 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by marble_eater |
| User | Post | ||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 1/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
| I think that this topic is old, but for anyone who wants to know, all the columns run into eachother. They overlap. To read each combo, find the biginning (the high bit is set) and read the data until you extract eleven tiles. The next combo will usually start in the middle of the current combo; they appearently did this to save space in the ROM. | |||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 2/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
| I noticed Zelda Improvement can be downloaded from this site, in the section marked "Downloads (outdated)" (in the nav bar on the left). I recommend putting Zelda Tech (from http://ilab.ahemm.org/ztechhome/ in the download section. It can do alot more. | |||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 3/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
| At this point, most people have the .Net framework installed. VB.Net is an excellent RAD environment. You can whip up rich applications in no time, and it is much much much easier than in C++. The .Net framework provides much more functionality and ease of use than MFC. Since VB.Net uses JIT compilation, its performance can be comperable to that of c++ in certain circumstances. VB.Net is fully object oriented and interoperable with all .Net based assemblies (as well as your old ActiveX components). VB has also come a long way since VB6. Like I said, it is fully object oriented, and since it uses the .Net Framework, loads of functionality are made available to you. From what I hear it is easier to connect to and interact with databases. There is regular expressions, much better graphics capabilities, easier, faster, better file I/O, you can inherit and extend almost any existing class, etc., etc., etc. It has all the things you were missing in VB6. Built in common dialogs, rich text, tab controls, file and folder info classes, better registry editing, codecs to save images as gifs, jpegs, pngs, and bitmaps, common controls (list view, tree view, status bar), you can dynamically add event handlers. In other words, VB.Net has its place and C++ has its place. Don't use C++ just because someone doesn't think it's a "real" programming language. Many things can be programmed in a fraction of the time with VB as opposed to C++. If you are writing an incredibly complex 3-D high poly count game with complex pixel shaders, etc, etc, I would recommend C++. If you are going to write something simpler, VB.Net could be the way to go. Now there is even managed directx for 3D software programming with VB.Net and C#. The gap between what C++ and VB can do is closing, and in some areas, VB has come into the lead. |
|||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 4/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
| Well now, that was really overdone and unnecessary. I am not pro-VB or pro C++, I am willing to acknoledge both their merits. But now I have to post a rediculous post so large that no one wants to read it in order to return the favor.... -"If it's over 35% I'd be very surpised." This is simply not my experience. -"C syntax is about as simple and idiot-proof as it can get" I have never met anyone who hasn't had oodles of compilation errors at some point that they couldn't figureout that eventually turned out to be a missing bracket or equals sign. Saying that C syntax is idiot proof is, to put it simply, rather idiotic. Although it is the most common style of syntax used, and my personal preference, and in terms of pure logic it is the simpliest, when human beings use it, it is the most confusing and prone to syntax error. -"Is it easier to make templated, carbon copy form programs in VB? yes Is it easier to make any other kind of program in VB? definatly not. " Do i make templated, carbon copy form programs in VB? No Doi make any other kind of program in VB? Absolutely -"Care to guess how many commercial programs are written in VB? Zero!" FALSE! Admittedly it is not common, but I have seen a few commercial and some very good non-commercial apps written in VB. But many corperations prefer their programmers to use VB when making programs for their own use because it is great for RAD. And in terms of VB.Net, once it gets compiled, its essentailly the same as most any other .Net language (except, perhaps, managed C++), and I've used commercial apps that use the .Net framework. -"they're just superior languages" Thats just ignorant. I'm not even going to discuss it. -"Considering RYjet wants to get into Game Development -- speed WILL be an issue" If he is targeting the .Net framework, and he is not into commercial game development, VB's JIT compiled speed will more than suffice, and with the introduction of Managed DirectX, making well performing, good looking graphics accelerated software is easier and faster than you might think. -"Sure -- slapping together pre-existing code to create a cookie cutter program is much faster to do in VB (that's pretty much what it was designed for)" Yes, VB is excellent for