5 ms·

Because I rewrote it in JavaScript! ;)

by SimHacker 13y ago

BlackDeath3 13y ago
Fair enough, I suppose. Why JavaScript?
- SimHacker 13y ago
  So it will run in the the browser? Or node.js, if you like.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    It runs in the browser, because you wrote it in JavaScript, so that it will run in the browser...? I was curious as to why you would target the browser at all, but whatever roasts your toast, man. Enjoy game development!
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      Haven't you heard? Lots of people use browsers. Google it, you'll be amazed.
      - BlackDeath3 13y ago
        So availability of the platform dominated other facets of the technical design? OK, sounds like the typical "JS for everything!" philosophy to me, but again, whatever works for you. Don't get your nuts in a twist, I was really just curious about your decision.
        SimHacker 13y ago
        You're aware that the technical design of SimCity is over 25 years old right? Are you over 25 years old, too? Can you please suggest a platform that makes it easier for as many people to instantly and effortlessly run it? Do you have such an axe to grind against JavaScript that you think it's a bad decision to use it, in spite of its ubiquity and suitability? Or is it web browser themselves that you despise, and you don't think it's wise to develop browser based games no matter what the language? Do you have a viable alternative, that runs as fast and has as rich an ecosystem and is known and used by as many people, and do you have a plan to get your alternative language into as many web browsers as run JavaScript, or replace web browsers entirely? Exactly how long should I sit on my hands hold my breath and for your plan to replace JavaScript and the web to come to fruition? Whatever your alternative is, remember that the point is opening up the simulator so the code is not only runnable but also understandable by a large number of people, including kids learning to program, and to motivate people to learn a useful programming language that they will be able to use in the real world. So Haskel is right out. Seriously, everybody knows you're just trolling, because you're making no sense whatsoever, and pretending to be dense. And it's not a very good troll at all. My nuts aren't in a twist, but you're sure trying hard to twist them. How about giving it a rest and finding somewhere else to huff and puff about JavaScript, because we're trying to have a serious discussion here.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        If you'd be so kind as to point out where I've disparaged JavaScript as a language in any way, shape, or form, I'd greatly appreciate that. Ten dollars says you cannot do it, but I'd be fascinated to see how you spin my words in the process. I asked for some reasoning behind your technical decisions because I personally thought that your language/platform choice was a bit unorthodox (while acknowledging its benefit of a wide adoption) as opposed to something else, and you blow up and tell me all about how it's really just a big war between me and poor JavaScript. I said nothing of the sort, and you're really reading much too far into what I've said. In reality, I'm a relative newbie with very little experience with JavaScript, and any personal feelings I may have for it were largely irrelevant to what I said. Relax. Maybe step away from your PC for a while and take a breather? I'd hate to hear about you on the evening news. Christ.
        SimHacker 13y ago
        I asked you if you had an axe to grind against JavaScript or the browser, an if so, what better alternative can you suggest? And I asked you some other questions, too. Care to answer them? Stating that my testicles are twisted and implying that I'm going to shoot up an elementary school isn't a effective way to dodge my questions, it's just childish trolling. Get back to the point: What's wrong with rewriting a game in JavaScript so it runs in the browser, if the goal is to make it accessible to as many people as possible? What's so "curious" about targeting the browser, and what criticism do have of rewriting code in JavaScript so it runs in the browser? Would you prefer using a cross-compiler to translate the existing C++ code into JavaScript? That would make it much harder for people to read and understand, you know, which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction than I want to take it. Can you suggest any better alternatives, or can you better explain what you really meant by what you said, please? Because you're not making much sense to me, and you're getting very emotional about it.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        You asked me a bunch of questions that I don't for one second believe were not rhetorical and based on some assumptions that you've pretty obviously (and incorrectly) made about me, what I said, and what I meant. So no, I don't really care to answer them, for the same reason that I won't request that you propose an alternative to C++. And by the way, please learn to separate swearing, sarcasm, or whatever it is that you seem to associate with emotion, from emotion. They're rhetorical devices. Oddly enough, you seem to be the one getting emotional here. Or perhaps you consider your spontaneously-hostile defense of JavaScript to have been the rational course of action? I asked you to clarify an apparent circular argument you had made (I wrote it in JavaScript, because I targeted the browser, because I wrote it in JavaScript...), expressed that the browser seemed to me an unnatural platform for a game (but not necessarily a poor one), you shot back a smart-ass remark about how lots of people use browsers (no shit), and here we are, arguing about how much I (apparently) hate JavaScript. I think I'm done here. Judging by your perception of me, you seem to be arguing with someone else anyway, so I'll go ahead and leave you to it.

