30 replies to this topic

[Saldor010]

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

Well, if you had the ability to define your own characters in ComputerCraft and be able to write them as regular letters.. I think that would far outweigh most barriers preventing this to be implemented. And who says there has to be complexity? It's as simple as KingOfGames wrote it, just define a bunch of tables for your character(s), then (probably) call a function to register it as a character under a particular variable name.

EDIT: Though even if all of the Computercraft Community wants it, that doesn't mean Dan will approve it.

Edited by Jiloacom, 20 August 2014 - 04:42 PM.

[KingofGamesYami]

Jiloacom, on 20 August 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

Well, if you had the ability to define your own characters in ComputerCraft and be able to write them as regular letters.. I think that would far outweigh most barriers preventing this to be implemented. And who says there has to be complexity? It's as simple as KingOfGames wrote it, just define a bunch of tables for your character(s), then (probably) call a function to register it as a character under a particular variable name.

EDIT: Though even if all of the Computercraft Community wants it, that doesn't mean Dan will approve it.

*correction: I was using a multiline string, not a table.

[Saldor010]

KingofGamesYami, on 20 August 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Jiloacom, on 20 August 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

Well, if you had the ability to define your own characters in ComputerCraft and be able to write them as regular letters.. I think that would far outweigh most barriers preventing this to be implemented. And who says there has to be complexity? It's as simple as KingOfGames wrote it, just define a bunch of tables for your character(s), then (probably) call a function to register it as a character under a particular variable name.

EDIT: Though even if all of the Computercraft Community wants it, that doesn't mean Dan will approve it.

*correction: I was using a multiline string, not a table.

Oh, sorry, didn't see that.

[GreenByteSoftware]

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

In my opinion that's not so much comlex, if you don't want it, then don't use it. Problem solved. This would help for many people in their programs with GUI. And newbies can come to this later on. This is similar to images expect no colors. Image is even more complex thing and this one is quite simple.

[Saldor010]

thediamondgames, on 26 August 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

In my opinion that's not so much comlex, if you don't want it, then don't use it. Problem solved. This would help for many people in their programs with GUI. And newbies can come to this later on. This is similar to images expect no colors. Image is even more complex thing and this one is quite simple.

Agreed. That's like saying Minecraft shouldn't have added command blocks, specifically because they're too complex. Yet you don't have to touch a command block in your entire life to still have fun in Minecraft.

[theoriginalbit]

Jiloacom, on 26 August 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

Agreed. That's like saying Minecraft shouldn't have added command blocks, specifically because they're too complex. Yet you don't have to touch a command block in your entire life to still have fun in Minecraft.

The difference is a command block doesn't change how a player breaks, or places blocks. Making this change to monitors would effect the simplest of tasks when it comes to monitors.

[Saldor010]

theoriginalbit, on 26 August 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

Jiloacom, on 26 August 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

Agreed. That's like saying Minecraft shouldn't have added command blocks, specifically because they're too complex. Yet you don't have to touch a command block in your entire life to still have fun in Minecraft.

The difference is a command block doesn't change how a player breaks, or places blocks. Making this change to monitors would effect the simplest of tasks when it comes to monitors.

Who says it has to? What if this would just be a function that's *out of the way*. You could still do everything you could normally do on monitors and computers, but if you wanted a custom character set, you could just call a couple of functions and boom.

[iAd4m]

I made this topic so there could be some hope of there being more pixels, i didnt want it to make the complexity of computercraft harder, simply put I just want more pixels so i can make sexier things. Maybe a global variable you could overwrite in your program to define how many pixels you want in your program.

[SpencerBeige]

font sizes would definatly mean a form of CSS for oeed's quest program. maybe he could call it ccs?

slow-coder, on 15 November 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

font sizes would definatly mean a form of CSS for oeed's quest program. maybe he could call it ccs?

although, it would make almost all OS's and stuff unusable, unless they just used term.setBackgroundColour...

[CrazedProgrammer]

It would make interfaces and OSes prettier, but I think a greater amount of pixels would cause huge lag.
I really hope that there will be more pixels (maybe in CC2.0),
But I think it won't happen.

[Creator]

theoriginalbit, on 20 August 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the ability to define a smiley face outweighs the complexity added?

*In ironic tone* tottally