Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magistrum]

In portuguese that is what it means, but for written stuff, speeches and such. It's antonym to salutations. So by the root word it works, but I also never heard anyone use that word in the real world.

[Naturegirl1999]

I know what salutations means because of Charlette’s Web

[MrRoboto75]

some pig

[scriver]

In Swedish we say "departurewords". Remember to use your word assembling toolkit, English!

[wierd]

So, taken together...

The phrase "Fuck off"  is a Maledictive Valediction?

[Naturegirl1999]

Sounds right

[scriver]

While "go fuck yourself" is a phalledictive maledictive vakediction

[wierd]

And, "Go fuck yourself with a retractable baton!" is a Descriptive phalledictive maledictive valediction.

[Naturegirl1999]

So, I saw this video about creepers and learned they originated from miscoded pigs ( referenced in the video and comments as well) and was wondering, what kinds of mistakes do you do while trying to code a pig that results in a creeper?

[Laterigrade]

So, I saw this video about creepers and learned they originated from miscoded pigs ( referenced in the video and comments as well) and was wondering, what kinds of mistakes do you do while trying to code a pig that results in a creeper?

I had heard that he got the axes (axises?) the wrong way around when coding, and so the body of the creeper ‘points’ vertically rather than horizontally, like pig. Which would make sense; the feet of both the pig and creeper are at all four ground-touching corners anyway; the only difference is the orientation of the body.
And then the explosions and the different colour and the pixel-art-face came later, when he was like ‘oh, dang, this thing is pretty cool’.

[Arx]

Yeah, just flip width and height in one spot by mistake. Happens really easily, I do it all the time with 2D vertex-based graphics at work. 3D is basically the same with more dimensions available to switch.

Unfortunately I'm usually making geometry problems, so I can't just keep the broken thing because it looks hilarious.

[methylatedspirit]

Is there such a thing as a systems programming/low-level language that is designed to be highly portable? Like, C and C++ are often said to be "portable assembly", but it takes a considerable amount of effort to write portable C code that works across every CPU architecture and every OS.

Does such a question even make sense, considering that languages like these need you to have a high degree of control over the machine, so abstracting low-level details away would actually detract from the point?

[Rolan7]

That's the original concept for Java.  I know it's pretty high level in a lot of ways, but I think its virtual-machine model is the only reliable path to the portability you're describing.  As long as java itself keeps getting ported to new architectures, a simple enough Java app will run on *any* future architecture.  You could even have a Java VM running on trinary architecture or something.

This runs into problems when the app isn't simple enough.  And in practice, UX is designed around certain expected situations (mouse? keyboard? touchscreen?  screen size/shape? peripherals?).

Of course nowadays we expect all that from HTML5 and browsers in general, which is pretty wild to me considering how nonstandardized they used to be.  Well, Internet Explorer intentionally misimplemented things, such that a website that respected the standards would appear broken on IE.  Sites would get around this by detecting browser version and showing the correct code, or the IE-compliant code...  or they'd take the easy route and only code for IE.  Microsoft: making everything waaaay harder on users and developers just to lose war after war.

But yeah nowadays HTML5 seems pretty portable, though it's no Java.  Maybe it's more efficient than Java because it's better integrated with each browser's code, but seems like that makes it less reliable.  But I'm just guessing at this point.

[McTraveller]

I don't think Java tries to be a "systems programming language" though - the fact it needs a JVM to make that abstraction is kind of the point, isn't it?

[wierd]

Here's the thing with Java:

Some platforms did java vm as hardware. They could run java 'natively'.


The reality though, is that it seems like methyl is just reinventing C all over again.  No, not C99, C#, C++ or its descendants. Just C.

He will find that the reason C had so many warts, lacked memory protection, did things in obtuse ways, et al--- was because the only way to approach this in the manner he is wanting to, is to target the minimal subset of capabilities that all target hardware is capable of.  Basically, the minimum set of features required by a universal Turing machine, and NOTHING ELSE.

Multiplication? Handled by re-iterated additions.
Division? Handled by re-iterated subtractions.
Exponentiation? Even more re-iterated additions, with another layer on the loop.
Data types? Only short integer values (0 - 255). Single byte.

etc.

Programs will be very painful to write. They will be cumbersome and unpleasant.


But they will run.