--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00014 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 07:36pm \/To: CAREY BLOODWORTH (Read 5 times) Subj: WOLF3D DS>Hi! I've been playing around with the WOLF3D source code and it does CB>not DS>compile right :( the code compiles but the game is very screwed CB>up...can DS>someone help me?I'll be glad enough to give the source...l8r CB>Join the club! CB>The configuration header (I can't remember the name) does need to be CB>modified. CB>But, some compilers just seem to be unable to compile it. I've tried CB>repeatedly with Turbo C++ 3.0, and it just doesn't seem to work. I CB>don't know if it's the language or a bug, or the code depends on some CB>particular quirk, or what. Memory model MUST be "large". It cannot be "Huge" or others, and make sure you have enough memory and have the data files at the directory. ... 80486 100Mhz. Don't you smell something burning? --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00015 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 08:39pm \/To: NICK SHREDERS (Read 5 times) Subj: Re: DJGPP optimizations HS> If you ask me, djgpp is good at optimizing. NS> Pretty good is right! Its also great for profiling. Sometime omit the NS> -s and -fomit-frame-pointer switched, add in -pg (Assuming you have NS>gprof NS>which comes with DJGPP) and execute your program. This will kick out a NS>dump NS>to a file, then run gprof | more or redirect output to NS>a NS>file, and you can see all kinds of stuff, how many times a function is NS>executed, how long it took, etc, alot better then the big beastly NS>confusing NS>Turbo Profiler if you ask me. It doesn't seem to work. When i try running "gprof tex.exe | more" it returns with an error message "unrecognized file format". I have compiled correctly with -pg and no -fomit-frame-pointer. (they're incompatible). I tried running "gprof tex.o |more" and it dumped a whole lot of directives on the screen (as if i were to type gprof /? etc). How do i get this to work? ... BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal port not responding. --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00016 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 08:42pm \/To: PIERRE PHANEUF (Read 5 times) Subj: Rating of C++ FM> "C++ extends the C Language by adding object-oriented PP>programming FM> language features. OOP purists, however, do not regard C++ as a PP>true FM> object-oriented programming language. This view is shared by the FM> designers of C++. Nevertheless, C++ has enough OOP extensions to PP>meke FM> it quite useful in modeling objects...." FM> He stops short of saying that Turbo Pascal is a TRUE FM> object-oriented programming language but I gather that is implied. PP>While it is true that C++ is *way* off from being a true object-oriented PP>programming language, the Borland/Turbo Pascal (with objects) isn't much PP>closer to object paradise... The Pascal described in the Extended Pascal PP>ISO standard and the upcoming standard Object Pascal are *much* better PP>in this regard than Borland Pascal, though not quite there yet either. I PP>mostly regard Object Pascal (the to-be-a-standard one, not the Borland PP>crap) to be a good language without a good compiler. PP>For more information, check out http://www.gulliver.qc.ca/~pp/crit.txt . PP>A very objective (no pun intended) text. Note that much of whats in it PP>applies to Object Pascal (again, not the broken Borland one). If it PP>would have to be a C derived language, Objective-C would have been a PP>much better choice for true objects. I fail to see the big hype about OOP & OOD. Please explain where it can be used and how this will make it better. I am thouroughly familiar with OOP & OOD so there's no need for a definition. PP>Pierre ... If you can't make it good, make it LOOK good. -Bill Gates. --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00017 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 08:44pm \/To: CURTIS ROBINSON (Read 5 times) Subj: Bit Fields CR>enum boolean { true,false }; shouldn't that be enum boolean {false, true}; ? ... I'm not a complete idiot... Several parts are missing! --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00018 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 08:49pm \/To: ERIC YALE (Read 5 times) Subj: WOLF3D CB> DS>Hi! I've been playing around with the WOLF3D source code and it CB> does not compile right :( the code compiles but the game is very CB> screwed up...can someone help me?I'll be glad enough to give CB> the source...l8r CB> CB> Join the club! CB> CB> The configuration header (I can't remember the name) does need to EY>be CB> modified. CB> CB> But, some compilers just seem to be unable to compile it. I've EY>tried CB> repeatedly with Turbo C++ 3.0, and it just doesn't seem to work. I EY> First off, forget Turbo C++, either use the regular BC++ EY> compiler or, with some modification, use the djgpp compiler. I got EY> it to compile and run fine with both but it took some fiddling. BC++ EY> allows you to store registers as variables directly(i.e. _DX), this EY> REALLY buggers up TC++ when you try to compile. Could you put your ported code in gamedev or in here please? :) ... Don't diet, download a virus to remove the FAT. --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00019 Date: 04/11/97 From: HERMAN SCHONFELD Time: 08:50pm \/To: ERIC YALE (Read 5 times) Subj: Video HS> I hope you don't take everything that book says (tricks from the EY>game