[QUOTE=anthonywolfe;39844938]Which rock did you just crawl out from? Because last time I checked Mono is pretty feature complete. Perfectly replacing .Net 1, 2, 3, 4, and partial if not full support for .net 5 (4.5). Not to mention it has Silverlight support dubbed [url=http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight]Moonlight[/url].
Every .net program I have thrown at mono work perfectly fine unless it has a operating system check in the start-up code or directly relies on WinAPI or other library through P/Invoke.[/QUOTE]
Funny that you mention silverlight, actually.
[QUOTE=danharibo;39845164]Funny that you mention silverlight, actually.[/QUOTE]
How so?
[QUOTE=Dlaor-guy;39845464]How so?[/QUOTE]
Last I read, XNA is following silverlight down the rabbit hole of deprecation.
[QUOTE=danharibo;39845522]Last I read, XNA is following silverlight down the rabbit hole of deprecation.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm glad that Silverlight is going out of the way. The last thing we need is more web content requiring silly plugins.
[QUOTE=anthonywolfe;39844938]Which rock did you just crawl out from? Because last time I checked Mono is pretty feature complete. Perfectly replacing .Net 1, 2, 3, 4, and partial if not full support for .net 5 (4.5). Not to mention it has Silverlight support dubbed [url=http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight]Moonlight[/url].
Every .net program I have thrown at mono work perfectly fine unless it has a operating system check in the start-up code or directly relies on WinAPI or other library through P/Invoke.[/QUOTE]
This is true for the most part. After a very, very long time of testing my C# game on Windows and Linux with .NET and Mono, the first missing functionality I found in Mono was System.Security.Cryptography.ECDiffieHellmanCng, and that's just a wrapper around the native Windows Cng API. It wasn't that hard to get around either.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39845616]Well I'm glad that Silverlight is going out of the way. The last thing we need is more web content requiring silly plugins.[/QUOTE]
I think so too.
Especially since some time last year a Finnish TV channel (especially the news side) decided that using flash for videos on their website is bad - and migrated to Silverlight.
(What in the world were they even thinking)
[QUOTE=esalaka;39845684]I think so too.
Especially since some time last year a Finnish TV channel (especially the news side) decided that using flash for videos on their website is bad - and migrated to Silverlight.
(What in the world were they even thinking)[/QUOTE]
When Silverlight was announced I didn't even take a second look. It just looked like trouble to me.
And now, I still don't know jack about it, but it seems like my prediction was somewhat correct.
[QUOTE=P1raten;39846350]When Silverlight was announced I didn't even take a second look. It just looked like trouble to me.
And now, I still don't know jack about it, but it seems like my prediction was somewhat correct.[/QUOTE]
Silverlight always just felt like ActiveX.NET
lol @ nonstandard/proprietary web functionality
[QUOTE=acpm;39846834]lol @ nonstandard/proprietary web functionality[/QUOTE]
Define standard web functionality.
Corporation X wants to implement a new web technology. Corporation Y and Z jump on board with vendor prefixes or their own variant of said new web technology. X, Y, and Z submit a standardization proposal to W3C with technical guidelines demonstrating said new web technology and how it should work, how it should be built, and what it brings to the web.
W3C clears the proposal and adds it into the working draft of the current HTML standard; a new technology is released under the family of HTML(N) draft specifications.
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
Nonstandard web functionality in the form of frameworks or languages are often implemented by embedded objects. These are simply proprietary web plugins, but nonetheless, they are a proprietary web framework.
Also see: Flash, Java, Silverlight.
[QUOTE=acpm;39846906]Corporation X wants to implement a new web technology. Corporation Y and Z jump on board with vendor prefixes or their own variant of said new web technology. X, Y, and Z submit a standardization proposal to W3C with technical guidelines demonstrating said new web technology and how it should work, how it should be built, and what it brings to the web.
W3C clears the proposal and adds it into the working draft of the current HTML standard; a new technology is released under the family of HTML(N) draft specifications.
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
Nonstandard web functionality in the form of frameworks or languages are often implemented by embedded objects. These are simply proprietary web plugins, but nonetheless, they are a proprietary web framework.
Also see: Flash, Java, Silverlight.[/QUOTE]
So basically W3C standards?
no one else's standards matter when it comes to the web
[img]http://i.imgur.com/9Cl3H4e.png[/img]
Interesting. Unboxing a null to a valuetype gives a null reference exception. I thought you would get something more useful like the compile time error.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Kie4PtF.png[/img]
[QUOTE=high;39847562][img]http://i.imgur.com/9Cl3H4e.png[/img]
Interesting. Unboxing a null to a valuetype gives a null reference exception. I thought you would get something more useful like the compile time error.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Kie4PtF.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Name one case where you write (object)null instead of null. I'm sure there are more complex ways to write that expression, and it would make the compiler a bit more complicated to make.
[QUOTE=ArgvCompany;39847602]Name one case where you write (object)null instead of null. I'm sure there are more complex ways to write that expression, and it would make the compiler a bit more complicated to make.[/QUOTE]
If you are trying to pass null to a specific overload.
[code]void Test(ClassA a)
{
}
void Test(object o)
{
}
Test((object)null);[/code]
Anyways I meant it would be nice if the runtime exception was something more than a nullref exception.
Also that (bool)(object)null was just to show what I meant. Instead of writing out the whole thing that caused me to hit it.
