lol@devs@hoc

[Lady Storm]

Look JR(Cogniac) I started back when the pocket calc cost 1000$ and you did keypunch to enter data to the main fraim.
To you Unix is a system, when I was first out that name was as Basara said interchangable to early C language. UO was written 95-97?? Add it up. What softwear was around ?? YOU SIR owe me an apology for your lack of courtesy. One never accuses another of being a liar without the full facts.
And I could give a fig less if I was cool on these boards. All that matters is the point of the thread

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Excepting, of course, that original Unix wasn't written in C, and was only later re-written in C after the language was developed (replacing, not so surprisingly, B)... not doubting the people may have used them interchangably, but it does raise the question, "Why?"

If I had to hazard a guess it was because C then became the primary Unix language, and so if you were programming something for Unix, it was accepted that it was being programmed in C.

Still, here in 2010, we're all aware that C and Unix are two different things, so let's not further the confusion.

 

[Cogniac]

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree that it is, indeed, a non sequitur. Given that I doubt UO was programmed in a base machine language using switches or punch cards, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it probably wasn't a 1st generation programming language. You've made an illogical conclusion, and thus, it is a non sequitur. Just sayin'.

I was calling it a non sequitur more in reference to the fact that his statement had no relation, either contextually or grammatically, to the statement of mine that he quoted. If I had said "I think UO is written in Java." his response of "Nah it was writen in 1GL." would at least have been in context as a rebuttal of something I had said. Instead he decided to reply with that to a quote of me talking about something completely unrelated.

Although, your interpretation also works.

 

[Desperado_SE]

It makes little sense when a few lines of script code can enlarge the CC client, why on earth can't the dev team?

And basically they're avoiding all the hard questions.

I'm sure this doesn't come as a huge surprise though...been like that for years with these Devs. Almost like its part of their EA training when they start working there.

 

[maroite]

The CC is being killed by suffocation.
They won't ever quit supporting it.
They won't ever intentionally break it.
At some point in the recent past, a point was chosen where the CC was considered a dead product and it was locked in at this point.
Don't expect any major changes to the CC anymore, OSI is only doing the minimum amount of work to keep it functional.
Microsoft hasn't issued a content update to COM since 1997, and there are people out there that still won't go to managed extentions.

So what you're saying is that everything else is developing beyond the CC and the devout CC users who refuse to change are the ones that are slowly killing their own game, by not allowing themselves the chance to change and adapt to the EC.

Also, I want screen shots of peoples pixelated EC clients... cause I am not sure your definition of pixelated, and my definition of pixelated are the same...

Either that, or you're playing at 1900x1200 resolution and are zoomed in to 800x600.

Please post pics.

 

[Harlequin]

I'd personally be happy with the current resolution settings of the play window for 2D/CC, but just expanding the viewable area (which should be doable, especially after the server upgrade later this year).

Part of the reason for the limited window sizes originally was to keep update speed reasonable, and I don't think that's an issue with current computers.

I have to agree. Just being able to increase the size of the play window would be nice. Doesn't have to be scaleable like the EC.



That being said, my counter arguement would be that if they did this and it introduced other issues, they would have a hard time supporting/fixing it in an ongoing manner.

Hence the don't fix it if it aint broken decision.

So the issue isn't just inserting 2 lines of code into the client.

I would still request the devs to reconsider this.

 

[Harlequin]

Excepting, of course, that original Unix wasn't written in C, and was only later re-written in C after the language was developed (replacing, not so surprisingly, B)... not doubting the people may have used them interchangably, but it does raise the question, "Why?"

If I had to hazard a guess it was because C then became the primary Unix language, and so if you were programming something for Unix, it was accepted that it was being programmed in C.

Still, here in 2010, we're all aware that C and Unix are two different things, so let's not further the confusion.

Thanks, that explains it. I was curious as well why lady storm referred to Unix as a programming language. During my schooling days, When I wrote my first program in a Unix box, I was using COBOL. Also wrote COBOL programs on a mainframe (a set of huge ibm boxes with reels of tapes and lots of blinking lights. I remember thinking, hey, this looks like what I saw in the old wonderwoman series when I was a kid) . So I was lucky that I didn't get confused btwn unix and c.

Also, to add on, I believe storm was referring to using the unix Vi editor when she said it was a pain to insert lines etc? Yeah, I remember that it really was a pain. I am not a developer, but you don't have to use Vi anymore nowadays. Nor do you need to connect using dumb terminals that will limit your tools to only whatever that's on the Unix server.

So I would guess that this isn't a limitation for the devs when dealing with "old codes".

 

[RaDian FlGith]

... using dumb terminals... this isn't a limitation for the devs...

Some days the jokes just write themselves, and I have to restrain myself from fits of laughter.

 

[Harlequin]

Some days the jokes just write themselves, and I have to restrain myself from fits of laughter.

Lol, I didn't mean it like that, honest!