pouët.net

delphi sceners...

category: general [glöplog]
As you would usually want your software be first correct, and then fast, it might even make sense to prototype in a higher-level language, and as soon as it works, translate it into a lower-level one.

That's what i do nowadayz; altough instead of translating, i usually rewrite it completely. Writing it in a higher level language has the meaning of understanding the subtle points of the algorithm...

I never tried to optimize the output of any (high-level) compiler; since optimizing your data structures etc is equally important (especially if you use vector things, like SSE) i don't see the point in it (maybe it's a good way to code optimizing compilers, but not for me coding gfx :) except if you hardwire your data structures for optimal performance already in the high-level language, but then that's not high-level anymore :)

The same applies for the would-be "intelligent-super-local-optimizer" program - it would achieve nice general performance, better than any human; but 90-95% of processor time goes for specific loops, where human planning outperforms blind machine optimization...
added on the 2004-01-12 23:31:29 by blala blala
well i haven't read the whole thread, but here's my humble opinion about delphi :p

Size:
Yes, Delphi makes big executeables - if not used correctly. If you don't use the VCL and not those "toy"-units like SysUnits & Classes - you maybe have to write more yourself instead of "borowing" 3rd party code to keep it small, but what the heck... with some little tweaks, even 4k's are possible (look at hugi28 :P)

Speed:
uhm, can't say anything about that, what have we benchmark tests for?

I think the most common problem why Delphi is so underestimated is that most people either never tried it or have seen the wrong delphi-applications. there really is *MUCH* crap written in delphi, i think that's the main factor why most people think so badly about it (but there's much crap written in c/c++ too :D)

and delphi-users don't have minifmod to use in their projects :P
added on the 2004-01-13 00:24:42 by red red
I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of blessed matter this thread has managed to touch. To provide more insight I'll let you consider these:
-As long as microsoft fails to make clear and thorough distinction between documents and executables, both windows security and usability are broken. This is not going to happen. Why?
-C++ is bloated, incoherent, unmanageable mess. You know anyone who's comfortable with each and every C++ feature? Why there's no IOC++CC? How long would it take you to write a C++ compiler? etc.
-Code optimization is NP-hard. I've heard neural networks are good in approximating such things.
-Delphi? What Delhpi?
added on the 2004-01-13 01:29:16 by 216 216
216... in my oppinion, the distinction between documents and executables, is kinda what brings the computer to a massive audience (thus, lower costs and makes a nice market for companies to research in, for us, geeks). Not everyone is interested in computers, or even want to be... they want to get the job done... if I want to write a document, I don't even want to know which executable I use for that, I want to write a document... and from the OS shell, I want to get my task done: that's "new -> document", and there we go, we're editing a document... maybe not even knowing Word is installed.

That maybe doesn't apply to us, geeks, but applies to many other people, and we benefit indirectly from that. I guess that's the right way to go, and Microsoft is doing a very good job on it... and, having seen the productivity that awaits for computing and information exchanging using services in Longhorn (through videos and conferences), I guess they're heading the right way... at least, if Palladium doesn't go in ;D

If you want to spend your time figuring out your computer, go for it, and use whatever OS you feel like doing... if you just want computers to help you on your work/hobby/whatever (a.k.a., get the job done), go for Windows.

You all may not realize, but computer-geek people usually spend more on their computer caring about them (improving, updating, whatever), than actually using computers to help them do anything... and while I was the same when I was 16 years old and pretty much a geek, I've got to learn how to get my work done, in the least amount of time and effort possible, and not care about my computer all that much... it's just a tool damn it
added on the 2004-01-13 10:57:24 by Jcl Jcl
216: whoah
- linux is more secure, and totally unusable. windows is not that secure at all, but allows to work... now choose :)
- c/c++ is a mess, yeah. but there's a compiler for it on any system
- np hardness does not mean that there're no algorithm, just that they are (probably!) slow. anyway, noone ever considered global optimization - and if we do it locally, then data set is small -> who carez if the algorithm has exponential time? also, maybe finding the best optim is np hard, but we don't need to have the best optim, only something near the best...
finally i'll be very happy if you showed me the proof (link) that anything which has something to do with code optimization is np hard :)
- delphi? what delphi? :))
added on the 2004-01-13 11:03:29 by blala blala
jcl, that's not always true. i consider myself a bigass geek but still changing the colourscheme to 'windows classic' and adding some quick launch items is the only thing i've ever changed to my system, os, whatever since i got it.
added on the 2004-01-13 11:05:21 by skrebbel skrebbel
sir RICHARD kbab... i somehow can't believe that, you probably made up your folder systems, cared to defrag, installed tons of software just to test it, checked for problems with your hardware, opened up your computer more than once, checked temperature, wondered if you could fit a few more fans, updated drivers as frequently as they go out, and some other stuff 'non-geek' people never does with a computer... and if you didn't, then you are not a geek ;)
added on the 2004-01-13 11:25:33 by Jcl Jcl
i installed some software indeed. and a folder system, yes. no more, really :)

