----------------------------------- wtd Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:57 pm Programming tasks for a slow afternoon ----------------------------------- Ever had one of those days that just crawls by? You're bored to tears with no idea what to do? Well, share with us the programming-related tasks you've come up with for yourself to fill these times. ----------------------------------- Mr. T Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:36 pm Alex's Opinion ----------------------------------- Re-learn Turing after a long hiatus. :roll: Although I'll probably get ragged on for doing so. :( ----------------------------------- wtd Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:38 pm ----------------------------------- Nawww... just make sure you follow it up with something else. Variety is the spice of life and all. :) VB and Turing do not count as different. ;-) ----------------------------------- Cervantes Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:11 pm ----------------------------------- Just recently I spent a bit of time working the engine for air craft (triplane, specifically ;)) movement, in 2D as seen from the side (not top-down). ----------------------------------- Martin Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:05 pm ----------------------------------- I've started getting back into C after realizing just how slow Ruby is for contest problems (yeah yeah, 1.9'll be better). And OpenGL. Mmmm, triangles. ----------------------------------- Mazer Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:34 pm ----------------------------------- Just recently I spent a bit of time working the engine for air craft (triplane, specifically ;)) movement, in 2D as seen from the side (not top-down). :? ----------------------------------- Mr. T Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:12 pm Alex's Opinion ----------------------------------- Nawww... just make sure you follow it up with something else. Variety is the spice of life and all. :) I don't plan on doing so any time soon, though. :roll: ----------------------------------- md Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:45 pm ----------------------------------- I worked all afternoon... you people should get jobs! ;) I usually work on a game/sim project I've had for a while; C++/OpenGL or maybe a software renderer... not sure yet. ----------------------------------- wtd Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:47 pm ----------------------------------- I've started getting back into C after realizing just how slow Ruby is for contest problems (yeah yeah, 1.9'll be better). And OpenGL. Mmmm, triangles. O'Caml, SML, and Scheme (via the various aggressively optimizing compilers like Stalin) will all give you really fast executables, and provide a higher level environment that C. :) ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:27 am ----------------------------------- I've started getting back into C after realizing just how slow Ruby is for contest problems (yeah yeah, 1.9'll be better). And OpenGL. Mmmm, triangles. O'Caml, SML, and Scheme (via the various aggressively optimizing compilers like Stalin) will all give you really fast executables, and provide a higher level environment that C. :) But I like C. Call me a control freak, but the thing I liked the least about Ruby is how it's almost too easy to do a lot of things. I'd prefer things to be broken down into three steps than being just one, if only to see what's really happening. ----------------------------------- Bobrobyn Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:30 am ----------------------------------- On the weekend I went back and fixed some bugs and added music into my ol' frogger game...but that really wasn't much, I was just extremly bored. There's only one more bug to fix, fortunatly. That'll be for another day when I'm bored, hehe. ----------------------------------- codemage Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:37 am ----------------------------------- If it's a really dead day with nothing to do, I check freelance advertisements and see if there's any quick mercenary work available. Polish skills & learn new ones & a few bucks on the side. If it weren't for the alarming and increasing number of Indian, Chinese & Slovakian programmers out there, it'd be more than a few bucks, too. ----------------------------------- rizzix Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:13 pm ----------------------------------- But I like C. Call me a control freak, but the thing I liked the least about Ruby is how it's almost too easy to do a lot of things. I'd prefer things to be broken down into three steps than being just one, if only to see what's really happening. I don't think you have the right mindset when using Ruby... =/ ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:46 pm ----------------------------------- I've started getting back into C after realizing just how slow Ruby is for contest problems (yeah yeah, 1.9'll be better). And OpenGL. Mmmm, triangles. O'Caml, SML, and Scheme (via the various aggressively optimizing compilers like Stalin) will all give you really fast executables, and provide a higher level environment that C. :) But I like C. Call me a control freak, but the thing I liked the least about Ruby is how it's almost too easy to do a lot of things. I'd prefer things to be broken down into three steps than being just one, if only to see what's really happening. Perhaps on a slow afternoon you could learn to use the Ruby C API? Best of both worlds. :) ----------------------------------- Clayton Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:54 pm ----------------------------------- i work on learning and expanding my skills (right now working on *gulp* OOT) to get me through the day :D ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:07 pm ----------------------------------- right now working on *gulp* OOT Though this statement is probably correct, I'm not sure you meant it that way... In any case, let me correct you. ;) OOT refers to Object Oriented Turing, while the actual concept of creating classes, objects, etc is called Object Oriented Programming (OOP). On a boring day... I used to make Turing games which I played for 30 seconds and then threw them into a folder containing oh so many pointless Turing games. Nowadays, it's either that or else reading the two programming books I own (C and Java) or else testing out random 'features' of Ruby, C, C++, Java, and some other stuff. Oh, and when I'm really bored, I try to make random stuff like so look as good as possible: var z : real setscreen ("graphics:max;max") for x : 1 .. maxx for y : 1 .. maxy z := cosd (((x ** 2) + 2 * (y ** 2)) / 4) Draw.Dot (x, y, RGB.AddColour (1 - z, 1 - z, 1 - z)) end for end for :wall: ----------------------------------- GlobeTrotter Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:55 pm ----------------------------------- A modification: var z : real setscreen ("offscreenonly") for j : 100 .. 