"l33tness" varies in different groups of people. The Quake crowd usually use "1337", while the Half-Life crowd usually prefer "l33t". The version I use depends on which game I''ve played last.
Magmai Kai Holmlor - The disgruntled & disillusioned
- The trade-off between price and quality does not exist in Japan. Rather, the idea that high quality brings on cost reduction is widely accepted.-- Tajima & Matsubara
Or stick 8 into an unsigned char (hey, if you only need 7 bools, only one bit would be unused). Seriously, though, if you're so worried about speed and memory usage, why are you even using a high level language? Can I see some of your 64k intros, Mr. l33t hax0r?
Sigh, apparently you totally missed my point jonnyfish. BOOL and such macros are NOT horrible macros, there are definate uses for them, whether you want to believe it or not.
Yes, you can stick 8 into a char, but that would require major changes to the code. You can't do that with one line of code, thus your code isn't near as portable as using a BOOL macro.
And for you information I've had to port apps over to Windows CE where memory IS at a premium and that macro was an EASY way to keep my memory usage down to a minimum.
- Houdini
Edited by - Houdini on January 23, 2001 12:36:08 AM
quote: Yes, you can stick 8 into a char, but that would require major changes to the code. You can''t do that with one line of code, thus your code isn''t near as portable as using a BOOL macro.
Yes I know this is way off topic, but could you do it like this (and I''m no hotshot on C++ either (ph33r the VBist)... so correct me when I''m wrong)
One thing on-topic I would like to say, is my opinion is to use OO (clases) for game logic, data structures, level structure, etc, etc. Use normal Procedural for things like Init and Un-Init OpenGl/Direct3D/DSnd/DIn/etc.
[font="Book Antiqua"][size="3"]I learned C++ first, and got pretty good at it. Then I started programming in C... and never went back to C++, never wanted to go back to C++, never will go back to C++ (unless someone is paying me big bucks to suffer). The fact is, I much prefer everything being "the same", meaning "working the same way". To be sure, most of my applications have strong object oriented aspects, but I most certainly do not need some language telling me, forcing me to implement exactly the sorts of mechanisms they want me to implement. No, I'm in the vast minority, but I'm far, far, far happier with C. Or to be more exact, I compile with a C++ compiler, so you might say I program in C++ without classes, templates, overloading or other goofy crap (where "goofy" is my own personal decision, right). When I started programming in C after C++, it was like a terrible vice grip had released me. Ahhhhh, I feel so much better.
However, I will say this. I always spend a lot of time figuring out the most appropriate architecture for my applications before I start writing code. I can then implement whatever architecture I chose in C in a straightforward manner, whether OOPs or otherwise or mixed. If you cannot do this (consider and design most appropriate architecture), or refuse to do this (bad boy!!!), you might be better off wearing the C++ straightjacket. Maybe, not sure.[/size][/font]
In time the project grows, the ignorance of its devs it shows, with many a convoluted function, it plunges into deep compunction, the price of failure is high, Washu's mirth is nigh.