798 replies to this topic

[Konlab]

Creator, on 22 January 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

Konlab, on 22 January 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

oeed, on 21 January 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

dan200, on 20 January 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

Pixel coords start at 0,0. I initially had them start at 1,1 to be more "lua-like", but it resulted in a lot of code ugly like "tilex = ((pixelx - 1)/tilewidth) + 1". One of the benefits of developing this in private is I can go back on bad API decisions />/>

Oh dear. Not that that's a bad thing, I think it's good.

...it's just the 19 thousand lines I've gotta update to use a zero based coordinate system />/>

Or just write a term redirect that changes every position to position - 1

It adds an extra layer of operations significantly slowing everything down.

I don't think there is a better solution other than changing those 19k lines.

[Creator]

If you really want performance, you change these 300-400 lines once and never think about them again. Else you write this redirect and deal with certain events, decrease by one where you must and let it be a pain.

[Exerro]

Oeed, remember it's just the actual screen drawing that needs to be changed. Internal buffers can still have a 1-based coordinate system, although it might be confusing to users having to switch between that and the 0-based CraftOS system.

[oeed]

dan200, on 22 January 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

In CraftOS 2 the API matches the Lua standard: you don't have to read binary files one byte at a time anymore.

Awesome! Thanks

Exerro, on 22 January 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

Oeed, remember it's just the actual screen drawing that needs to be changed. Internal buffers can still have a 1-based coordinate system, although it might be confusing to users having to switch between that and the 0-based CraftOS system.

Oh yeah I know. I could easily make it render from 0, 0 instead of 1, 1. But as you said, it's confusing for users to use a one based system when CraftOS uses a zero based system.

[Creeper9207]

Thing I'm most hoping for is websockets

[oeed]

Creeper9207, on 24 January 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

Thing I'm most hoping for is websockets

A while ago Dan talked about the changes he made to HTTP. Basically, he's added sending or receiving headers (whichever one wasn't already there) and all the HTTP verbs. I don't recall him mentioning anything else though. With a strong focus on games, I wouldn't be too surprised if he adds it though at some point.

[cyanisaac]

You know what I want to see is if stuff actually gets sold with CraftOS 2.0

I mean maybe nothing serious like real money, but could you imagine selling your OSes and programs for CraftOS 2.0 for Krist or something? That would be interesting...

[Lemmmy]

will it have more colours

[Bomb Bloke]

Lemmmy, on 25 January 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:

will it have more colours

Last we saw, CraftOS 2.0 will have a 24bit adjustable palette with sixteen colour indexes. That is to say, you can have up to sixteen unique colours on screen at once, but they can be any 24bit colour values you like.

[oeed]

cyanisaac, on 25 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

You know what I want to see is if stuff actually gets sold with CraftOS 2.0

I mean maybe nothing serious like real money, but could you imagine selling your OSes and programs for CraftOS 2.0 for Krist or something? That would be interesting...

It'd certainly make developing for it far more attractive. However, given that a significant majority of audience are fairly young (although that could change without a Minecraft connection), most of which probably won't have credit cards, I can't really see it being very likely sadly.

[cyanisaac]

oeed, on 26 January 2016 - 01:18 AM, said:

cyanisaac, on 25 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

You know what I want to see is if stuff actually gets sold with CraftOS 2.0

I mean maybe nothing serious like real money, but could you imagine selling your OSes and programs for CraftOS 2.0 for Krist or something? That would be interesting...

It'd certainly make developing for it far more attractive. However, given that a significant majority of audience are fairly young (although that could change without a Minecraft connection), most of which probably won't have credit cards, I can't really see it being very likely sadly.

Well again that would apply for real money. But Krist is definitely something that could be used to buy COS2.0 stuff. It wouldn't be valuable, but it would be fun.

Heck that's an idea, what if OSes integrated Krist as a payment method for additional programs + features, app stores etc. I'm gonna write some of my ideas down somewhere!

[wilcomega]

cyanisaac, on 26 January 2016 - 01:48 AM, said:

oeed, on 26 January 2016 - 01:18 AM, said:

cyanisaac, on 25 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

You know what I want to see is if stuff actually gets sold with CraftOS 2.0

I mean maybe nothing serious like real money, but could you imagine selling your OSes and programs for CraftOS 2.0 for Krist or something? That would be interesting...

It'd certainly make developing for it far more attractive. However, given that a significant majority of audience are fairly young (although that could change without a Minecraft connection), most of which probably won't have credit cards, I can't really see it being very likely sadly.

