Spider Mastermind
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Doom General > Doom Commander
Pages (2): « 1 [2]  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:56. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
steuntron
Mini-Member


Posts: 50
Registered: 02-08
Maes said:


It's not like you're the only one making .NET applications, or that the framework re-distributable is hard to find. Nevertheless, YOU should be the one saying "You can find the required framework at ......." if you want other people to use your app.

Also, don't target v4.0 unless you really can't live without its features (which I doubt, such a simple app like yours can do just fine with 2.0 or even 1.1 features).


It's 2.0 now
Old Post 10-21-11 17:41 #
steuntron is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 8661
Registered: 07-06
Another thing you might want to test is the look & feel across different versions of Windows: as strange as it sounds, using .NET does NOT automatically guarantee look & feel consistency, unless you use forced windows themes, and in the case of complex application facades with custom graphics etc. the update frequency, border widths etc. can be very different depending on which OS you're using. I've seen .NET apps designed under Windows XP which looked horrible under the Vista/7 look.
Old Post 10-21-11 17:45 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
_bruce_
Forum Regular


Posts: 799
Registered: 11-07
steuntron said:
Funny you mention Delphi, I was talking about this stuff earlier to someone and he told me I should look into Delphi. I will give it a shot.

But on the other hand, and this is selfish. I made it this far and I do have the framework, and I am making this for myself.

I have some experience in other languages. Mostly stuff for electronics (assembly, C and basic to program microcontrollers, and vhdl for fpga's)
Also I have done some simple things in Java.

And this C# thing is the easiest thing ever. I don't see why I should make it harder just to avoid the framework.


Just weigh the benefits.
If it's a delight to use and many folks ask why it doesn't work with their DotBogus than think about an option to ease more widespread use. You started a thread about it so concern for others seems a priority.
Old Post 10-21-11 17:49 #
_bruce_ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 8661
Registered: 07-06
I don't get all this aversion towards .NET. Sure, it's always inconvenient to have to install an additional middleware/runtime environment just to run ONE program that you might not even like, but in the case of .NET:


  1. It's an official Microsoft product, and there's definitively more than one program that uses it. It's not like e.g. those malware-ridden "downloaders" that certain "FREE online games" require you to install.
  2. .NET is to Windows what Java has been (and still is) to servers, linux, etc. all those years. Then again if you are among the folks that in 2011 still believe that Java is slow or bloated....
  3. That requirement for "Visual C++ 2005 redistributable" that pops up with far too many programs as of lately, including ZDL seems to go unnoticed. Then again, the fact that's it's only 10 MB and pretty unobtrusive to install surely helps.


The only case where I'd avoid a .NET application given an alternative, would be on limited hardware (anything under a Pentium IV and 512 MB of RAM, to be precise). In such low specs, the overhead of the framework is really noticeable. And then, I'd only avoid it if it was the ONLY .NET application I would like to run on that machine.

That being said, Microsoft has really fucked up the sizes of the redistributables: 250 MB for the full 3.5 runtime? Seriously? Compare it with the 70 MB or so for a full Java SE SDK (aka also fully usable for development). Another reason to keep framework requirements <=3.0 (which is also built-in on Vista and 7).

Anyway, this is the first time I hear of a .NET developer that is not aware of the distribution implications.

Last edited by Maes on 10-23-11 at 12:36
Old Post 10-23-11 12:28 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
steuntron
Mini-Member


Posts: 50
Registered: 02-08
I have done an update. Now you can run a zipped wad with prboom.

I have this question though: some zipfiles include not only a wad file, but also .deh and .bex. Should these also be included with the -file parameter when I run prboom/glboom ?

Last edited by steuntron on 10-24-11 at 20:26
Old Post 10-24-11 20:11 #
steuntron is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 7040
Registered: 07-07
Yes but only if the .wad file does not contain a DEHACKED lump. Also you'll want to run only the bex file if there is one, rather than both deh and bex.
Old Post 10-25-11 00:26 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 8661
Registered: 07-06
Gez said:
Yes but only if the .wad file does not contain a DEHACKED lump. Also you'll want to run only the bex file if there is one, rather than both deh and bex.


Shouldn't these sorts of priority and conflict resolutions be the job of the source port and not the launcher's? If I supply a confusing sequence of WAD files and single lumps, it's up to the port to sort its own priorities and decide e. g. whether BEX trumps DEH or internal DEHACKED lumps should trump external ones or their effects should be merged. The launcher shouldn't have to do its own file analysis or try to trump lump order by its own arbitrary rules.

Personally I'd hate a launcher that tries to "correct" my input before it even reaches the source port. Make it a -normally disabled- option if you really have to, othe
wise simply unzip everything, enquee it with non-zipped stuff and let the port decide how to handle such cases.

Last edited by Maes on 10-26-11 at 13:27
Old Post 10-26-11 13:18 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:56. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Doom General > Doom Commander

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts 		HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Forums Directory