Alexander Williams writes, responding to the whole group:
@:) Alpha 200, 96meg, Digital UNIX 4.0c @:) Alpha 8400 (TurboLaser), 2gig,
same @:) Celebris 6200 GL, 64meg, NT 4.0
@:) DECstation 5000/240, 64meg, ULTRIX 4.5
@:)
@:) A properly coded Python application can run on all of these @:) platforms,
oddly enough, without porting.
Yah, but nobody actually uses it. Java's the only sensible way to go.
> On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> @:) A properly coded Python application can run on all of these
Its just too bad Java runs like a pig and has a really lousy FFI to hook
into speed-increasing modules, isn't it?
(Sidreal note: I maintain a 3mil+ document complex web-based database
system written nearly entirely in Python; what was that about nobody using
it?)
[ObGZG: I still haven't gotten around to writing up the DSII generic
unit file format... life keeps getting in the way.]
> Alexander Williams writes:
@:) > Java's the only sensible way to go.
@:)
@:) Its just too bad Java runs like a pig and has a really lousy FFI
@:) to hook into speed-increasing modules, isn't it?
@:)
@:) (Sidreal note: I maintain a 3mil+ document complex web-based
@:) database system written nearly entirely in Python; what was that @:) about
nobody using it?)
I'm not an apologist for Java - it has its share of shortcomings.
Sometimes the defacto standard's on your side, and sometimes you use
OS/2. I used to use OS/2. Now I write Java. I think it's a step up.
> @:) A properly coded Python application can run on all of these
I'm sure he actually ment nobody *important* was using it... :-)
> Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
As someone who would have liked to think so, JAVA still isn't ready for real
apps by the look of it.... mainly as the Runtimes stuff doesn't work right,
ESPECIALLY ON The MAC, which is a bummer when the same thing works fine on
Windows!
Seems both Microsoft and Apple are working on that though. It is a matter of
time...
It seems to me the only 'easy' cross platform stuff that really works ( and is
cheap) today is some Browser + JavaScript+ Perl/C/CGI ( maybe even Java
if you can prove what you want to do doesn't break on all the platforms) thing
that has
to be fixed on each platform you want it on. ( tried Perl + http on a
mac and a similar thing on windows and both were broken in some ways that
needed hacks!) BUT I don't think this is something you really want to make
into a commercial application and TRY and sell to GZG customers...
I've developed in MFC in VC++ on Windows for a few years, used Think C,
MPW and MacApp on a Mac, and making cross platform apps isn't easy ( without
rewritting the bloody thing each time!).
The MFC VC++ cross compiler for the Mac looked useful... but no new 5.0
version yet ( maybe never, maybe soon as they just swallowed, I mean invested
in, Apple). CodeWarrior on the Mac is supposed to spit out MFC stuff too, but
haven't
tried it...... but these solutions leave out the few non-mac non-windows
users. ( Who from the numbers, don't matter in the business sense, but get
pissed off if they cannot use the software, computers are more like a religion
to far too many..... I should probably run for cover now, but also use a Sun
as much as anything else for the Internet and would love a DEC Alpha running
Windows NT...)
And when it comes to the application itself, I don't want it to need the
latest hardware! I'm typing this on a lowly Mac Performa 630 with System 7.1J,
20Megs of Ram and 1.5Gigs of Disc and a 16bit 14" display. I'm looking at a
Windows 95 laptop though and couldn't imagine buying anything more than a
Pentium 166Mhz(133Mhz?), 8bit LCD display, 32Megs of Ram and at least 2 gigs
of disc and a CD-ROM drive. I currently develop on a 200Mhz Pentium
with Accelerated 24bit color 17" monitor, some gigs of Disc, Windows 95 and
couldn't image even finding the space to put it at home. I originally needed
to move to this system as Windows 95 made my previously fast under Windows
3.1,
crawl.
> Adrian Bruce writes:
@:) As someone who would have liked to think so, JAVA still isn't @:) ready
for real apps by the look of it.... mainly as the Runtimes @:) stuff doesn't
work right, ESPECIALLY ON The MAC, which is a bummer @:) when the same thing
works fine on Windows! Seems both Microsoft @:) and Apple are working on that
though. It is a matter of time...
Hopefully. I am a little worried that IE will become the standard browser for
the Mac, rather than Netscape. If that happens, who knows whether Java will
ever work on Macs. Anyway, 1.1 is a lot better than
1.0.2 with respect to cross-platform portability, probably because it
was the second effort by the VM developers, and they had an opportunity to fix
whatever was wrong with the previous version. In my job we've been doing
mostly just Solaris and NT, though, so I can't really say how well other stuff
works. The (1.1) stuff I've done has worked well on my Win 95 pc.
