We are doomed..

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:38:04 GMT, Patric Mueller wrote:

> That's like recommending writing on stone tablets because they
> are going to be readable until judgment day.

That's one for the quotefile.

--
How can someone draw a blank?
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

Saluton!

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:47:53 +0100, Patric Mueller wrote:
> "Jürgen Lerch" <jynwyn.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:57:42 -0600, Paul Donnelly wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:13:23 +0000, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >> > In article <pan.2008.01.09.21.16.04.577772.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net>, paul-
> >> > donnelly.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net says...
> >> DOS is the only environment that is currently well-supported, likely to be
> >> well supported for many years to come, and completely free from
> >> "improvements" that will break your game (not counting bugs, which will
> >> presumably affect other games and be fixed).
> > Well, if you're going for ancient OSes I suggest AmigaOS.
> Ancient but ahead of its time.

Centuries.

> > It's far nicer than DOS and UAE will stay for years to come,
> > too.
> AROS probably too and it tries to be interface compatible
> to AmigaOS 3.1.

Yes, but it's in active development and so as moving a target
as any other OS. IIRC 3.1 compatibility is only the first step.

> There are no roguelikes for AROS AFAIK or am I mistaken?

It seems not.
(Hm, another worthwhile target for one of my vapourwares. ;-})

Ad Astra!
JuL

--
jynwyn.TakeThisOut@gmx.de / Work like you don't need the money
Jürgen ,,JuL'' Lerch / Dance like no one was watching
/ Love like you've never been hurt
/ - ?
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

On 2008-01-11 11:38:04, Patric Mueller <bhaak RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Paul Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > DOS is the only environment that is currently well-supported, likely to be
> > well supported for many years to come, and completely free from
> > "improvements" that will break your game (not counting bugs, which will
> > presumably affect other games and be fixed).
>
> Wow. That's like recommending writing on stone tablets because they
> are going to be readable until judgment day.
>
> If you want to avoid your (future) users the hassle to recompile there
> are several possible ways to achieve this.
>
> Your suggestion is a possibility, but to me as programmer it is too
> much pain to program on DOS. It was even horrible when it was in wide
> usage.

This depends on your target language. I wouldn't want to re-port FreePascal or
Python just to get DOS, there are several options:
* Digital Mars and OpenWatcom both compile C/C++ to native DOS. SVGA and
SoundBlaster overhead would be awful to incur, and UNICODE is also questionable,
but a basic roguelike would be fine.
* The HPUX DOS extender will try to convert any Win32 console mode program to a
DOS program by replacing the corresponding Win32 API functions. DirectX support
is self-admittedly alpha (when I last checked), and again I wouldn't vouch for
UNICODE.

> I would recommend using scripting languages like Perl, Python or Ruby
> to circumvent to compilation problem. Although it is not certain, that
> these languages will still be around in 20 years or then be compatible
> to the current versions.

Cf. recent RGRD flamewar regarding Python. I do agree that any Python program
that runs both under Python 1.6 (the last known DOS release) and Python 2.5 (the
leading-edge stable), that does not used a declared-will-be-obsolete feature
like "division of integers has an integer result", has a good chance of being
relatively easy to update.

Perl has a long tradition of general backward compatibility. (You're basically
fine running Perl4 or Perl5.005 under Perl 5.88, for instance; just don't use
threading. Perl 6 reportedly will be required to autodetect Perl 5 source and
automatically run Perl 5 as Perl 5. No such guarantees for Perl 4.)
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

In article
<22c8cfbd-03f2-49c4-86e0-67bc0174922e.TakeThisOut@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff Lait <torespondisfutile.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 12:19 pm, Gamer_2k4 <gamer....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 8:50 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > Well fair enough. But if you have ambitons beyond ASCII, DOS is
> > > irrelevant.
> >
> > > - Gerry Quinn
> >
> > Many graphical programs were written for DOS. The first two Descents
> > and the first two Warcrafts both ran in DOS.
>
> I am as eager to recreate the glory days of performing the correct
> series of out instructions to dump my video card into the
> "un"documented Mode-X as I am to return to a segmented memory model.
>
> (And yes, I do know of what I talk: http://www.zincland.com/jmlait/gfx.htm.)
>
> My joy over the death of DOS cannot be written in mere words. We live
> in a glorious age of flat memory and 64 bit pointers. Now if only
> compilers were to make ints 64bit, I'll be able to finally rest.

They're probably worried about all the people that have spent so long
with sizeof(int) == 4 that they've decided it was a given. But really,
why use 'int' in 2008? If you want a 64-bit integer, use int64_t and let
the tools do the worrying for you.
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

Quoting Gerry Quinn <gerryq.DeleteThis@indigo.ie>:
>But lots of people can emulate it.

Badly. WINE is a heroic effort, but the success is at best patchy. The
same goes for more other attempts.

>DOS is an irrelevant joke - no serious modern software can be written
>on such a primitive system.

Whether or not you count them as serious modern software, roguelikes can
be written on such a primitive system. Please let me anticipate your reply
where you pretend your fetish for tiles extends to everyone; it
doesn't.

>Just to begin with, how can you do graphics or sound effects?

