fseek

Page: 1 2
Jun 1 2008, 7:22 am
In response to Kaioken
The argument has already been made for efficiency. It's the same exact thing with the Regex support we want (and currently can do in BYOND), but don't get. We want it because it might need to be used often and anything made in BYOND will be slow for larger files (might as well not use it), but we don't get it because it can be done in DM. I think it's stupid, and I don't see the issue seeing as how there are tons of good, available C++ libraries.

The exact same thing can be said about fseek. It is no feature that will require hundreds and hundreds of lines of code, so... what is the problem? If it will make the program better, go for it!
Jun 2 2008, 12:13 am
In response to CaptFalcon33035
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
I think it's stupid, and I don't see the issue seeing as how there are tons of good, available C++ libraries.

Wow, C++ doesn't have regular expressions built in? Only in libraries? This is just horrible, I don't want BYOND to use a C++ library for it. They better wait until it is implemented into the language itself, otherwise it is simply stupid.
Jun 2 2008, 9:48 am
In response to Kaioken
Again, you miss the BIG picture of SPEED. Most worthwhile bytecode languages have it built-in.
Jun 2 2008, 10:04 am
In response to CaptFalcon33035
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
Again, you miss the BIG picture of SPEED. Most worthwhile bytecode languages have it built-in.

Yet you miss the bigger picture, I think. Other languages have many things built-in. For example, in Python, I can make a list of every 2-character combination of the numbers 1-10 with the simple expression [x,y for x in range(1,11) for y in range(1,11)], and it happens instantly. You can't expect DM to mimic this simply because it would run faster than doing a manual:
var/list/somelist = new
for(var/x in 1 to 10)
    for(var/y in 1 to 10)
        somelist.Add(list(x,y))


The fact is that all languages are different and have their different constructs. If you expect Tom or Lummox to add an fseek()-like function because other bytecode languages have them, and I expect them to add operator overloading, and Kaioken expects them to make infinite-precision numbers, meanwhile someone else expects more than 16 bits for bitwise operations and then someone else expects to be able to play their favorite BYOND games on Linux or Mac (because other bytecode languages are portable as such!), the whole thing's just going to fall through.

I'm personally happy with the little additions we get when we get them, and it must be understood that aside from all of the requests that get put in regularly, there is still an aging to-do list for the staff to work on.
Jun 2 2008, 3:44 pm
In response to Kaioken
Anti-progressive
Page: 1 2