.
A regged BlitzMax owner w/q for Mark Sibly/BRL
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/A regged BlitzMax owner w/q for Mark Sibly/BRL .
Do you realize that you are asking a question that is for the very distant future? Think about how long Blitz3D has been around and there hasn't been any talk of a Blitz3D 2.0 (at least not by BRL.
.
alright, just checking ;)
Hi,
Max2 is indeed something I would like to do one day to address the things I feel I messed up in Max.
But it's way, way down the 'to do' list, and as such there is absolutely no info on anything to do with it available.
So don't ask or I'll just roll my eyes and go all quiet and sulky.
Max2 is indeed something I would like to do one day to address the things I feel I messed up in Max.
But it's way, way down the 'to do' list, and as such there is absolutely no info on anything to do with it available.
So don't ask or I'll just roll my eyes and go all quiet and sulky.
.
> So don't ask or I'll just roll my eyes and go
> all quiet and sulky.
Heheh, this should be quoted and posted as a sticky.
> all quiet and sulky.
Heheh, this should be quoted and posted as a sticky.
Should be put into the FAQ as to why you don't ask certain questions. :o)
Mark - haven't you learned anything in the last six years?
No matter what you say to people - even the SLIGHTEST hint at ANYTHING thats going to happen in the future, they will crucify you at worst when it doesn't happen, and nag you to death at best.
*incoherent mumbling about DX9 and Blitz3D* ;)
No matter what you say to people - even the SLIGHTEST hint at ANYTHING thats going to happen in the future, they will crucify you at worst when it doesn't happen, and nag you to death at best.
*incoherent mumbling about DX9 and Blitz3D* ;)
Ah, so the cat is out of the bag - DX9 for B3D.
Count me in for that - I'll just get undressed now.
Count me in for that - I'll just get undressed now.
No matter what you say to people - even the SLIGHTEST hint at ANYTHING thats going to happen in the future, they will crucify you at worst when it doesn't happen, and nag you to death at best.
Expect "When is Max 2 out?" threads to regularly appear from this day on... :(
Barney
.
I personally think that it's a good thing that Max 2 is down the road.
Except that isn't quite what he said. He said it might be down the road, if that particular road ever gets built, if you like. Now we know that BlitzMax is going to be UPDATED and possibly IMPROVED and still SUPPORTED.
Didn't we know that anyway? The game is slightly given away by the updates they keep releasing for it. .
.
Um, forget all this Bmax stuff - the DX9 for B3d is far, far, far more interesting (and exciting).
Puki?????
Bmax can already run b3d stuff in DX9.
You really really sholud start to raise your head above the parapit everynow and then
Bmax can already run b3d stuff in DX9.
You really really sholud start to raise your head above the parapit everynow and then
Bmax can already run b3d stuff in DX9.
Link please!
When I hear about potential Max2s when development of Max1 is still underway, I get nervous.
Max1 is still in development? Care to elaborate on that? .
Not that I'm waiting for anything next generation from BR since I'm still happily using all the old stuff I've bought. I think mentioning a BMax2 is certainly a very bad idea. We've already got what people will moan about after the 3D module is released.
The fact of the matter still and is, for anyone sat on their arse waiting for the 3D module and doing NOTHING else in the meantime but sit around speculating on the forums. You'll never make a game, may as well just give up and get a new hobby/career. Seriously!
The fact of the matter still and is, for anyone sat on their arse waiting for the 3D module and doing NOTHING else in the meantime but sit around speculating on the forums. You'll never make a game, may as well just give up and get a new hobby/career. Seriously!
Maybe Mark tries to create the absolutely perfect language. He started to develop BlitzMax and at the beginning it seemed to become exactly what he expected. However he had to note that the precedence wasn't good enough for his expectations, since (as Vertex noticed) you can't directly do operations on strings returned from Chr. So he changed the precedence. However the new precedence is also not a good solution, so he thinks about doing everything new, from beginning. I think he said that also in another thread: "rewriting the compiler is starting to sound more and more appealing!"
Therefore he now thinks about Max2, where he would solve all the problems he didn't in Max1. However you can be sure that this will result in that he finds also some kinds of inconsistency (some little things, which can't be realized because of the groundwork of the compiler), which also causes him to start again from the beginning and to start with Max3, the story will repeat and he'll do Max4, soon Max5.... and so on. He'll never find a finish, since it is impossible to create the perfect compiler.
