Restraint.
306 karma · joined October 24, 2012
Is there a reason I'm not thinking of?
What in this <2k LOC file suggests strict types help anything whatsoever? It's not massive. It's large, but fold this and it immediately becomes more readable. Any attempts to simplify this would simply be reasoning about it differently.
But I've come to call tech like this a "game software suite" when sufficiently advanced. Further, software like Unity and Unreal Engine are also just game software suites. They aren't true engines, because you still have to write everything yourself.
Imagine someone provided you the metal and engineering concepts to build an engine, but never supplied the engine itself. That's consistently, time and time again, what the games industry on the hobbyist side has provided.
Well, thanks for providing bindings I guess. Any sufficiently advanced language with an FFI can automatically do most of that work for me.
But it isn't a game engine in the same respect as any of the Quake, Source, IW engine, or derivative engines.
Where's my console? Where's my UI layer? Where's my map loading and format? Where's my multiplayer? No server browser protocol or architecture? No matchmaking? Where's my key and controller binding system? Oh, there isn't one?
It's not an engine. It's a collection of library interfaces.
Library => Framework => Engine. What's missed almost every single time is that to build an engine, you actually need a framework to dictate how a game loop performs behaviors, schedules, tasks, entity dispatch, sound emitters, and how all of these things should be networked and how they should work over split-screen or on difference devices.
If you see something exposing load-update-draw, it's at best a framework. Like the XNA of yesteryear or the LÖVE of today, that's what it is.
But a true game engine doesn't have you building your own console variable and replication system. It should come out of the box. That's the point.
That's the entire point. And if you're not working on nearly exclusively game logic, you're probably not working on a game engine. Or you're sure as hell doing both engine and game development with a half-baked game software suite.
I appreciate the informative breakdown. It gives me a much better understanding of the value proposition. You have a particularly unique understanding of the challenges embedders have and it's great that we have another option in the industry. Thanks for your time!
So, while people are in here talking about Electron, which is most likely not your target audience and might be confused as a result, I am your target audience. I am looking for ways to move away from my engine's imperative UI system and to migrate to web-based UIs in an OpenGL setting, and I have been for years.
Adam, this looks great, and I've been waiting to see new solutions like this in the game development space for quite some time now. However, the only truly viable solution at the moment in my opinion is still CEF. The proprietary aspect is significant, and while some using Unity and Unreal might be interested based on existing license restrictions, for these reasons, I am not.
Can you explain how Ultralight is fundamentally different than projects like Awesomium and libRocket? It seems very similar to your previous work and not enough of a differentiator for someone like myself. Could you tell me why I wouldn't use EAWebKit instead of this?
I spent years as a Source Engine developer and avoided both projects because of their proprietary nature, and because of lack of updates to their underlying web browser libraries.
I fear this is a repeat of Awesomium, with a similar proprietary nature, and operating in a space where we will not see frequent updates to the underlying web libraries, regardless of using a subset of web technologies that UI developers would care about.
I would not claim to have a great resume, but I have been employed. Here is an example of mine. http://www.andrewmcwatters.com/resume.pdf
Use Microsoft Word, export to .docx and .pdf.
If I were hiring a developer, I would look for the technical skills I'm looking for, relevant and extended experience, and a proven track record with references. Formal education is nice, but not necessary. Open source projects or a design portfolio they can show is a plus.
A personal and technical interview helps me determine intent and company fit.
I've yet to see anyone with serious industry experience come out and say sane things about replacing C. It's just not going to happen. Not in my lifetime, unless someone decides to write a new operating system, and Linux subsequently loses footing.
The way I interpret this: some group of developers thought it would be a good idea to hijack the word "standard," and wedge this particular new style into the concept. It just isn't standard. It's as absurd as having a company called "Blue Shine" and selling only green colored cleaning products.
At least be honest about it. Call it something else, like "Colonless," since that's the most obvious thing that sticks out when using this style.
I should be able to look at a library or framework's API examples and say "I don't want to use this," and not have to waste a second more.
Here's an interesting thought: you don't become mature without starting somewhere.
I chose to be offended because we're amongst other friends in a Skype chat who promote this sort of thing: environments where discussions and comments that would offend people should be avoided. I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be? The the degree they promote this to is equivalent to what's in that CoC. It's well-intentioned, as mentioned in this article.
What I'm not fine with is them being hypocrites about it. That's when I choose to be offended. I don't speak ill of anyone in that chat, but to have such "progressive" individuals claim this is the environment they want, and to selectively choose what they want to apply it to is reasonable grounds to get mad.
My problem with these codes of conduct are that the people who promote them have repeatedly persecuted me, and even went as far as to try and deface me in front of my employers.
I think the concept of it alone is fine, but the people advocating for them have been nothing but offensive to me, ironically enough. The people advocating for this haven't been peaceful, respectful individuals. They've made personal attacks on me.
> And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it.
> every single one of you
> complicit in this racism
What else is this suppose to say besides, "all white people are racists"?
Why is that okay for a black person who identifies as "Black" not black as a descriptor of skin color but Black as a part of community, a culture, not an individual, to say that all, that's all as in every man, woman, and child as a White person, not an individual, but all White people as a part of the white community, are racists?
Why is this okay? What does this accomplish? What is the end goal of this conversation the author intends to have with his audience really about?
If a message is conveyed here to the White audience, what are white individuals, and White people collectively suppose to do about it? Is the article just about saying White people are racist and that's it, rant over, end of story?
What is the solution?
> [...] it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives
What? Are you serious?
Lets repeat that back:
> White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives
Excuse me? Says who?