Because obviously _every_ kind of software demands graphics and sound
effects. That's what's wrong with my online payslip; there isn't a little
dancing man next to the National Insurance figure.
--
David Damerell <damerell.DeleteThis@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Teleute, January.
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

Quoting Patric Mueller <bhaak.TakeThisOut@gmx.net>:
>Paul Donnelly <paul-donnelly.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>DOS is the only environment that is currently well-supported, likely to be
>>well supported for many years to come, and completely free from
>>"improvements" that will break your game (not counting bugs, which will
>>presumably affect other games and be fixed).
>Wow. That's like recommending writing on stone tablets because they
>are going to be readable until judgment day.

Well, if that's your primary criterion, yes - write on stone tablets.

>Your suggestion is a possibility, but to me as programmer it is too
>much pain to program on DOS. It was even horrible when it was in wide
>usage.

I suspect it's a lot _less_ pain if you develop a screen-mode curses
application (like say a roguelike) on a real computer and merely bolt on
DOS-specific output routines later. Also, if you're targetting DOS
emulation, you probably don't need to worry about the system having only a
tiny speck of memory.

Paul's suggestion is a bit off the wall, but it's actually fairly
ingenious - DOS emulation is available on a wide range of platforms and is
likely to be kept alive by the retrogamers essentially forever.
--
David Damerell <damerell.TakeThisOut@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Teleute, January.
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

On Jan 11, 1:46 pm, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My joy over the death of DOS cannot be written in mere words. We live
> in a glorious age of flat memory and 64 bit pointers. Now if only
> compilers were to make ints 64bit, I'll be able to finally rest.

Most major compilers (at least GCC and MSVC) support long long ints.
If you really must:

#define int long long

(I strongly recommend against it, but hey, you can dig your own grave.
If you do, remember one thing: Don't include an external header with
that macro visible!)
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

Quoting coppro <rideau3.DeleteThis@gmail.com>:
>Curses bindings exist in plenty of languages, and it's a well-known,
>useful platform for all roguelikes. It's difficult to find a platform
>that doesn't have some adaptation of curses now.

That's a fine and jolly way to go about writing a program that can be
recompiled on new platforms and perhaps require a small amount of work
as they change - but there's a separate question about producing binary
versions that will just keep working forever, and I think it's that that
the suggestion of DOS is aimed at.
--
David Damerell <damerell.DeleteThis@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Teleute, January.
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

On 11 Jan 2008 18:52:57 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<damerell DeleteThis @chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Gerry Quinn <gerryq DeleteThis @indigo.ie>:

>>Just to begin with, how can you do graphics or sound effects?
>
>Because obviously _every_ kind of software demands graphics and sound
>effects. That's what's wrong with my online payslip; there isn't a little
>dancing man next to the National Insurance figure.

That's your nicest bit of sarcasm in some time, David. But I have to say
you likely won't have long to wait until that wish is granted.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry DeleteThis @inreach.com
If you wish to put anything I post on your website,
please be polite enough to ask first.
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

On Dec 29 2007, 10:10 pm, "copx" <c....DeleteThis@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> Thomas Biskup seems to be serious about finally releasing JADE in 2008 (seewww.adom.de).
>
> I cannot wait to try it. JADE is one of these mega-hyper-roguelike projects,
> which usually never get anywhere, but given TB's track record.. maybe he
> will actually do it..
>
> ADOM is already the most popular roguelike, and JADE is supposed to be at
> least a league above that, with a massive, living world and all that..
>
> I guess for the rest of us that means we will have to take our projects and
> hide in shame
>

Why? One does not have to make their program as huge as JADE
in order for it to be good, you know...
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

Saluton!

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:25:09 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__" wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:38:04 GMT, Patric Mueller wrote:
> > That's like recommending writing on stone tablets because they
> > are going to be readable until judgment day.
> That's one for the quotefile.

Hm, wasn't there a project to engrave data that shouldn't be
lost in a few thousand years on some ultra stable material
(some metal, IIRC)? It was started exactly because of the
problem that nowadays mass storage won't be readable in a
few decades, a) because the storage medium itself breaks
down, and b) because there'll be no devices to read those
ancient media anymore.

Ad Astra!
JuL

--
jynwyn DeleteThis @gmx.de / Reality is a crutch for those who can't
Jürgen ,,JuL'' Lerch / cope with fantasy
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

On 2008-01-12 04:02:49, coppro <rideau3 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 1:46 pm, Jeff Lait wrote:
> > My joy over the death of DOS cannot be written in mere words. We live
> > in a glorious age of flat memory and 64 bit pointers. Now if only
> > compilers were to make ints 64bit, I'll be able to finally rest.
>
> Most major compilers (at least GCC and MSVC) support long long ints.
> If you really must:
>
> #define int long long
>
> (I strongly recommend against it, but hey, you can dig your own grave.
> If you do, remember one thing: Don't include an external header with
> that macro visible!)

And don't use a standards-enforcing C preprocessor: hard error for redefining a
reserved keyword. (A particularly useful "undefined behavior" for pedants.)
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed.. 

In article <2a40528f-4e0d-477c-9312-30cced139662
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, gamer2k4.TakeThisOut@gmail.com says...
> On Jan 11, 8:50 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > Well fair enough. But if you have ambitons beyond ASCII, DOS is
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > - Gerry Quinn
>
> Many graphical programs were written for DOS. The first two Descents
> and the first two Warcrafts both ran in DOS.

Yes... but do they run now? To make graphical programs run in DOS, you
have to play tricks on it. With Windows, you just use standard
function calls.

- Gerry Quinn
 >> Stay informed about: We are doomed..