HS> programming gurus) as gospel. Whatever you do, do not read the 3d HS> chapter. HS> It's all wrong. EY> Wrong book, same author, but wrong book. ;-) Which book is it? ... An elephant is a mouse with an operating system. --- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b * Origin: Fox's Lair BBS Bris Aus +61-7-38033908 V34+ Node 2 (3:640/238) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00020 Date: 04/11/97 From: PIERRE PHANEUF Time: 12:51am \/To: JERRY COFFIN (Read 5 times) Subj: Rating of C++ PP>> While it is true that C++ is *way* off from being a true PP>> object-oriented programming language, JC> No it isn't. Saying otherwise shows only that you don't know what the JC> phrase actually means, or that you're ignoring what it means. Hmm, if you refer to the difference (pointed out later (I'm not natively english-speaking, fault of language)) between "true" and "pure" OO language, I agree. JC> Let's true to keep terminology straight here: there's not necessarily JC> any correlation between being a true OO language, and being close to JC> paradise, or even a usable language at all. If you wanted to, you JC> could create a language that was undeniably completely object JC> oriented, yet was completely unusable. Agreed too... JC> Truly object oriented or not is a purely objective question, and has JC> virtually nothing to do with whether a language is particularly good, JC> bad or indifferent. Opinions as to the quality of a particular JC> version of Pascal really don't belong here. Yes, but I referred to Pascal because of a few things, like that the original author (the one I was replying to) was saying Borland Pascal was a better OO language (which is probably false), and a few other things, like C/C++ programmers looking down on Pascal because "nothing can be made of it" or something like that *AND* Borland Pascal programmers that think of this language as the greatest thing on Earth. I saw people here complain that the Borland VCL was probably weak and lacking many C++ "advantages" and "efficience" because it is written in Pascal. I agree on them that the fact of using a Pascal library with a C++ isn't a good idea because of difference of language, but another fact is that Borland has the same code generator for both their C++ and Delphi compiler and that in some cases the Delphi compiler showed almost magical optimization. But C++ is strong. But it is such a hell of a patch-up on C! JC> Objective C is a perfectly fine language, but has a large set of JC> problems of its own. I'm not going to debate (nor allow others here JC> to debate) the relative merits of Objective C and C++ (or Eiffel, JC> Sather, C+@, or the myriad other OO languages based to some degree or JC> other on C) but I will point out one last time that the question of JC> whether a language is truly object oriented or not is open to purely JC> objective answers. In the cases of each of the languages listed JC> above, there's absolutely NO question that the answer is YES, it is a JC> true OO language. That's completely independent of how good the JC> language is. It's possible to define a pretty decent object based JC> language that's definitely NOT object oriented. It's even possible to JC> define a pretty decent purely procedural language that bears nearly no JC> resemeblence to an object oriented language at all. I was thinking more about *pure* OO than *true* OO. Pseudo-OO like the one in Visual dBase and Visual Basic is laughable at best. Around here we call this GOP (Graphically Oriented Programming)... (note the pun that says that "GOP is what makes our programs GUI" ;-) ) I also like to call it "widget-oriented programming"... There is *many* questionable things about C++... Like for example, (regarding pure virtual functions) what happens if I put something else than 0 after the =??? Like in "virtual void fn() = 42"? Also, *not* having multiple constructors, *having* multiple inheritance... JC> Finally, there's no question that it's possible to define JC> languages that are absolutely unusuable, but still really and JC> truly object oriented. Oh *yes*. Pierre ... Documentation - The worst part of programming. --- FMail/Win32 1.20 * Origin: Real Programmers don't wear socks. (1:167/136.14) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4G00021 Date: 04/07/97 From: WIM VELDHUIS Time: 10:10pm \/To: ALEXANDRE OSTANINE (Read 5 times) Subj: Static? Alexandre Ostanine wrote in a message to Wim Veldhuis: WV>When static is used within a class declaration, it signals that the WV>method or attribute is class global. This means that the attribute is WV>shared between all instances of the class, and even exists when no WV>instance is created. For methods its means that the method is not called WV>on an instance, thus the method has no access to none static members, WV>other than addressing them somehow over another instance. AO> Bye, AO> Can't you UNDERSTAND english word "static" ? AO> AO> Static is Static. It exist allways,even if you exit AO> function where it declared and the value is not AO> changed. So next time you can use it again. First of all, I am dutch. This means not all english words are clear to me. However, I do tend to think I am quite good in english and I think I understand the english word STATIC. (Dutch: A=> statisch, gelijkblijvend, in rust, van het evenwicht; => atmosferische storing). The dutch translations however do not give the meaning of the keyword static as it is used in the C and C++ programming language. If you reread