I'm not angry -- I'm trying to emphasise how fucking awesome that bridge is! It's ridiculously fucking cool!

Seriously, how many bridges have you built? And by that I mean how many games have you finished?[/quote]

You are angry. Stop kidding yourself...

I have made several games in high-level languages and hated it. That's why I'm moving lower.

Using either C++ or assembly has no impact on the amount of memory your game ends up using. Every PS3 game has to fit into 256MB of RAM, and I assure you that they're generally written in C or C++, but never in 100% assembly.[/quote]

Whoever or wherever you got that information from is totally false. Final Fantasy 13 for PS3 requires 2GB of RAM, not 256MB. You really have no knowledge, and there's sources that back up my claims.

If I posted the equivalent code in C++, it would take 10 seconds for you to know exactly what it does. Q.E.D. 0's and 1's are 1440 times less readable than C++ (4hrs*60mins*40secs / 10secs). Look it up.[/quote]

Performance > readability. What you can read easier is great for understanding, but what rolls is what is the result of this "readability", not how well it was "read".

Is this some kind of book we need to read here?

This is what we're all thinking! You're spouting nonsense and ignoring reason. Why should anyone bother to listen, unless they enjoy feeding trolls?
[/quote]


You really have no evidence to prove a single thing you say to be valid, yet countless sources can back up what I say. Working in Assembly DOES and WILL grant better access that C++ or ANY other higher language or API and WILL have access to make faster programs. It is a known fact, just not to people who are misinformed of technology like you.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]You're right, it won't be the same. It will be easier, faster, and much more understandable when written in C++. I manipulate bits and bytes and low-level hardware devices every day in C++ --- if I had to do the same in assembly, we'd never have enough time to ship a game!

Post an example of asm and C++ bit manipulation to show that the asm version is simpler plox.[/quote]

You seem to be convinced that high-level can act as low-level, but in reality that's not possible. Are you knowledgeable in anything other than high level languages? Please do tell...

Anyways, however well that high-level languages can do what low-level ones can, the truth is that it's just not 100% possible. C++ is not that bad, but Assembly has more power than C++ does being that Assembly is right above the lowest hardware of them all: processor.

Where is C++, again? Oh, right!

>> C++ <<



^^^^ All the way up there! ^^^^

How's the view? Need a longer stick?

Using either C++ or assembly has no impact on the amount of memory your game ends up using. Every PS3 game has to fit into 256MB of RAM, and I assure you that they're generally written in C or C++, but never in 100% assembly.

Whoever or wherever you got that information from is totally false. Final Fantasy 13 for PS3 requires 2GB of RAM, not 256MB. You really have no knowledge, and there's sources that back up my claims.
[/quote]

According to Wikipedia the Playstation 3 does only have 256MB of system memory and 256MB of video memory. Unless you have a more reliable system information about the PS3 (in this case, a proper reference would be required) with different information we just have another sample of "I like to talk but I have no clue what I talk about". Of course that should not exactly be a surprise to anyone.

You are angry. Stop kidding yourself...

Final Fantasy 13 for PS3 requires 2GB of RAM, not 256MB. You really have no knowledge, and there's sources that back up my claims.

Performance > readability.

[color=#1C2837][size=2] okay then tell me how long you need to finish your projects?[/quote]

I made a snake game in Assembly in about two weeks. I used no third-party APIs, no high-level control, nothing. I'm very proud of the game.

All I needed was Assembly and Windows OS for some slightly "higher" graphics control.

Now, let's compare it to a C++ snake game ...

1.C++ snake game probably has a higher tendency of getting stuck, having a bug due to complicating high-level codes/functions, eating up more RAM and putting your CPU through torture.

2.C++ snake game needed endless additional files for additional support for keyboard input, timing, an input output stream(crappy one), etc.

3.C++ snake game probably doesn't perform in the exact, 100% way you'd expect it to and although the code is more readable it isn't more efficient.

Now, let's change it to Assembly's snake game ...

1.Assembly's snake game has almost no possibility of getting stuck due to low-level access of hardware, controls and operating at a bit-level way better than you would in C++ or other high-level languages.

2.Assembly's snake game doesn't need thousands of DLL files, .lib files, .h files, .win files, etc. All of that can be optimized directly and requires less storage of shit! Plus, files can be written all into one source and controlled through one executable output rather than having tons of damned files roaming all over endless directories!

3.Assembly's snake game is not only going to be faster, will have less likelihood of acting up of failing to catch input, but will perform more smooth, efficient and will require less complication and waste of space and will have EVERYTHING put to use rather than tons of crappy files that just "sit there in case I need them".

Assembly > high-level.