticed upon compiling).

You know what's funny? It worked the first time.

No, the logic in your first code is only more correct than your revision of it. It is still not completely right. Maybe you should have a look at the flag specifications. Secondly, MyndFyre suggested for you to put your flags check above your switch statement, not to completely reverse your flag check.

I reversed it like that in order to keep the flag precedence, actually. Sorry, it's just that i'd like to see who's squelched etc over channel operator (i have other things to show all the flags). IIRC a number of other bots do this as well. My bot doesn't follow the standards-- so what? it also has three columns instead of two, and the listview name coloring isn't the same as starcraft's either. I thought the topic here was supposed to be about how that code was compiled to that pos assembly that you saw in the first post, not the logic of my function based on the "standard".

lol brew is trying to justify incorrect code. lolol "so what"

[brew]

lol brew is trying to justify incorrect code. lolol "so what"

incorrect? by whos standards? i obviously intended for my code to be executed in that manner and return those results.

[Warrior]

lol brew is trying to justify incorrect code. lolol "so what"

incorrect? by whos standards? i obviously intended for my code to be executed in that manner and return those results.

obviously.

when emulating a client it's often best to actually not fail at implementing features in the way the client does (that's the point of emulation isn't it)? unless you're admitting that you're bad at emulating a client (surprise, surprise), and just make pointless topics to show off whatever table scraps you've taken from the left overs things other people have done, tried, and realized to be a waste of time years ago.


obviously

[brew]

lol brew is trying to justify incorrect code. lolol "so what"

incorrect? by whos standards? i obviously intended for my code to be executed in that manner and return those results.

obviously.

when emulating a client it's often best to actually not fail at implementing features in the way the client does (that's the point of emulation isn't it)? unless you're admitting that you're bad at emulating a client (surprise, surprise), and just make pointless topics to show off whatever table scraps you've taken from the left overs things other people have done, tried, and realized to be a waste of time years ago.


obviously

Wow, you're a real pisser. You know that?
First off, I'm pretty sure that a game emulator for my own personal use doesn't NEED to use StarCraft's flag parsing scheme. I'm bad at emulating a client? How do you know that? Please, just shut up. You entered the topic on a good note. What you said was something I hoped to get from other members, but apparently that wasn't the case. If you don't have anything constructive to say, why say it at all? Was this a pointless topic? Its purpose was not to "show off table scraps", it just so happened that I found the perfect example of what this topic is about from my battle.net chatter bot.

[MyndFyre]

obviously.

when emulating a client it's often best to actually not fail at implementing features in the way the client does (that's the point of emulation isn't it)? unless you're admitting that you're bad at emulating a client (surprise, surprise), and just make pointless topics to show off whatever table scraps you've taken from the left overs things other people have done, tried, and realized to be a waste of time years ago.


obviously

Shut up, War.  Mock him when he's wrong about something.

[Warrior]

obviously.

when emulating a client it's often best to actually not fail at implementing features in the way the client does (that's the point of emulation isn't it)? unless you're admitting that you're bad at emulating a client (surprise, surprise), and just make pointless topics to show off whatever table scraps you've taken from the left overs things other people have done, tried, and realized to be a waste of time years ago.


obviously

Shut up, War.  Mock him when he's wrong about something.

Let me have some fun, ok?

[Joe[x86]]

not rely on fallthrough (which is generally considered poor language practice).

Some languages don't even allow fallthrough, which I didn't initially like, but I see the point of now. I'm not sure which language it was, but... oww.. feel the pain from saying this.. I think it was VB.

[Warrior]

C#

[Joe[x86]]

Warrior wins.

Does VB allow fallthrough, though?

[brew]

x86] link=topic=17237.msg175697#msg175697 date=1199716311]
Does VB allow fallthrough, though?

No