1,150 Forum Posts by "polym"
function _Child(){} /*would var _Child = {} be ok too?*/
No. Without the equal sign it's a function definition.
With the equal sign, it's an object. It encapsulates other properties and functions:
var test = {
name: "Propery",
function: function() {
}
}
As for your other question, a quick google would've helped?
First off, __proto__ is deprecated. Prototype refers to the class itself, __proto__ is for instances of the class. It's used to get values at runtime that's not declared directly, I'm assuming as a form of polymorphism.
If you upgrade SDL, you also have to upgrade SDL_image. And chances are, since it's the beta, like I mentioned, SDL_image will not be compatible with SDL for a while. It's too unstable, and impractical.
The obvious answer is that SDL_image is not compatible with SDL 1.3, because 1.3 is the beta. Libraries don't automatically work with the latest version.
Is everyone here fucking stupid or something?
It's self-explanatory. Abstract classes cannot be created as instances, only inherited from. They don't provide any functionality theirselves, so you either need to use the class that inherits from it or create your own class.
If it's 2D you only need a Vector2.
But if it's 3D, it's not a simple matter of Cos/Sin. Moving in 3D space is much more complicated. I believe you have to use cross/dot products to find the angle between the up/forward vectors.
At 4/19/11 07:03 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: Your determination of whether I am intelligent or not is contingent upon whether I answer a relatively insignificant question correctly? Who's the real idiot here?
Using big words? Is that necessary or just obnoxious?
Pandora gives you 40 free hours per month, and has no restrictions on the amount of tracks you can play. The only difference is you cannot choose what songs you want to play, only pick a radio station that aggregates similar songs (and if you get lucky the song you want.)
What pisses me off is when things that are more popular tend to suck more....
If you got the red ring of death, that'd be a hardware issue anyway. So even if you managed to put everything together, what's to guarantee it will work? (Without fucking up your computer also. Think hardware compatibility.)
At 4/7/11 06:35 PM, sharpnova wrote: You're using a directory path. Your C++ program doesn't have access to know about things like your C: drive or its directory (sub)-structure.
Nope, the program reads the path literally. If it says C:\whatever.txt, if the program is run on another machine it will look there. His problem was that he was using the backslash, which escapes characters.
Also system("pause") will only work on windows machines.
Since the platform is not moving by actionscript, keep track of its position. And then add the difference to the player's velocity.
At 4/5/11 08:31 PM, Blackhole12 wrote:
I think you're wrong on a lot of things.
First off, if you were throwing a bunch of polygons on the screen, that is NOT ray tracing. Throwing a bunch of polygons on the screen is a common technique for most games, and ray tracing is not and will never be used for real time. That's the reason why 3D modelling programs take so long to render things and then save them as an image.
All games look the same because they're the industry standard, not because you're limited by the hardware. You used to be limited by a set of fixed functions until someone became inventive and decide to put the instructions on the GPU. That's why you can now use shaders to do things like lighting. Technically you're only limited to math because shader code is mostly calculations for lighting and stuff (I am not kidding, look up dot product.)
As for physics, THAT is limited. There is only so far you can go before you start to overstep the boundaries of real life. After all, if you know physics, you already have the math set to implement it.
If the video is so horrible, don't be an asshole and give it viral popularity?
At 3/30/11 02:23 PM, Dean wrote:
It's called XSL. It styles the XML pages, similar to CSS (but not really.)
I'm surprised someone learning XML has never heard of it.
At 3/30/11 09:31 AM, sharpnova wrote:
You are a fucking moron...
Gust is a better programmer than you will ever be.
In Gideon vs Wainwright, he was convicted guilty (with hard evidence) but after a retrial it turned out he was innocent.
At 3/27/11 11:58 PM, HeavenDuff wrote
It's an accident when someone dies in a car accident or drown in a pool. But it's no accident when someone points a gun at you and fire...
So by your logic, all deaths related to cars or pools are ALWAYS accidents, and gun related deaths are NEVER accidents.
Nice job, retard.
At 3/26/11 08:23 PM, ForNoReason wrote: EVERYBODY WINS!
It's buggy.
What's the point?
This is AJAX abuse. Just have the user refresh the page.
I think the most obvious issue with text-based games is that people do not approach it from a programming standpoint. They see it as a linear sequence of events, and different events are triggered by reading commands.
What you can do is apply OOP to it. You will definitely need a class or so to parse the commands, but also to represent the objects in the game world. For example, instead of manually checking every individual object (as its literal representation in the game), you can make it slightly more dynamic by adding common objects (such as chairs) and then giving them context (for example, in certain rooms chairs may have different descriptions.)
Anyway, making games with a GUI imo is easier because you can actually map things out to their literal representations onscreen (aside from all the math of course.)
But that's not to say you should replace your text based ideas with a GUI. Try to approach it from that point o fview though.
USACO features something like this.
You upload a source file and specify the language, and their compiler (on a linux machine) executes it and sends back the results.
Misquoted the article.
At 3/16/11 01:42 PM, Redshift wrote:At 3/16/11 01:13 PM, polym wrote: This is still not probability, that's just randomness.Probability and randomness are deeply tied.
If you just pick a random number, it won't guarantee that it will happen 60% of the time without extra math...duh.
This is still not probability, that's just randomness.
At 2/20/11 09:52 PM, Sam wrote: No ones is going to spoon feed you individual sections of code for a game. Learn the basics of Actionscript, because what you're asking for is really simple. You wont get anywhere relying on others.
Actionscript isn't the problem, learning how to solve problems is the issue.
If they can't figure out a logic puzzle, then what makes you think they're capable of learning actionscript?
At 10/15/10 04:42 PM, Lost-Chances wrote: But you are saying there is minor controversy. What is controversial?
He's implying that Christians would get offended because the coin has a picture of somebody who advocates Evolution...which supposedly is anti-christian.
So do you antagonize people for fun?
The irony is that Cloverfield was a 'victim' of stragetic marketing ploys more than the Blair Witch was...
At 1/27/11 03:42 PM, WTL wrote:
Stop texting her retard.
I understand if she doesn't respond within the first 20 minutes, but leaving more texts on her phone and calling her doesn't help your situation.
At 1/22/11 12:48 AM, zalecot wrote: Statistically there is probably 5-6 intelligent species in our galaxy.
Key word here is statistically.
The chances that any species has ever found us, unless they have somehow created faster than light travel, is so astrinomically low that itshouldnt be considered.
This is a fallacy.
Even if they did find us what gives you the idea that they would interfere. Why create life on a planet than cut off all involvment? Collapse of a civilization? Non-involvement strategy(this does not account for everyone, some insane individual would break the rule)?
These are all human concepts. What makes you assume other forms of intelligent life would conform to these ideas?
The big bang stuff is rather silly. We know what happened up to one hundreth of a second after the big bang. New super computers have been able to calculate it rather accurately.
What you don't understand is science is mostly speculation. You can't verify what you can't observe. Super computers can calculate any equation you give them, including things that don't exist.