Because I rewrote it in JavaScript! ;)

BlackDeath3 13y ago

Fair enough, I suppose. Why JavaScript?

SimHacker 13y ago
So it will run in the the browser? Or node.js, if you like.
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  It runs in the browser, because you wrote it in JavaScript, so that it will run in the browser...? I was curious as to why you would target the browser at all, but whatever roasts your toast, man. Enjoy game development!
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    Haven't you heard? Lots of people use browsers. Google it, you'll be amazed.
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      So availability of the platform dominated other facets of the technical design? OK, sounds like the typical "JS for everything!" philosophy to me, but again, whatever works for you. Don't get your nuts in a twist, I was really just curious about your decision.
      - SimHacker 13y ago
        You're aware that the technical design of SimCity is over 25 years old right? Are you over 25 years old, too? Can you please suggest a platform that makes it easier for as many people to instantly and effortlessly run it? Do you have such an axe to grind against JavaScript that you think it's a bad decision to use it, in spite of its ubiquity and suitability? Or is it web browser themselves that you despise, and you don't think it's wise to develop browser based games no matter what the language? Do you have a viable alternative, that runs as fast and has as rich an ecosystem and is known and used by as many people, and do you have a plan to get your alternative language into as many web browsers as run JavaScript, or replace web browsers entirely? Exactly how long should I sit on my hands hold my breath and for your plan to replace JavaScript and the web to come to fruition? Whatever your alternative is, remember that the point is opening up the simulator so the code is not only runnable but also understandable by a large number of people, including kids learning to program, and to motivate people to learn a useful programming language that they will be able to use in the real world. So Haskel is right out. Seriously, everybody knows you're just trolling, because you're making no sense whatsoever, and pretending to be dense. And it's not a very good troll at all. My nuts aren't in a twist, but you're sure trying hard to twist them. How about giving it a rest and finding somewhere else to huff and puff about JavaScript, because we're trying to have a serious discussion here.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        If you'd be so kind as to point out where I've disparaged JavaScript as a language in any way, shape, or form, I'd greatly appreciate that. Ten dollars says you cannot do it, but I'd be fascinated to see how you spin my words in the process. I asked for some reasoning behind your technical decisions because I personally thought that your language/platform choice was a bit unorthodox (while acknowledging its benefit of a wide adoption) as opposed to something else, and you blow up and tell me all about how it's really just a big war between me and poor JavaScript. I said nothing of the sort, and you're really reading much too far into what I've said. In reality, I'm a relative newbie with very little experience with JavaScript, and any personal feelings I may have for it were largely irrelevant to what I said. Relax. Maybe step away from your PC for a while and take a breather? I'd hate to hear about you on the evening news. Christ.
        SimHacker 13y ago
        I asked you if you had an axe to grind against JavaScript or the browser, an if so, what better alternative can you suggest? And I asked you some other questions, too. Care to answer them? Stating that my testicles are twisted and implying that I'm going to shoot up an elementary school isn't a effective way to dodge my questions, it's just childish trolling. Get back to the point: What's wrong with rewriting a game in JavaScript so it runs in the browser, if the goal is to make it accessible to as many people as possible? What's so "curious" about targeting the browser, and what criticism do have of rewriting code in JavaScript so it runs in the browser? Would you prefer using a cross-compiler to translate the existing C++ code into JavaScript? That would make it much harder for people to read and understand, you know, which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction than I want to take it. Can you suggest any better alternatives, or can you better explain what you really meant by what you said, please? Because you're not making much sense to me, and you're getting very emotional about it.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        You asked me a bunch of questions that I don't for one second believe were not rhetorical and based on some assumptions that you've pretty obviously (and incorrectly) made about me, what I said, and what I meant. So no, I don't really care to answer them, for the same reason that I won't request that you propose an alternative to C++. And by the way, please learn to separate swearing, sarcasm, or whatever it is that you seem to associate with emotion, from emotion. They're rhetorical devices. Oddly enough, you seem to be the one getting emotional here. Or perhaps you consider your spontaneously-hostile defense of JavaScript to have been the rational course of action? I asked you to clarify an apparent circular argument you had made (I wrote it in JavaScript, because I targeted the browser, because I wrote it in JavaScript...), expressed that the browser seemed to me an unnatural platform for a game (but not necessarily a poor one), you shot back a smart-ass remark about how lots of people use browsers (no shit), and here we are, arguing about how much I (apparently) hate JavaScript. I think I'm done here. Judging by your perception of me, you seem to be arguing with someone else anyway, so I'll go ahead and leave you to it.