Well again that would apply for real money. But Krist is definitely something that could be used to buy COS2.0 stuff. It wouldn't be valuable, but it would be fun.

Heck that's an idea, what if OSes integrated Krist as a payment method for additional programs + features, app stores etc. I'm gonna write some of my ideas down somewhere!

or a real life website where you spend krist to buy programs (licensen to said program). The you can download and activate the software

[cyanisaac]

In CraftOS2.0, something that would be helpful would be if every virtual computer (assuming it works like this) has an unmodifiable (constant) unique identifier. I think this could be useful for certain things.

[oeed]

cyanisaac, on 28 January 2016 - 02:19 AM, said:

In CraftOS2.0, something that would be helpful would be if every virtual computer (assuming it works like this) has an unmodifiable (constant) unique identifier. I think this could be useful for certain things.

Well yeah at the moment we don't know whether there is support for multiple computers. I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't though.

Wouldn't os.getComputerID do what you want? Or do you mean unique as in all my virtual computers have a different identifiers to your ones?

[cyanisaac]

oeed, on 28 January 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

cyanisaac, on 28 January 2016 - 02:19 AM, said:

In CraftOS2.0, something that would be helpful would be if every virtual computer (assuming it works like this) has an unmodifiable (constant) unique identifier. I think this could be useful for certain things.

Well yeah at the moment we don't know whether there is support for multiple computers. I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't though.

Wouldn't os.getComputerID do what you want? Or do you mean unique as in all my virtual computers have a different identifiers to your ones?

Completely unique, so my computers would have different IDs to yours. That way services could utilize it to keep track of one computer from any other one.

[Creator]

cyanisaac, on 28 January 2016 - 09:57 PM, said:

oeed, on 28 January 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

cyanisaac, on 28 January 2016 - 02:19 AM, said:

In CraftOS2.0, something that would be helpful would be if every virtual computer (assuming it works like this) has an unmodifiable (constant) unique identifier. I think this could be useful for certain things.

Well yeah at the moment we don't know whether there is support for multiple computers. I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't though.

Wouldn't os.getComputerID do what you want? Or do you mean unique as in all my virtual computers have a different identifiers to your ones?

Completely unique, so my computers would have different IDs to yours. That way services could utilize it to keep track of one computer from any other one.

This would mean that there is a real life server somewhere keeping track of which IDs have been taken. Seriously guys, keep it simple. CraftOS 2.0 is similar to Love2D: it is a game engine, not a physical computer. The thing about using krist for payment has several disadvantages:

• people are motivated enough to code without receiving a reward you can't even spend. Just take a look at the program section.
  
• it keeps you under pressure to meet a certain standard, so that people will pay. Computercraft is supposed to be a hobby, not a full-time job.
  
• If someone want to make you pay for something, just find a FOSS alternative.
  
• Since we are not allowed to load binaries, I can just strip out the part of the code that takes care of licensing.

So by all means, ask for krist and watch as nobody pays for it, because we just remove the 3-4 lines of code that make us pay krist. By the way, I will not be part of the krist greedy part of the community as I prefer to code and learn from it, this being the benefit I receive from giving you my programs.

[Bomb Bloke]

oeed, on 28 January 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

Well yeah at the moment we don't know whether there is support for multiple computers. I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't though.

I'd be amazed if there is - I mean, sure, there's likely to be a method for different instances of the environment to communicate over eg the internet, but I doubt we'll be running multiple "machines" through the one VM as we do with ComputerCraft.

[oeed]

Creator, on 28 January 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

it keeps you under pressure to meet a certain standard

Not a bad thing. At all.

Bomb Bloke, on 28 January 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

I'd be amazed if there is - I mean, sure, there's likely to be a method for different instances of the environment to communicate over eg the internet, but I doubt we'll be running multiple "machines" through the one VM as we do with ComputerCraft.

I guess it really depends on how he's written it. I was thinking along the lines of most emulators have the capability to run multiple computers. If you're on Windows you'd probably be able to fire up another instance of the program, but you can't do that on Mac.

Given that there probably wouldn't be communication between them I can't really see it being necessary though.

[MKlegoman357]

oeed, on 29 January 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

Given that there probably wouldn't be communication between them I can't really see it being necessary though.

I wouldn't say so. I like to have two or three computers running to have different environments and files on them, writing the main program in one computer, testing on another, etc..

[Lupus590]

People will find a need for the strangest of features.