cookie cutter apps. I don't make cookie cutter apps, though, and guess what... I USE VB! The .Net framework encompasses so much functionality that and feature rich, highly functional app made with it is not only signifigantly easier to make, but looks and feels proffessional. It doesn't have that VB look and feel that VB6 apps had, and since the code is JIT compiled, you get incredible execution speed when you consider that you are using VB. VB has become very dynamic and pliable. -"C/C++ is not as difficult as it's made out to be, and it's certainly far more flexible than you're making VB out to be." Having (at least some) experience with both, I would have to disagree with that. Just how much VB.Net experience do you have? VB.Net is fully object oriented, and many C++ features previously unavailable in VB are, in one form or another, now available in VB. The biggest difference between VB and C++ is that in VB memory is managed for you (goodbye memory leaks) and pointers are hidden from you (I know how much C++ programmers love their pointers, but the lack of pointers does not hinder you as much as one might think). -"Speed, simplicitiy, ease of use, portability" Are you talking about VB or C++? ...simplicity is not what C is about. Ease of use? No. Portability? Well, what do you know? Target Mono with VB and you'll be running your VB apps on linux in no time! Speed? Well, thats what the good ol' JIT compiler is for. What do you know? Code optimized for YOUR processor! Not to mention, many C++ programmers target windows exclusively, in which cases, portability is not an issue. -"Most people that start with VB eventually have to leave it -- it just doesn't do the job." It does for me, and most VB programms I know have stuck with it. -"Start with C/C++ rather than wasting time with VB before switching over." Not planning on switching over. I don't know how many times this must be said. VB and C++ both have their purposes. Many projects would be difficult, if not impossible, with VB. But sometimes it would just be stupid to use C++. You need to use the right tool for the right job. Get off your knees and stop worshipping C++. It has it's merits. There are lots of things I like about C++. Most of the things I liked about C++ showed up in VB.Net though. That is probably why I haven't switched to C++. Before VB.Net came out (and still even now sometimes) there was still a time and a place for VB6. C++ programmers look down on VB, because the syntax is incredibly simple and to them simple syntax appearently equals simple-mindedness, but that doesn't make it VB less useful. It only makes it easier. C++ programmers look down on VB because it can not do as much. Lots of what it can do, however, it can do more simply in VB. If you disagree with that, don't tell me. Go tell another member of the church of C++. They, unlike me, will be glad to hear it. C++ programmers look down on VB because it does not perform as quickly. I have almost never run into a situation in my programming experience where VB did not suffice. That is not to say that such situations do not exist, and when they arise, by all means, USE C++! That's why it's there. C++ programmers look down on VB because they are arrogant and egotistical, which is quite the ironic disposition for a COMPUTER GEEK. When I give suggestions to programmers or potential programmers, I do NOT tell them that they should program VB because I program VB. I tell them what the pros and cons are of VB. Then, gasp! I let them decide. (Unbiased? What does that mean?) (edited by marble_eater on 05-06-05 12:21 PM) (edited by marble_eater on 05-06-05 12:22 PM) |
|||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 5/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
| Yeah, dude, I'm done. I'm not even up for reading your post (i.e. I didn't read it). Get your head out of your ass and realize that C++ is not the answer to life, the universe, and everything. The fact that it is lower level and can do more does not mean that VB is not a "real" programming language. Were that the case, I would be using C++. I don't have the energy to have a pointless debate responding to batches of twenty quotes. How about you give the original poster the facts (i.e. pros and cons to using C++ over VB, NOT YOUR OPINION AS TO WHICH LANGUAGE IS BETTER) and allow him to weigh and decide for himself. Do not respond to this, I will not be checking back. | |||
|
marble_eater Newcomer Level: 4 Posts: 6/6 EXP: 196 For next: 83 Since: 05-07-05 Since last post: 179 days Last activity: 179 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Smallhacker Wow, what a terribly geeky thing to say. No offense. I just suppose that I'm not that into the emulation/hacking scene to know or actually very much care when, why (not?), or how Lunar Magic 2.0 will be released. I just noticed that Zelda Improvement (no offense to the programmer, but that program is kind of a joke) was listed under Rom editors, and Zelda Tech wasn't. I am not a frequenter of acmlm's website, so I have no clue as to how often it gets updated. But appearently I was wasting my breath. Oh well. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by marble_eater |