@:) It seems to me the only 'easy' cross platform stuff that really
@:) works ( and is cheap) today is some Browser + JavaScript+
@:) Perl/C/CGI ( maybe even Java if you can prove what you want to do
@:) doesn't break on all the platforms) thing that has to be fixed on
@:) each platform you want it on. ( tried Perl + http on a mac and a
@:) similar thing on windows and both were broken in some ways that @:) needed
hacks!) BUT I don't think this is something you really @:) want to make into a
commercial application and TRY and sell to GZG
@:) customers ...
Maybe - I still haven't heard the definitive answer on just what
kind of a product this would be. My job is to write commercial applications in
Java, so obviously I think it can work. Network management, if your curious.
> Christopher Pratt writes:
@:) >
@:) > Alexander Williams writes, responding to the whole group:
@:) >
@:) > @:) Alpha 200, 96meg, Digital UNIX 4.0c @:) > @:) Alpha 8400
(TurboLaser), 2gig, same @:) > @:) Celebris 6200 GL, 64meg, NT 4.0
@:) > @:) DECstation 5000/240, 64meg, ULTRIX 4.5
@:) > @:)
@:) > @:) A properly coded Python application can run on all of these @:) >
@:) platforms, oddly enough, without porting.
@:) >
@:) > Yah, but nobody actually uses it. Java's the only sensible way to
@:) > go.
@:) >
@:) > -joachim
@:)
@:) oh boy...everybody just jump on the java bandwagon...
Yes, please do!:)
@:) try Visual Basic for win32 systems...as for mac users...well, i @:) don't
know there remember, they plan to market this...so people @:) would have to
want to buy it. I have yet to see anything in java @:) that works right
Nevertheless such things do exist. I don't know of any large-scale
applications yet that are written in Java, but then we're not talking
about a large-scale application. This isn't Microsoft Office - it's
going to have to be a relatively small app because there just isn't all that
much to do. Even a complete game simulator (computer version of a GZG game),
such as has been discussed here before, wouldn't be
work for more than one (full-time) person. I think Java would be up
to the task of dealing with a small and simple program like this one,
especially since most of the simple bugs in Java have been fixed.
As for VB, I have two problems with it. One it's cross-platform,
and two it's BASIC, for cryin' out loud!!! When I first heard about it I
remember thinking, "cool, someone's come up with a simple language that allows
you to graphically construct applications. Because it's so simple and easy to
learn, they used the name 'Basic'". Then I looked at it and found out that it
was just BASIC. That may have been the first time I realized how horrible
Microsoft truly is. They could at least have done Visual Pascal or Visual
Scheme or SOMETHING BUT PLEASE GOD NOT BASIC!
> As for VB, I have two problems with it. One it's cross-platform,
It's also a dodle to learn, and anyone can be knocking out their own apps in
under two weeks. They will look pretty and on a modern PC the
speed isn't really an issue for what you're average home-programmer
comes up with. Ok it's slow and clunky in comparison with just about
everything else, but I still like it.... I certainly can't through out
applications
over a weekend on anything else... Oh and the on-line help is excellent
meaning that I don't need to bury my computer under books to use it....
I hate to point this out but BASIC is "so simple and easy to learn".
But really has this got anything to do with GZG???
-Michael
> But really has this got anything to do with GZG ???
I can but ask the same question. Before this blows up into an inevitable
"C++ is better than Java" or whatever, can we bring it to a close, or
get it back on GZG lines?
TTFN
Jon (list admin)
What ever language this is written in, I just have one request, as to what I'd
like to see in it: Automatic ship diagram generation. Have it make a.gif of
the ship. If it doesn't do that, there is nothing really better about a
program than the few floating around. As for the language, it should be cross
platform and I haven't seen anything that is truly graphical and cross
platform.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> Eric Fialkowski writes:
@:) What ever language this is written in, I just have one request, as to what
@:) I'd like to see in it: Automatic ship diagram generation. Have it make a
@:).gif of the ship.
OK, that's two requests (the other from Tim) but does anybody have a good idea
of how to actually go about this? Just squeezing all the components into a
stock outline might not be so hard but making it look "nice" seems like it
would be difficult.
> OK, that's two requests (the other from Tim) but does anybody have a
The Way I've almost always done my ship diagrams is without an out line of the
ship. (i.e. just the systems and damage track).
This way people could use the generator for and flavored universe they choose
not just FT universe.
the way to setup the placement of the systems isn't hard at all...
although it is hard to describe...
* Usually guns are at the front of the ship so no problem there. * At the rear
start with the Thrust rating, then the FTL diagram * the Damage track and Fire
controls (based on class) these could be part of the same graphic * from there
all that is left is weapons and equipment.
put the non-damage causing systems in the rear and the damage
causing in the front. * no out line
and val-ha
instant FT ship diagram.
my $0.02
CMC