me4502 / Powder-Sim

[WIP]
powdersim.co.cc
GNU General Public License v2.0
8 stars 3 forks source link

Our Own Way #18

Closed randalserrano closed 12 years ago

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

Looks like tpt is going the way of C++. The problem with that is we are still in C and havent even started making a C++ version of Powder Sim. We knew this day would come. It looks like we are going to have to separate from TPT pretty soon and go our own way. We can still use some new things from tptpp because it is so similar to C, but it will have to be recoded to work right. I say the first thing we do to show our difference from tpt is make our own license. Is anyone else with me on this?

ghost commented 12 years ago

I think we should keep going with C and split entierly.

notanton commented 12 years ago

I'd prefer to keep the project in C

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

c and c++ aren't that different, it wouldn't be too hard to upgrade to c++ and the benefits from it are great.

notanton commented 12 years ago

well what are you planning to do in C++ that cannot be done in C?

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

I think we should attempt to see what we can do with what we have right now. Perhaps later, we can see about rewriting powdersim in C++. But right now we have other things to worry about like getting a server up and getting our website and powdersim set up on the server. After that, then we can worry about what we are going to do about what language we should use.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

@antonvrg well since simon does plan on moving the code all around updating to his changes would be a lot harder then a simple copy, compile, fix errors.

@randalserrano the server is more of a side project at the moment i haven't got enough done and i am still finding out how login works before real coding can be done so it would be a very good to upgrade to c++

notanton commented 12 years ago

@sniper349 we can always split and keep implementing our own things, Any Improvement made by simon we could aways recreate.

@randalserrano The website is almost done, I just need to add content onto it and then some minor tweaks and it'll be done.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

@antonvrg if you look at what has been done to tpt now you will see that it would be a whole lot better if we jut update

notanton commented 12 years ago

a rewrite in C would accomplish the same thing, cleaner and more organized code, the main benefit of moving it to C++ is classes

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

How about we take a vote. 1.)Stay with the tpt code and go to C++. 2.)Go our own way and make our own C++ rewrite. 3.)Go our own way and keep it the way it is now. 4.)Go our own way and rewrite it in C. It is up to you.

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

I say we do 2. We can always look at the code of TPT for reference. It isn't like it isn't open source and I think there are plenty of people that are willing to help if asked.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

1)

me4502 commented 12 years ago

i vote 1)

and then we re-add our stuff in, then split off

notanton commented 12 years ago

I vote 4

ghost commented 12 years ago

I vote 4.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

so we have a problem, we will need to all have a talk in irc sometime and decide together what we are going to do.

notanton commented 12 years ago

time & date? you seem like you're organizing this.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

i don't think it is needed any more i have spoken to eyes and he understands what is happerning and he wasnts to go with 1 as me and eyes does, i have spoken to randal and he was being randal so i didn't really get an answer so i will just speakt o your on irc sometime.

me4502 commented 12 years ago

We seriously need to come up with an answer...

1.)Stay with the tpt code and go to C++. 2.)Go our own way and make our own C++ rewrite. 3.)Go our own way and keep it the way it is now. 4.)Go our own way and rewrite it in C. 5.)Give up.

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

either 1 or 2. it is up to the rest of you to see what the right answer is.

notanton commented 12 years ago

Im in slovenia at the moment visiting family, wont be back or on irc for another 3/4 weeks. personally i think we should do a rewrite, and as for the question of what language to do it in I vote for C. so 4 :)

me4502 commented 12 years ago

I vote Java, but no one else does...

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

I vote Java as well! I suggested to you that we should have a Java version of tpt a long time ago. PLEASE DO IT

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

Just because you cant code in Java doesn't make it a crappy language. Actually, It would be a lot easier to organize and code TPT in Java. You also have to think, (even though there are problems with it because of lack of skill) The greatest game ever made was coded in Java.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

facepalm facepalm facepalm facepalm facepalm, c++ has the organisation of java. c++ is 20 times faster then java, people have already tried to make tpt in java they failed, what minecraft? the game was made by a person who sucks at coding and he stole the idea off someone else it is a fun game but the entire way it was created is something i hate.

randalserrano commented 12 years ago

It seems right now, you're the only one that disagrees with Java. The only reason tpt java failed is because those people didn't know what the hell they were doing. Me4502 in my opinion is a genius when it comes to Java. I have seen some of the things he has coded and they are advanced things that most people who are mediocre (tpt java creators) stay away from. I am also better at Java than C/C++ though still mediocre. In my opinion, We can get PS working very well in Java and blow the sky out of TPT and PG. There would be no licensing issues to hold us back and people would be able to try it out on the web before they decide they want to download a full version. I say go for it Me4502 I will back you up every step of the way.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

name one good reason to use java.

ghost commented 12 years ago

No, we are not using java period.

ghost commented 12 years ago

Issue closed until we can actually get our code working so we have something to go by.

sniper349 commented 12 years ago

agreed