small, insignificant bug with IDKFA

I don't know if this has been pointed out and\or adressed, but there appears to be a small problem with the cheat messages. I first noticed it while messing around with Hacx through Eternity, but later discovered that it also happens happens without pwads and dehacked patches. If I type IDKFA (BLAST in Hacx), I get not only the message for that, but also the one for IDFA (AMMO in Hacx). Additionaly, in Doom, typing IDKFA will also trigger the IDK cheat, adding a third message into the mix.

If it's at all important, the order the messages come up in is:

Keys Added
Ammo (No Keys) Added
Very Happy Ammo Added
Oh, and incase it makes any difference, I'm using the Windows version.

Share this post


Link to post

It has to do with the way those cheats are executed. Lee Killough, the most frighteningly efficient coder on the planet, kinda merged them all. When you enter IDKFA, you're effectively executing the code for IDK and IDFA.

Share this post


Link to post
JoelMurdoch said:

Lee Killough, the most frighteningly efficient coder on the planet...


I've seen Quasar posting examples of his code in IRC. He's not frighteningly efficient, he's just frightening.

Share this post


Link to post
KDarigal said:

I've seen Quasar posting examples of his code in IRC. He's not frighteningly efficient, he's just frightening.


how so? and if you are good enough of a coder to judge him, then where are your contributions to society?

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, Lee isn't frightening, he's just used to working on a quite different level than any of us :-> As a professional software engineer who's written compilers and more than likely works on the bare metal more than I'd ever have nightmares about doing myself, he probably needs to write code that's compact and fast. Plus, everybody has their own style :P

Of course, its still hard to maintain code that has no "room" for expansion or is too opaque to understand in less than 30 minutes of reading time. But the important thing is stability, and very VERY few bugs were introduced to the BOOM/MBF code bases by Lee :-> If not for him, a lot of the BOOM limits wouldn't have been removed either, because he treated the project seriously and really put thought into some of the solutions.

Share this post


Link to post

Quasar said:
Of course, its still hard to maintain code that has no "room" for expansion or is too opaque to understand in less than 30 minutes of reading time. But the important thing is stability, and very VERY few bugs were introduced to the BOOM/MBF code bases by Lee :-> If not for him, a lot of the BOOM limits wouldn't have been removed either, because he treated the project seriously and really put thought into some of the solutions. [/B]


I actually meant that comment in a complimentary way. You're right, Lee is responsible for Boom being as stable as it is. Almost all the optimised code has his name on it. We were in touch a lot when he was developing MBF, and almost every new beta came with a huge list of bug fixes from Boom 2.02 and some more still left from the original source.

But as you say, he did overdo it. Some functions were turned from an easy to follow series of lines to a single, near impossible to decipher return statement.

Share this post


Link to post
esayeek said:

how so? and if you are good enough of a coder to judge him, then where are your contributions to society?


Obviously you haven't read some of that code. It's DAMN scary.

If I were just learning C, and I came across some of those, I'd be turned off the language.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now