lets fix it

[MrMound]

so we dedided to convert to c++

[Numsgil]

Yep, I'm in the process.

I'm almost to the point where I can see what sort of speed I'll be getting from the port.  Almost....  So close...

Another day or two and I'll know.

[Numsgil]

Oh, and before I forget, my new programming protege WolfHound is helping me with the GUI stuff.  So it's not totally me by my lonesome.

[MrMound]

do you know where one could get a c++ converter for cheap(50-75$ or cheaper range)I don't have much money to spend on this kind of stuff.

[Numsgil]

A compiler you mean?

Why, there's one on the FTP.  called VC++6.0 or something like that.  In tools.

[Light]

out of interest how similar is c to c++?

[Botsareus]

well my moded 2.36 is almost fully bug proof because of evolving first bot... I can post it along with my F.B.E. when I am done.

My charts are doing 7000 max and 3000 on avrage but the funny thing is, the bots still look the same as before...

[Numsgil]

out of interest how similar is c to c++?

For the most part, all C code works in C++.  I even come from a C background, so the code will probably read fairly C-centric.

Basically, C++ adds classes, which are basically structures with functions.

[Botsareus]

Here is the real situation
-------------------------------------------
.sexrepro and some other newer elements of the code do not work or do not mutate in 2.36 and I am not planning on fixing it. The only thing I am fixing is the exsisting bugs. The New mutations (according to num) evolve everything, but, I have not bothered with that source code yet so I don't know for sure. The troublr is alot of other things in 2.4 are eather completly broken or unrealisticaly changed. And instead of fixing the problem Num continues having fun programing what ever he wants; organizing what ever he wants; And transcoding what ever he wants into c++. The lest couple of virsions are BS bug fixes cluging up our server, How idiotic it is to release a broken bug fix or a fix that brakes somthing else and just clug the sever with the simple stupid changes. Thats why I never make major changes to the program and realease them; I don't want to Imbaris myself incase I goof up.
My argument to Num is:
that we need to worry about errors and correctness of the program -not about porting to c++, and releasing stupid virsions... Its time to take this project seriosly.
Because the compilation is different, the same code might behave differently in c++. It really does make everything idiot proof: Only Num and his so called gamedev team knows what is going on.
For Num:
The main reason I don't want you to switch to c++ is because I am fluint in vb. For example I can add consepts like my placement control in vb but I have no idea how it will work in the same way in c++. (due to what is talked about above)
But I do want to know. If you know how to directly recode my placement control in c++ I also want to know how it works in there.
We might as well give this program to sony's development team on a silver platter.
(more work for py as always)

[Numsgil]

Yes, because I loooovvee programming the GUI.  Thats why I've spent the last few days on it.

2.4.X, if anyone can actually get it to run, is quite stable (minus that translocation mutation bug, which I think I've just fixed...)  Once I figure out the GUI problems, it should be as smooth as butter.

I just ran it last night for 12+ hours and it ran just fine, no crashes.

Plus, 2.4 saves a simulation when it crashes, and people should be sending me their crashes so I can fix them...

Why are some robots having a hard time in 2.4?  Well, the amount of effort they use to push themselves is now = their acceleration * their mass.  That is, it follows actual physics laws.

Likewise with robot sizes.

If everyone thinks that the program shouldn't strive to follow real world laws, and that instead we should just make up stuff as we go, by all means, I'll change it back to however it was working before.

Porting the code to C++ has two primary advantages as far as bug finding:

1.  I'll be looking over every single line of code one at a time.  I've already found several small bugs this way.

2.  C++ doesn't suffer from overflow errors crashing the program.

3.  I know C++ better than I know VB.  This is also true of 90% of other programmers, and any solutions I find online are almost always in C/C++.

I do my darndest to make DB as stable and clean as possible.  If I break a few things in the process, it's just that, part of the process.  But since I'm the only one actually doing any work at the moment, well, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, shall we?

If any of you actually looked at the code I'm producing, and comparing it to the code when I started, I think you'll see that the present code is more readable and maintainable.  Basically the code has slowly become a large tangled ball of string, and I'm spending alot of time untangling it.  That means all sorts of things may break in the process, but hopefully when I'm done the code is such that it's easier to spot and fix bugs, and changes are less likely to introduce new bugs.

Last but not least, Bots, add your own darn robot placement code, I have better things to do at the moment, have hd better things to do, and will probably have better things to do in the future.

[Botsareus]

about my placement control ... all I want to know is if it will work the same in c++ Numsgil.


Sounds like 2.4 can actualy work once the "Once I figure out the GUI problems, it should be as smooth as butter." is done. I will try it , I just don't want you to release a 1meg worth of a virsion every time somthing new is fixed, because half time when somthing is fixed somthing else is broken.

[Numsgil]

Probably not, since C++ has no built in GUI.  Wolfhound is looking into FoxWindows I think it's called.

I dropped the DLL, so new versions aren't like tht initial beta one was.

[shvarz]

Wow, such heated discussions!

 :shoot:

 :shoot:

 :shoot:

But seriously, Nums, why do you want to have a 2.4 VB version for which there are almost no bots.  You are certainly not planning on maintaining two versions, one in VB and one in C+, right?  So, once you switch to C+, we'll end up with 2.4 as the last VB version, and I think it sucks (not the version, but the fact that 2.4 is last).

Why don't we call 2.36 version a finished product, for which there will be tons of bots and which would come as a package with everything ready?  It is (or will be) a bug-free version.  Yes, it is not going to be the latest and the greatest, but it will have its own niche, its own rules and its own feel.

The new version with all the fun stuff you introduced in 2.4 would be moved completely to C+ and will be maintained there.  I think there is enough new features to call it 3.0.  BUT!!!  You decide on what features you want to have in there before you release any versions (even to us) and then stick with those features through the whole version 3 development.  Don't add or remove any major things that affect bot survival.

[Botsareus]

You mean you got rid of the DLL? I still won't release 500 lines of code just because 4 are changed. . .
But hey, never mind, do what ever you want because I don't really release code anyway for anything anyway...

[Numsgil]

I don't care too much about Nomenclature.  We can call whichever whatever we want.

I didn't upgrade 2.4 to a whole new major version number for nothing.  But if you think it should be 3.0 when porting is finished, I'm cool with that too.

Problem is if I maintain two versions at once (pre 2.4 and 2.4) I get confused.  So if we want to make 2.37 the standard, bug free final release type of thing, someone else will need to be the one to go through and fix bugs.