alientrap-forum-archives

by **Cinquero** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:08 pm

king_ofall1 wrote:Now I remember why i never tried learning C (any version)

FTEQCC is no C. It is just a cheap and dumb imitation. C/C++ is quite nice once you understand it. If they wanted platform-independent binary code, they probably should have used JAVA, but in case of an open-source product that just makes no sense any more.

by **tChr** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:31 pm

Cinquero wrote:
king_ofall1 wrote:Now I remember why i never tried learning C (any version)

FTEQCC is no C. It is just a cheap and dumb imitation. C/C++ is quite nice once you understand it. If they wanted platform-independent binary code, they probably should have used JAVA, but in case of an open-source product that just makes no sense any more.

Java considered barf.

by **Cinquero** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:42 pm

tChr wrote:Java considered barf.

Well, definitely better than some ad-hoc platform-independent binary compiler like FTEQCC. I guess it is also faster... why write everything new and from scratch if there is already technoiogy that has been intensively developed for years?

by **esteel** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:47 pm

You know how old quake1 is right?

by **KadaverJack** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:49 pm

Cinquero wrote:Well, definitely better than some ad-hoc platform-independent binary compiler like FTEQCC. I guess it is also faster... why write everything new and from scratch if there is already technoiogy that has been intensively developed for years?

Perhaps because Java wasn't that great 10 years ago (not that it is great nowadays...) and id didn't wan't to pay royalties? (and they couldn't have GPLed the q1 engine if they did use java)

by **tChr** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:28 pm

KadaverJack wrote:
Cinquero wrote:Well, definitely better than some ad-hoc platform-independent binary compiler like FTEQCC. I guess it is also faster... why write everything new and from scratch if there is already technoiogy that has been intensively developed for years?

Perhaps because Java wasn't that great 10 years ago (not that it is great nowadays...) and id didn't wan't to pay royalties? (and they couldn't have GPLed the q1 engine if they did use java)

wtf? Why could they not have GPLed the engine if it was written in Java?

by **KadaverJack** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:02 am

tChr wrote:wtf? Why could they not have GPLed the engine if it was written in Java?

If i understood the proposal right, it was not to write the engine in Java, but use Java instead of qc as VM. That would require that the engine includes a java vm, which is non-free (at least there wasn't a free java vm 10 years ago...).

by **esteel** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:30 pm

Besides QC is tailored to be easy to sync via network and to be a language to descripe gamelogic.. None of the other languages is! QC is not as bad is people make it sound. It just lacks a few features that other languages have.

by **Cinquero** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:18 pm

esteel wrote:Besides QC is tailored to be easy to sync via network and to be a language to descripe gamelogic.. None of the other languages is! QC is not as bad is people make it sound. It just lacks a few features that other languages have.

Is QC output transmitted/received by the server/client?

by **divVerent** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 pm

Entities are just one object type and can be synchronized between two parts.

Actually, QC does not suck. But all compilers for it do.

alientrap-forum-archives

Team balancing

Who is online