[code]void CheckedCommand(object obj)
{
var isChecked = (bool)obj;
}
CheckCommand(CheckBox.IsChecked); //IsChecked is a 'bool?'
[/code]
It's weird because it's a constant statement and easily resolvable at compile-time.
[QUOTE=acpm;39847364]no one else's standards matter when it comes to the web[/QUOTE]
Standardi(s|z)e [b]deez nuts[/b]
[sp]What about the IETF duder[/sp]
IETF deals with lower level technical specifications than W3C. They have their purpose; much like how ISO is a generic standardization organization which has some intersecting with web standards. W3C specifications are the most important when it comes to core web standardizations.
[QUOTE=Chandler;39848098]Standardi(s|z)e [b]deez nuts[/b][/QUOTE]
If in doubt, use Oxford spelling: -ize and -yse
(They're apparently the etymologically correct ways to spell words)
Made a userscript(really basic) to fix youtubes layout: [URL]http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/161420[/URL]
Supersnail you make me feel depressed.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;39849873]Made a userscript(really basic) to fix youtubes layout: [URL]http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/161420[/URL]
Supersnail you make me feel depressed.[/QUOTE]
I love you.
So, I was forced to take a break this week from the 3d renderer to write a subset of THUMBv1 emulator for our coursework at uni. In verilog (whyy)
Successfully runs this piece of code (after assembling)
[code]
THUMB
SuperStart
BU Start
StarterStart
BU Start
;DCD SHOULD align on a 4 byte boundry. But, it doesn't
StartData
DCD 5
DCD 23
DCD -11
DCD 15
Start
MOVI r0, #0
ADDI r0, #10
SVC 0
MOVI r1, #2
ADDR r1, r1, r0
SVC 1
MOVI r0, #15
SUBI r0, #15
SVC 0
MOVI r0, #2
MOVI r1, #2
MULR r0, r1
SVC 0
MOVI r0, #StartData
SVC 0
LSRI r0, r0, #2
SVC 0
MOVI r1, #1
MOVI r3, #7
STRI r3, [r0, r1]
LDRR r2, [r0, r1]
SVC 2
MOVI r0, #5
MOVI r1, #6
SUBR r0, r0, r1
BGT Failure
BLT CorrectBranch
BU Failure
BranchTest2
MOVI r0, #0x000D
SVC 0
BL BranchTest3
MOVI r0, #0x000C
SVC 0
BL BranchTest3
MOVI r0, #0x00CC
SVC 0
BU End
BranchTest3
MOVI r0, #0x000B
SVC 0
BR lr
BU Failure
BranchTest1
MOVI r0, #0x000F
SVC 0
MOVI r0, #12
SUBI r0, #12
BEQ BranchTest2
BU Failure
CorrectBranch
MOVI r0, #0x00FF
SVC 0
BU BranchTest1
Failure
MOVI r0, #0x00af
SVC 0
SVC 100
End
SVC 100
[/code]
The mnemonics were changed (for some reason), so it doesn't quite resemble the real thumb but ohwell
After this week, I can go back to giving the 3d renderer some tender shadow loving
Whats fun though, is that the documentation provided is inaccurate, and so is the assembler
For example: DCD is meant to align on a 4 byte word boundry (as far as i'm aware), it does not so you have to pad it with an arbitrary instruction (thumb instructions are 2 byte)
The BGT instruction has the wrong condition signature (assembled wrong, mnemonics file is crap)
BL has the wrong number of bits for the register (in the docs)
and several of the functions have wrong page numbers for the arm manual
Its been fun :v:
[QUOTE=gparent;39836917]C# ? Great language, but how long will it last?[/QUOTE]
Do you reckon C# is on it's way out or something? I can't see that happening
I know where you're coming from, though, and I always have a horrible feeling when I write anything in C# that a few years down the line it might not even run on the latest windows because of lack of support. That said, that's true with a lot of stuff
[QUOTE=Trumple;39853702]Do you reckon C# is on it's way out or something? I can't see that happening
I know where you're coming from, though, and I always have a horrible feeling when I write anything in C# that a few years down the line it might not even run on the latest windows because of lack of support. That said, that's true with a lot of stuff[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure most languages used right now will be really obscure in 100 years. Ironically, the languages that have been in use longest are the ones that I think will last the best.
[QUOTE=ArgvCompany;39853708]I'm pretty sure most languages used right now will be really obscure in 100 years. Ironically, the languages that have been in use longest are the ones that I think will last the best.[/QUOTE]
Yes, or perhaps the least abstract ones, I.E assembly and C
[QUOTE=Trumple;39853731]Yes, or perhaps the least abstract ones, I.E assembly and C[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? That the least abstract ones will be gone or still in use?
edit: Now that I think about it, we will probably have entirely different computer architectures, which makes the low-level ones worthless.
[QUOTE=Trumple;39853731]Yes, or perhaps the least abstract ones, I.E assembly and C[/QUOTE]
C is relatively simple to implement because it doesn't need much of a runtime library and because even the standard C library isn't technically necessary to write functional C programs, provided that the system has its own means of giving you whatever functionality you need.
And assembly is simply (almost) a text representation of machine code. Which means that it'll always be around in some form for every platform.
[QUOTE=esalaka;39853784]And assembly is simply (almost) a text representation of machine code. Which means that it'll always be around in some form for every platform.[/QUOTE]
But it could change drastically if we consider, for example, quantum computers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
