71–80 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah I didn't think that at all, it was clear from the way you said "minimal commenting". I just have an axe to grind when it comes to comments of the form // assign the integer value 10 to the variable x x = 10
What's really annoying is that most of the time you see this kind of comment there is no explanation why 10 was chosen.
To me, the lesson is: Do not duplicate code! and keep it simple stupid When implementing Unicode, MS said "hey let's copy all of our API functions to new names". Now they have two problems. When implementing 64-bit, MS said "hey let's have a completely different OS for 64-bit." Now they have four problems. Compare this to Unix/Linux/MacOS where Unicode is just implemented as a standard way (UTF-8) of encoding charact…
Windows unicode support predates the existence of UTF-8 -- so that's great API design for Windows if you possess a time machine. The ANSI functions merely map to the unicode functions. In addition, the Windows Kernel is probably similar in API size to the Linux kernel. Of course, that's not nearly enough API for a complete Windowing operating system in either case.
This is an excellent example of why comments in code are so very useful, helpful and in my opinion, necessary. ... nobody at Microsoft ever understood how the code worked (much less still understood it), and that most of the code was completely uncommented, we simply couldn't figure out why the collision detector was not working. Heck, we couldn't even find the collision detector! To all those folks out there who kee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS implemented NT, which only worked in Unicode. They had to add a compatibility layer to run Ansi apps. Which is MS's separate OS for 64-bit? OS APIs are distinct from kernel APIs. You're comparing a kernel (Linux) with a distribution (Windows).
Which is MS's separate OS for 64-bit? I believe you'll find it to be Windows 64-bit Edition. A quick googling suggests that Windows 7 retail copies have both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, but I'm guessing you still have to pick the right edition when you go to install it. And if you don't have a retail disc, then you probably only got one of the two architectures. Compare this with Mac OS X, where there is no "32-bit e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows unicode support predates the existence of UTF-8 -- so that's great API design for Windows if you possess a time machine. The ANSI functions merely map to the unicode functions. In addition, the Windows Kernel is probably similar in API size to the Linux kernel. Of course, that's not nearly enough API for a complete Windowing operating system in either case.
The point is both Unix and Windows faced the exact same problem: needing to support larger characters. MS thought little and unleashed their army of coders to do something foolish. The Unix guys thought hard and did something elegant and sensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take the argument a step further: Microsoft "should" have required the 3rd party to provide the code under an open-source license.
Open source wasn't exactly a huge priority for Microsoft in 1995 when the application came into existence. In fact I think it's a testament to their backwards compatibility that pinball survived for as long as it did with little or no maintenance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you are not just trolling, please elaborate.
Elaborate on what? It seems rather obvious that a popular game with a minor bug rendering it unplayable would have that bug fixed by someone for free if it was open source. Or do you want me to elaborate on why it's too bad? Well, pinball is the best game that was ever included with Windows, so it's unfortunate that it's not still there.
Second, the whole code base was one big, nasty, uncommented mud-ball. From the article: "... we simply couldn't figure out why the collision detector was not working. Heck, we couldn't even find the collision detector!"
I was genuinely curious to hear how you think sprinkling fairy dust open source on top of the mess is going to magically fix the issue. I am not talking about reimplementing the whole thing from scratch (which nobody is prohibiting you by the way). I am asking about the value added to the community to fix this particular piece of crap.
But, based on your response, I am going to risk even more karma and chalk it up to trolling. You did not address my question, and don't even look like having read the article or understood the issue. So... have fun!
The best part of this article is in the comments. An original programmer on the game explains the reason that the bug was occurring and also why the code was unreadable (hint: they did it in assembly) Ah, the quantum tunneling pinball! We ran into this while writing the original code at Cinematronics in 1994. Since the ball motion, physics, and coordinates were all in floating point, and the ball is constantly being…
Maybe the reason the Brownian motion stopped working was a shift from 80-bit x87 intermediaries to 64-bit SSE in x64, and the removal of long double support from MSVC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS implemented NT, which only worked in Unicode. They had to add a compatibility layer to run Ansi apps. Which is MS's separate OS for 64-bit? OS APIs are distinct from kernel APIs. You're comparing a kernel (Linux) with a distribution (Windows).
Which is MS's separate OS for 64-bit? I believe you'll find it to be Windows 64-bit Edition. A quick googling suggests that Windows 7 retail copies have both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, but I'm guessing you still have to pick the right edition when you go to install it. And if you don't have a retail disc, then you probably only got one of the two architectures. Compare this with Mac OS X, where there is no "32-bit e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's really annoying is that most of the time you see this kind of comment there is no explanation why 10 was chosen.
And that's what comments really need to do: tell 'why.'