156 karma · joined July 4, 2015
I'm aware, but the practical advantages of having a library in a single source file apply no matter what the programming language.
His point is that it's arguably simpler to tell people to copy a single source file to their project's source tree, than it is to help them find the include dir for whatever compiler they happen to be using. And that it's probably easier to have to manually update this file when the library is patched, than it is to coordinate manual library updates across an entire team without the use of a package manager.
>Why single-file headers?
>Windows doesn't have standard directories where libraries live. That makes deploying libraries in Windows a lot more painful than open source developers on Unix-derivates generally realize. (It also makes library dependencies a lot worse in Windows.)
>There's also a common problem in Windows where a library was built against a different version of the runtime library, which causes link conflicts and confusion. Shipping the libs as headers means you normally just compile them straight into your project without making libraries, thus sidestepping that problem.
>Making them a single file makes it very easy to just drop them into a project that needs them. (Of course you can still put them in a proper shared library tree if you want.)
>Why not two files, one a header and one an implementation? The difference between 10 files and 9 files is not a big deal, but the difference between 2 files and 1 file is a big deal. You don't need to zip or tar the files up, you don't have to remember to attach two files, etc.
A huge portion of the gaming market (China and large parts of Asia) is still using Windows XP. D3D9 renderers aren't going anywhere.
Given that, plus the fact that it's a lot easier to upgrade a graphics card than a CPU, makes me think it would make sense to spend more on your CPU than GPU on a fresh build.
(the grandparent comment has been deleted, so I don't know what the context of this discussion is, just throwing my thoughts out there)
Also, lest I scare people off from Splatoon, I should note that I spent $300 on the Splatoon Wii U bundle just to play it, and would do so again in a heartbeat. The core game design is very fun and innovative, especially in the way that it makes (through the art style and the deliberate lack of text or voice chat) a very competitive/"scary" genre palatable to people that don't consider themselves to be "hardcore gamers." And believe it or not, the (optional) gyroscope-based aiming controls (tilting the gamepad in your lap to make minute adjustments to aim, not uncomfortably pointing it directly at the screen like a wiimote) are (IMHO) significantly more precise than that of any other twin-stick-based console shooter (though nothing can hold a candle to the ol' keyboard and mouse, for sure).
My only complaints are due to flaws in the "meta-game," like the matchmaking system and map/mode rotation systems. And it's only because I like the core game so much that I can be annoyed by the meta-game.
The more important missing factor, however, is that the game penalizes players for disconnecting, making you eat the 10 point loss regardless of your team's performance. This makes sense, as otherwise, cheaters would disconnect or turn off their console as soon as they started losing. However, because the game is riddled with connection errors and network bugs, it is extremely common (and frustrating) for a match to go well for you, only to be kicked out near the end due to network errors and count a loss anyway.
If only one player disconnects, then their team will almost always lose, and the model remains unchanged. However, it's usually the case that a significant portion of both teams will disconnect. This results in a point deficit that this model does not account for. Example: normal games are 4v4, resulting in (ignoring my previous comment about rank-relative rewards) an even exchange of +40 points (to the victors) and -40 points (to the losers). However, if two players disconnect from each team, then only 20 points total will be rewarded to the remaining victors, while both the losers and the two "winning" disconnectors will lose 10 points a piece, resulting in a loss of 60 points, and a deficit of 40 points.
I would estimate that I have lost several ranks worth of points due to disconnects alone; just yesterday I lost around 50-70 points after a series of infuriating network errors. So my guess is that in the long run, disconnects more than compensate for the occasional +10 point bonus this blog post exposes.
Splatoon is an innovative take on the team-based shooter genre, and probably the most fun I've had with such a game since Team Fortress 2. But problems like frequent network errors and lag (probably exacerbated by the fact that matchmaking is cross-region and a significant portion of the active playerbase, especially in higher ranked games, is Japanese), flaws in the ranking system (sharing ranks between wildly different game modes, making players suffer the full loss penalty when their teammates disconnect) and matchmaking system (frequently pairing players up on imbalanced teams of e.g. 4 snipers, with no opportunity to change your weapon after the fact) do put a damper on my enjoyment.
“When I’m parting with a friend, regardless of the circumstances, I find it best to just say, ‘See you later.’ We’ll meet again. After all, we’re friends.
That’s right—nothing unusual about it. I’ll see you later.
You went on a trip far, far away, even though it was planned for many years from now. You wore your best outfit and said ‘Sorry for the short notice,’ though you didn’t say it out loud.
You always put yourself last, after you’d finished helping everyone else. You were so generous as a friend that this trip might be your very first selfish act.
I still can’t grasp what’s happened. It feels like I could still get a light-hearted e-mail asking me out to lunch at any moment—after you’ve made sure lunch wouldn’t disrupt my schedule, of course.
You can invite me out whenever you want. I’ll invite you, too.
So for now, let’s plan on meeting again. You can call me up whenever you like, and I’ll give you a call, too. I still have a lot to talk to you about, and if I come up with any particularly good ideas, I’ll let you know.
So let’s meet again.
No–I suppose we’re already meeting. Right here, right now.”
— Shigesato Itoi
How does one take a golden argument like "privacy is an inalienable right," turn it into a tired "you should be ashamed for being white, check your privilege shitlord" flamebait, and still get taken seriously?
You mean like Brendan Eich? (CTO, but still)
Or, as long as we're talking about online megacommunities, how about moot of 4chan? He stepped down as the owner of 4chan half a year ago and people are still mad at him.
The internet is like a parallel universe based around the exact opposite rules. You can look at whatever you want, talk to whoever you want, say whatever you want, do whatever you want, and no one is going to stop you. There is no wonder that so many suburban children become "internet addicts" these days, given that it is the sole element of freedom in their lives.
And Minecraft is the ultimate embodiment of this freedom. There is no structure or goal to it, just the freedom to wander about a crude approximation of the natural world, go on adventures by yourself or with friends, and build things with your own two hands. In short, it is a safe, sterilized version of the ancient childhood experience of wandering the woods, building forts, and carving out a society secret from the adults. It is the solution to problems we created ourselves out of fear of the world.