However since every Max version then would have different advantages and disadvantages they wouldn't be compatible: code written for Max1 couldn't be compiled with Max2, code for Max2 not for Max3, Max3 not for Max4 and so on. So Mark's wish to design the perfect language will result in a big lack of backward compatibility (which I really advice Mark to care more about).
Therefore I'd like to stop this nightmare at the early beginning, so I really hope Mark doesn't start with Max2.
Or, if we expand this for to all issues about downward compatibility, we could have a "Version x.xx" statement at the first line of source code. If the compiler has this version, it would just compile as normal, if the version of the compiler is less than the source file version, it would produce a compiling error like "Version not supported!", and if the source version is lower than the compiler version (in my case 1.24 compiles 1.20) the compiler switches to a compatibility-mode, which hides the most important changes between the versions.
However the best solution would be a "CompilerSpec" command, which allows you to define which parts of the compiler of which version you want to use. It could look like this:
Therefore he now thinks about Max2, where he would solve all the problems he didn't in Max1. However you can be sure that this will result in that he finds also some kinds of inconsistency (some little things, which can't be realized because of the groundwork of the compiler), which also causes him to start again from the beginning and to start with Max3, the story will repeat and he'll do Max4, soon Max5.... and so on. He'll never find a finish, since it is impossible to create the perfect compiler.
However since every Max version then would have different advantages and disadvantages they wouldn't be compatible: code written for Max1 couldn't be compiled with Max2, code for Max2 not for Max3, Max3 not for Max4 and so on. So Mark's wish to design the perfect language will result in a big lack of backward compatibility (which I really advice Mark to care more about).
Therefore I'd like to stop this nightmare at the early beginning, so I really hope Mark doesn't start with Max2.
In Fabian's case, if he could issue a ?Legacy_Precedence or somthing in his code, then he could have the older precedence he desires without having to stay at an older version of the product.
Yes, this would be a pretty nice solution!Or, if we expand this for to all issues about downward compatibility, we could have a "Version x.xx" statement at the first line of source code. If the compiler has this version, it would just compile as normal, if the version of the compiler is less than the source file version, it would produce a compiling error like "Version not supported!", and if the source version is lower than the compiler version (in my case 1.24 compiles 1.20) the compiler switches to a compatibility-mode, which hides the most important changes between the versions.
However the best solution would be a "CompilerSpec" command, which allows you to define which parts of the compiler of which version you want to use. It could look like this:
CompilerSpec "Types: 1.16" 'Since version 1.18 Object Ptr isn't a valid type CompilerSpec "Precedence: 1.20" 'Since version 1.22 the precedence has changed CompilerSpec "Inheritance: 1.22" 'Since version 1.24 overwriting abstract methods can't differ by type CompilerSpec "Casting: 1.24" 'Cast negative Long to Int fixed since version 1.22 CompilerSpec "Operators: 1.24" 'Everything well here CompilerSpec "Other: 1.24" 'The rest (all unnamed specs) should go like version 1.24However this might be a bit off-topic here...
The fact of the matter still and is, for anyone sat on their arse waiting for the 3D module and doing NOTHING else in the meantime but sit around speculating on the forums. You'll never make a game, may as well just give up and get a new hobby/career. Seriously!
That's a fair point I think.Its not so much that people are continually asking for Max3D, Blitz3D+DX10, or whatever else - its the fact that its often implied that the absence of the aforementioned is somehow holding people back. In truth, that isn't whats holding people back at all. Its just an excuse - the real problem beung that people have no motivation or enthusiasm for what they allege to be doing.
All just an opinion, of course. Not attacking anybody. :)
.
Mark - haven't you learned anything in the last six years?
No matter what you say to people - even the SLIGHTEST hint at ANYTHING thats going to happen in the future, they will crucify you at worst when it doesn't happen, and nag you to death at best.
*incoherent mumbling about DX9 and Blitz3D* ;)
I thought I would get there first by asking, have you got a release date for BlitzMax 2? ROFL j/k ;)
Max3 Turbo, it's probably the best disposable shaver that you ever threw away.