Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 10 Mar 2005
Offline Last Active May 14 2013 07:47 PM

#5031537 Anybody tried Rust for games?

Posted by on 12 February 2013 - 01:53 PM



It's still under development so I doubt it's suitable for commercial development right now, but it's stable enough that someone has written an NES emulator in it: https://github.com/pcwalton/sprocketnes


Personally, I'm really, really impressed with what I've seen of Rust. Pattern matching on algebraic data types straight from OCaml and Haskell. Built-in actor-based concurrency, an OO system based on type classes (see also Haskell), an optional GC, incapable of producing segmentation faults, excellent support of closures, and wonderful syntactic sugar that looks like it's straight from Ruby (see the example on the home page).


Lots of new languages are always emerging, and most of them are disappointing, but this is the first one I've seen that seems really promising for high-performance and yet high-level game development.

#4824309 Do you know why English language is superior to Spanish?

Posted by on 16 June 2011 - 07:22 PM

English, as a language, is horrible really; most 'native' speakers are unable to speak it correctly and most would certainly get the grammar wrong in its written form. Just look at the "your" and "you're" confusion which is common for example. Not to mention the two ways you can say 'the' depending on the content of the surrounding words.

The vast, vast majority of native English speakers definitely understand the difference between "your" and "you're." This isn't confusion. It's just an easy typo to make.

If anything, if there is genuine confusion, then it's confusion over spelling, not the actual grammar of the spoken language.

#4802547 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 24 April 2011 - 11:04 PM

This is a false dilemma. As was most of your argument for the past few pages.

By dilemma do you mean dichotomy? I didn't posit a dichotomy. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. There's no dichotomy at all in the quote you replied to. Could you clarify?

If that takes too long for you there's this other handy short version that every catholic says every Sunday; that's pretty popular too.

You must forgive me for not being intimately familiar with the literature of every Christian church on earth. But that is usually not even enough to determine the beliefs of a believer. I myself attended a Protestant church for over half of my life. There are as many variants of the religion as there are believers, even among a particular institution like the Catholic church. I do not know two Christians who think alike on all details. Must you blame me so much for wanting to know what you specifically believe? You shouldn't be so upset that I requested that you personally convey your belief on the subject. In fact, you should have been insulted if I had not.

But if your beliefs perfectly coincide with what is written in said documents, we are in agreement indeed.

Furthermore, you do realize there are billions of Christians who are not Catholic and would disagree with you on specifically Catholic doctrine?

"Catechism hell judgement"

"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.""

"The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God"

"Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment"

"Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God"

"The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned."

So, we're in agreement.

you read 5 verses out of a 31,000 verse book that defines the faith you argue against and somehow think that those 5 are more relevant than the other 30,995 or even the 8,000 that make up the core of the faith.

I'm not treating them as if they are any more relevant than any other verses. I just wanted your interpretation of their mentioning of hell.

Regardless of what is typed you will come back with, "why do you have to hide behind such verbiage?" or "Your answers are too vague," lest you actually have to read and comprehend a simple subject predicate sentence to come back with something relevant rather than restating the exact same thing you've been saying for 3 pages and expecting a different answer than the first 20 times; that is insane.


Oh dear.

#4801837 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 22 April 2011 - 10:11 PM

Posted Image

Is that your entire reasoning? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines punishment as "the imposition of something that is intended to be burdensome or painful, on a supposed offender for a supposed crime, by a person or body who claims the authority to do so."

I do not have the power to send myself to hell. I'm trying right now, but I'm still sitting in this chair. If I am to end up in hell, it can only be because an entity external to myself rerouted my soul so as to end up in hell, since I myself cannot seem to control wherever it's hurdling towards right now. There's certainly no scriptural evidence that upon death one is faced with two doors and one can simply pick the door one pleases independently of one's Earthly life. There is a system in place which, it is claimed, makes only one door available to you, and which door is a function of whether a certain entity, God, approves or disapproves of moral actions undertaken by you during life on Earth. Hell is clearly burdensome or painful, as I can only imagine having one's body cast into fire that never shall be quenched must be.

This fits the definition of punishment word by word. The Bible lays out certain actions that one is to avoid and certain other actions that one is to perform. If one does not avoid these former actions and does not perform these latter actions, then the door to heaven is closed off and you are routed to hell upon death by a celestial theocracy external to yourself at the helm of which is the omnipotent and all-controlling architect according to whose will all things happen, one component of which is nothing but the action of the system so as to reroute your soul directly to hell (and not to mention the existence of hell itself can be attributed to none other than that entity to whom all must by definition be attributed).

Would you really say that jail is not punishment but mere consequence for the common caught thief? Would you really say that a father whipping his son for disobedience is not enacting punishment even if the actions which would yield the whipping were known to the child prior to his having committed them? All these are simply and undeniably punishment according to the above uncontroversial definition.

#4801826 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 22 April 2011 - 09:17 PM

None of your quotes say anything about punishment

So please answer the question I've been asking you all this time. What exactly is hell if not punishment? How exactly is one supposed to interpret the descriptions of hell without... interpreting them as descriptions of hell? What happens to a sinner who does not repent? Does he not go to hell? How is this not punishment? How are the quotes I provided motivating the reader to defer from a certain actions through anything but fear of having their body cast into a "fire that never shall be quenched"?

What *exactly* do you think? You keep talking in mysteries, I keep asking for clarification, and you keep writing more obtuse statements without any explanation.

And I was the rude one?