160 by 5 for x : 1 .. 360 by 1 for y : 1 .. 360 by 1 z := cosd ((((x ** (j / 100)) + (y ** (j / 100))) ** (j / 100))) %z := cosd (((x ** 2) + (y ** 2))) Draw.Dot (x, y, RGB.AddColour (1 - z, 1 - z, 1 - z)) end for end for View.Update end for ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:18 pm ----------------------------------- "]var z : real setscreen ("graphics:max;max") for x : 1 .. maxx for y : 1 .. maxy z := cosd (((x ** 2) + 2 * (y ** 2)) / 4) Draw.Dot (x, y, RGB.AddColour (1 - z, 1 - z, 1 - z)) end for end for :wall: Does Turing support local scoping? Such that z could be local to the inner loop? ----------------------------------- rizzix Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:54 pm ----------------------------------- yes ----------------------------------- _justin_ Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:55 pm ----------------------------------- A modification: var z : real setscreen ("offscreenonly") for j : 100 .. 160 by 5 for x : 1 .. 360 by 1 for y : 1 .. 360 by 1 z := cosd ((((x ** (j / 100)) + (y ** (j / 100))) ** (j / 100))) %z := cosd (((x ** 2) + (y ** 2))) Draw.Dot (x, y, RGB.AddColour (1 - z, 1 - z, 1 - z)) end for end for View.Update end for ahah thats pretty cool good mod 8-) ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:56 pm ----------------------------------- yes Ok, so why does it seem that no one does this? ----------------------------------- Andy Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:01 pm ----------------------------------- because new programmers do not see the need for memory efficiency ----------------------------------- Clayton Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:14 pm ----------------------------------- @Gandalf: i meant i was working on OOP in Turing; affectionately known as OOT :D (very creative name eh?) ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:03 pm ----------------------------------- Does Turing support local scoping? Such that z could be local to the inner loop? Indeed it does. I do this in basically all code blocks other than loops (unless they iterate only a few times in which case in my mind the advantages outweigh the disadvantages). The reason being, doesn't redeclaring and initializing take longer (I'm trying to be careful with my use of the terms 'resources' and 'efficiency' here) than just initializing? This is what I based my decision off of. ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:38 pm ----------------------------------- No, it's a very easy compiler optimization to do to make it just as fast. What is slow though is new, which you should use as little as possible. Instead, give your objects that are going to be created and destroyed a lot a 'visible flag' instead of freeing and creating them. (I'll post an example in a few minutes) ----------------------------------- wtd Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:19 pm ----------------------------------- No, it's a very easy compiler optimization to do to make it just as fast. You beat me to it. Essentially. Turing is a highly static language. It knows at compile-time what variables there are and what kind. If it doesn't take advantage of that knowledge.. then that's Turing's fault. Lot of other languages take advantage of this. ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:25 pm ----------------------------------- Basically, when writing a program your goal should be to have as few unused variables as possible. var j := 6 for i: 1 .. 10 var x := i * j put x end for some_proc(j) ... Is good, because x is declared as deeply as possible. If you want to reuse x, you can just declare it again somewhere underneath the ellipses. If your code starts to get long, it'll make it so you don't have to remember what unused variables you've declared. The cost of doing this is going to be the same as declaring it anywhere else. With pointers, however, you have to be careful. var x : array 1 .. 10 of pointer to my_class for i: 1 .. 10 x(i) := new my_class(i) end for ... Is okay, but if you do this, you have to watch out for i: 1 .. 10 var x : pointer to my_class x := new my_class(i) end for Memory leak! The previous value of x is forgotten about, a new one is created and the old one is left floating around in memory never to be found again. Also, instead of freeing variables that are going to be created again, flag them as dead. Suppose that particle2d represents a 2d particle. %Do the particle code var particles : array 1 .. 10 of particle2d for i: 1 .. 10 particles(i) = new particle2d(100,100) end for loop for i: 1 .. 10 if particles(i) = null then particles(i) := new particle2d(100,100) %reset it end if particles(i).update_position %move the particle one frame (based on gravity) if particles(i).is_outside_valid_area then free particles(i) particles(i) := null end if end for end loop This will run a lot slower than the following: %Do the particle code var particles : array 1 .. 10 of particle2d for i: 1 .. 10 particles(i) = new particle2d(100,100) end for loop for i: 1 .. 10 if particles(i).is_dead then particles(i).move_to(100,100) % move it, and mark it as alive end if particles(i).update_position %move the particle one frame (based on gravity) if particles(i).is_outside_valid_area then particles(i).kill %mark the particle as dead end if end for end loop Yar!