
-----------------------------------
xXInsanityXx
Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:04 pm

Shell Program
-----------------------------------
Hi this is a program that my friend asked to make so that he could refer to

Plz comment, and yes i know it is redundant, any kind of feedback would be appreciated

-----------------------------------
Jimbo 420
Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:03 am

Didn't work
-----------------------------------
i got an error on line 18 saying the picture was not succesfully created:S

-----------------------------------
upthescale
Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:23 pm


-----------------------------------
ok...

1) Jimbo take the two pics and the code and put it in one folder
2) This shud be in applications not soruce code
3) to ahrd, u shut mak them move slower!

-----------------------------------
TheOneTrueGod
Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:56 pm


-----------------------------------
upthescale, its in the right section.

You need to add some delays and such in order to let us see the shuffling.  Not to mention that I don't think the 'displayed' shuffling matters at all...

The code could be much more efficient.  Things like this

for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 - x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, -50 + x, 50, picCopy)
    end for

    for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 + x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 490 - x, 50, picCopy)
    end for

    for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 - x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, -50 + x, 50, picCopy)
    end for

    for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 + x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 490 - x, 50, picCopy)
    end for

    for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 - x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, -50 + x, 50, picCopy)
    end for

    for x : 1 .. 280 by 20
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 220 + x, 50, picCopy)
        Pic.Draw (pic1, 490 - x, 50, picCopy)
    end for


make me cry...

Its the same thing 3 times, right? so why not just put a "for q : 1..3" around it?

Look around, this isn't the only instance of stuff like this.