i must admit i once tried to install some new detonators onto the gf2mx my pc had then, it made lots of things fuck up, i had to reinstall windows, so i just took the drivers from the cd-rom that came with the computer and didn't bother any further.
added on the 2004-01-13 11:30:58 by skrebbel skrebbel
then you are not a truly geek (plus, you won't also be able to watch most of the latest demos ;)
added on the 2004-01-13 11:47:35 by Jcl Jcl
well i remember than back in the good old DOS times i hacked an own menu into io.sys (or msdos.sys, i don't remember) so one could change the content of a menu point realtime :)
it was (is :) very useful since every demo needed a different config (ems, himem, gus, sb, etc)
am i a geek? :)
added on the 2004-01-13 12:16:57 by blala blala
of course you are, blala ;D anyway, there was a very easy method of making menus in config.sys since DOS 5.0, it also pretty well documented in 'help' too. Hope you didn't hack your way into binary bootfiles to make it =)
added on the 2004-01-13 12:25:54 by Jcl Jcl
most services were loadable and unloadable anyways.. I had a boot config with nothing in it and then all the gus, sb, emm386, mouse, etc-drivers were loadable and unloadable.. or am I wrong?

Ah yes.. turn back to good old DOS.. so well, probably linux gives me a DOS feeling..
added on the 2004-01-13 14:12:53 by phred phred
:D Oh my god!, i remember my firsts test with memmaker.exe to obtain more conventional memory, hahaha, good times.
Phred: yes, linux gives me this feeling too :D, but progress or dead.

Some times I open a DOS´s window to give a stroll through the directories, using "cd" command, hihi.
CD \WINNT, CD \SYSTEM32, DEL *.*, ....
hehe.
added on the 2004-01-13 14:33:05 by tolemaC tolemaC
jcl: no, i replaced that menu wih a much cooler one :)
[it's like you could edit the config.sys during boot]
added on the 2004-01-13 14:48:52 by blala blala
>but i had just seen Optimus show me his code on the tUM and... It was not exactly fast, and then it didn't even work correctly.

The only thing which I consider slow is the blobs effect. Which were however size optimized rather than speed (and my entry actually at http://korillaclub.demoscene.gr). I know how to do them if I go for speed. The other things can be considered slow too if tested on a 386/486, they were also written in a haste to just fit them in 4kb and I was preety stoned from drinking at the party, but assembly is preety harder to write in general anyways :)

Yes, if you don't know what you are doing in assembly, things might proove unoptimized. It always rules for old PCs, alternative hardware and size optimizing in general though!

>(BTW i think he infected my notebook with some typical Win98 worms like Opasoft from his memory stick. Optimus, if you read it, scan your stuff. www.free-av.de)

Ohh,.. thanx for telling me. I will check it!
added on the 2004-01-13 15:03:27 by Optimus Optimus
Btw,. I just figured out how big this thread have become. Hell! I only thought people were talking about Delphi and so I ignored it because it seemed not interesting to me..

Because I am bored to read what all people are writting here, one message: QUICKBASIC RULEZ!!! =)
added on the 2004-01-13 15:04:42 by Optimus Optimus
It's also strange for me to write assembly for APIs and stuff like that. Perhaps possible but I am not sure how handy. I only write for DOS for the moment. Since PCs have become the way they are today, I prefer to use compilers. But for other machines, especially old and independent, pure assembly (I wouldn't ever write C for GBA for example, even if I know some preety good pure C demos).
added on the 2004-01-13 15:07:16 by Optimus Optimus
I don't like the use of compilers for intros. Especially for 4kb. They also use to make the trick with the COM extracting an EXE which prooves to be buggy manytimes :P

In tiny intros, you have the feeling that you are counting every byte of your opcodes. Ok,. in 64kb it's more about writting texture/models/music generators, etc. rather than counting your last opcode but tiny intros of 4kb or less are funnier to code in pure asm imho.
added on the 2004-01-13 15:20:08 by Optimus Optimus
blabla: this one time, at bandcamp, i stuck a flute up my ass
added on the 2004-01-13 15:40:28 by kusma kusma
Just as we are talking of 4k intros: Delta just posted up he needs someone to write a 2k sound synth for Windows or Linux until breakpoint. This is for his 4k intro. I think i may give it a try in assembly. But prototype would still be C!

Nontheless, the com-dropper is requiered under Windows, else the smallest possible Windows NT (2000/XP) compatible executable would be too large.
added on the 2004-01-13 16:05:26 by eye eye
com-exe-dropper is effective but is lame. there're things i don't like, and one of them is when demos write on my hd (in the old times, there were a general rule against them, too; for example at the assembly'9x parties if i remember correctly)
i'm happy to sacrifice some hundred bytes and produce a native win32 exe, it's so much more stylish :)
added on the 2004-01-13 16:39:23 by blala blala
eye: a dropper is not required at all. but it does save you a couple hundred bytes compared to fsg, so most people tend to use it.
added on the 2004-01-13 19:45:10 by kusma kusma
CPC scene is dead. But we will come back!!!

F34R D1RTY MIND5
added on the 2004-01-14 14:17:57 by Optimus Optimus
added on the 2004-01-14 14:45:32 by Optimus Optimus

login