Let's get this straight. First you snidely remarked that you and I had read "different Bibles," immediately opening our interaction on a somewhat unfriendly tone. I did some work and provided some scriptural evidence for my position. You ignored the individual quotes and just said that I read the Bible "blindfolded," which I naturally interpreted as fairly rude. So I did even more work and provided an analysis of the Sermon on the Mount, explaining my position and requesting that you explain how I had taken anything out of context. You provided a very vague and short response that ignored the multiple mentions of hell, so I requested that you clarify. You wrote one mysterious sentence saying "He isn't threatening anyone with anything," deliberately not explaining your position even though the quote you responded to was a request for explanation. At this point I was justifiably frustrated with the way you had somewhat snidely initiated a debate with me and then weren't putting any effort at all into helping me understand your position, so I requested again that you elaborate on a number of points. You elaborated on not a single one of them and instead provided an obviously false analogy in a single sentence without capitalization. And now you have yet again failed to elaborate on any of the points I have expressed confusion about.

I am almost certain there's a rather memorable line in the Sermon on the Mount about this sort of thing. Perhaps you've read it.

#4801820 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 22 April 2011 - 08:28 PM

Your analogy is obviously false. A more accurate analogy would be telling a child that you will whip them if they perform action X that you don't want them to perform. They will only refrain from the action out of fear of your beating them. It's a shallow morality based on nothing but the fear of punishment and the hope of reward.

But at this point it's clear you indeed are way too lazy to care. In the future, please do not initiate a debate with someone if you don't want to deal with the possibility that the person may request that you provide justification for your assertions. It's rude.

#4801514 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 22 April 2011 - 12:51 AM

... who perform exorcisms (all fake).

And you know this, how exactly? Posted Image

Because people, alarmed by the severe child abuse, have investigated and found it all to be cheap fraud. For instance, in the story


it was found that

Children are made to vormit up things that have been inserted into them unnaturally.
Two eyewitnesses have told us of objects like bars of soap being inserted into the anuses of children. It all shows just how vulnerable children in Kinshasa are, if they get thrown out their families accused of being child witches.


The Prophet denied all of this, but he was happy enough showing his Polaroid photos of items he claimed to have forced children to vomit up - and one photograph in particular was distressing to see.

A boy with a massively bloated stomach grinned at the camera. But a part of the picture, just over his right leg, had not come out. There was a white flash over his shin.

"The white is there because the spirit of the demon was inside his leg," said the Prophet.

"He had to be given several exorcisms. Now, he is fine."

Quite what "several exorcisms" would do to a boy who could not have been more than 12 is anyone's guess, but the charity thought they knew - his insides were so badly disrupted, they believed, that he died.

The "demon" in his leg was nothing more than a fault when the photo was developed.

We stood looking at that picture for a while, wondering when the suffering of Congo's children would ever end.

The situation is extremely bad.

The people are so gullible that there is now a group that performs fake exorcisms, convincing entire villages at once, and then shows them how the trick was done, so that they understand both how the trickery is done and how vulnerable they were to it. I'll try to find the link--a lot of it has been videotaped and is on YouTube.

#4799740 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 17 April 2011 - 09:42 PM

The subhuman and base desires of the id are actually direct products of our evolutionary past. These are some of the most striking remnants of our predecessors still present in us, as when you get sexually turned on, afraid of the dark, or shiver at fingernails scratching a chalkboard. These are the parts of us least influenced by upbringing and culture.

Also, while Jesus was probably a very progressive moral thinker at the time, I think we have already progressed beyond him. He was, at the end of the day, a fire-and-brimstone preacher. He taught people morals by telling them that otherwise they would burn in hell for all eternity, overseen by the ultimate antagonist of all good in the universe. He could not conceive of ethics outside of an incredibly vindictive celestial theocracy complete with all-powerful thought police worse than your worst nightmare, worse than anything Orwell wrote.

He encouraged belief in demons and evil possessive spirits. Now that it has been some time since missionaries brought this primitive form of thought to some African peoples, some areas of the continent now suffer from violent and oppressive witch hunts. Young children are brutally abused, shunned, and sometimes murdered on accusation of witchcraft, and families give up all their money to deceptive Christian shamans who perform exorcisms (all fake). In the meantime the people grow more and more delusional about the true nature of disease and sickness, increasingly unable to take care of themselves.

Once again, people forgot that history repeats itself. They failed to look at their own history before bringing these horrors upon another people.

#4799400 Proof God doesn't exist?

Posted by on 17 April 2011 - 01:02 AM

For those arguing that the universe must have had a creator extrinsic to itself, the notion that the universe created itself is not in contradiction to any known laws of physics, and one can build model spacetimes in which precisely this occurs. I point you to the following article on the arxiv:


#3137676 Darkbasic vs. Blitz Basic

Posted by on 04 July 2005 - 11:05 AM

Personally, I highly recommend you steer clear of these so-called "game" languages. They offer little to no flexibility, and poorly convey what programming is "really" like, giving undeserved egos to total noobs. These egos eventually lead said noobs into a minor depression (not literally -- you know what I mean) when they realize how shielded they were in the safety of their BASIC IDEs.

But, if I must recommend one, it would be BlitzBasic. I used DarkBasic years ago, and hated it. Put simply, it sucked hard. BlitzBasic, though I've never used it, looks considerably better. It has a C-like syntax, and offers slightly more than rudimentary OOP support, unlike DarkBasic in which OOP is non-existant.

The "game commands" for BlitzBasic also seem much more streamlined and user-friendly. DarkBasic's commands sucked, and often defied logic as to why you had to do things a certain way.

If you must use a BASIC language, go with BlitzBasic. Else, if you're looking for a beginner's language, I strongly recommend Python with PyGame.