the alinea quoted above, you'll see that I do understand what the word static means in the context of C++. If you declare a static and a not-static method in a class, BOTH methods will exist allways. So this cannot be the meaning of static in this case. There are however side-effects as to how and when to call the functions depending on them being static or not. A static declared member function can be called both with and without an instance of the class. A normal member function (i.e. not static) can only be called on an instance of the class. This is what the thread was about (partly at least) and what I tried to explain. If you look at global variables, the word static only limits the visibility of the variable. A static declared variable is only visible in the module in which it is declared. Both variables exist during the whole lifetime of the application. The static declared variable has what is called internal linkage. The other variable has external linkage, meaning that is can be accessed from all modules of the application. Here again we see that what static does in C/C++ is different from what the english word STATIC does imply. As usual there is more to a word than only its meaning. Words can only be understood correctly when they are seen in the context in which they are used ! P.S. The third use of static, which is when static is used in a variable definition inside a function, where static indeed does mean what you said. In my opinion, one out of three is a very bad score. mvg/wr --- timEd/2 1.01.g3+ * Origin: LightHouse BBS ==> I am a H.U.G.O. Member ! (2:285/324.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4H00000 Date: 04/12/97 From: CLIFF RHODES Time: 05:15pm \/To: KEVIN SHEETZ (Read 5 times) Subj: Oop --> Kevin Sheetz wrote to Cliff Rhodes <-- KS>Thanks for the help. I was wondering if you could help me with KS>somthing else. I have been playing with c++ for several months now. KS>I decidied not to write a program in c++ but instead I wrote it in KS>basic. Is there an easy way to import this into a C++ enviroment? Probably not. It would be best to do it all in C++ or all in Basic. But they are two different animals. KS>taught myself basic, but the commands to open and save to a disk are KS>to complex for me to understand in basic. I think it might be easier KS>to rewrite it in C++. What do you think. I am not using an graphics KS>mode. It should be fairly easy in either Basic or C++, you just need to stick to one or the other for now. KS>Since you are so "all knowing" That gave me a good laugh for today! :-) KS>do you know how to use file accessing KS>in Basic. Maybe the pricipals are the same as C++. The principles of file access are the same, but the syntax (instructions) are different. You must get access to the file by opening it by name. Then you can read or write to it depending on how you requested the opening. When finished, you close it. How you do it in either language depends on what type of data you are interested in using. Can you give an example of what you are trying to do? Are you dealing with numbers or character strings or both? What Basic are you using? KS>One last question. Where would a good place to take a class in C++ KS>by mail be from? I don't have a diplomia YET. Kevin, I don't have any idea on that. You might post a message to ALL with this question. X CMPQwk 1.42 1692 X"Not failure, but low aim, is crime." - James Russell Lowell --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 203 C++ Ref: E4H00001 Date: 04/09/97 From: SHAUN FARRUGIA Time: 10:48pm \/To: ALL (Read 5 times) Subj: C++ and Object Oriented Progging w3rd.. The difference between C and C++ is that C++ is Object Oriented whereas C is pretty much procedural. There are other differences between the languages such as iostreaming which makes Input/Output alot easier and more Functional. You've probably heard that all before and youre wondering what the hell is OOP?? Object Oriented Programming allows you to do many things. The way it helps me is that I dont have to rewrite code I can reuse code thats already written without any modification to included code. Objects can be many things. It can be a control in Visual Basic. With this control instead of using archaic API calls and programming stuff over and over again to produce a text box that a user can enter stuff into I merely click the object drag it onto my form and Voila Im done! Except for some property settings its that easy with VB... In C++ OOP is much much more powerful(imho). You can write a class(A collection of Functions, variables, pointers in one module) that deals with a specific problem, keep solving problems using classes and then make the classes communicate to each other. You can make the classes communicate to each other anyway you choose to solve a problem. Code has MORE THATN ONE FUNCTION instead of one and only one function. You can also Hide information with OOP easier. Instead of dealing with Variables or Pointers Directly in your code you write functions that do it for you. This lessens the change that youll screw somthing up and kill yourself debuggin the bastard :).... OOP is very powerful and I am sure i have left somthing out plus the fact that Im just getting into the whoel thing to means that other users should add in and also correct me if im wrong. This is my first post and dont be an ass if youre a guru :)... DIEROBOT -=0- SHaun --- T.A.G. 2.7c Standard * Origin: The Chessplayer's Forum - MultiLine (313) 386-7054 (1:2410/278)