Strategy Game Collaboration

Experimental RTS/Space sim Collaborative Coding Project.
The goal is to design a game with structure/settings/balance of Starcraft and scale of Eve Online(i.e. huge space battles, space empires,etc).
Though this wouldn't stop anyone from contributing code/feedback/criticism, i'll be coordinating the project.
All code/ideas should be posted in this and subsequent threads which i'll start as needed.
step #1: We will collaboratively create a name for our project.
Each suggestion must explain why this name fits the project and why its better then any other generic name.

>>199
#1 naming the project. Unique,non-copyrighted name which sounds good.
::Radiance
#2 choosing a Language/Library platform from which we will code the project.
Currently under review: Choices are Scheme, Haskell, Lisp , C and C++
#3 choosing a common compiler toolkit, so that everyone uses the same version of design software.
#4 Creating or reusing existing engine into a space simulator.
#5 Adding physical effects and game features into simulator, until playable demo (single ship) is working.
#6 Adding player interface and dialog systems.
#7 Adding multimedia assets,character designs and unit textures.
#8 Multiplayer support.
#9 Distributing the alpha/beta via Sourceforge/Megaupload/Rapidshare/etc
#10 polishing the game so it has balance,intuitive interface and free of bugs.



_____________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
You're supposed to be developing verbal abilities for your big aptitude test tomorrow.

Language    Syntax Ease Speed Libs Bugs Total
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Scheme 8           7      7        5      8    :35 Points
#2 Haskell  7           5      9        8      9    :38 Points
#3 Lisp       9.5        9      8        8      8    :42.5 Points
#4 C           5          6     10      10      3    :34 Points
#5 C++      4         6.5    9.5     10      3    :33 Points

Does anyone like to correct these stats?(please provide rationale for correction)

_________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Justice is not revenge - it's deciding for a solution that is oriented towards peace, peace being the harder but more human way of reacting to injury. That is the very basis of the idea of rights.

I think C++'s standard library, including the STL, <string>, and <algorithm>, are worth more than half a point. I also don't see why C++ is supposed to be half a point slower than C. Does the number include compilation time?

>>203
C++ isn't slower than C, but it can end up being slower if OOP is abused too much. It's just simple method call overhead. If C++ is used exactly as C, it would have the same speed.

Language    Syntax Ease Speed Libs Bugs Total
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Scheme 8           7      7        5      8    :35 Points
#2 Haskell  7           5      9        8      9    :38 Points
#3 Lisp       9.5        9      8        8      8    :42.5 Points
#4 C           5          6     10      10      3    :34 Points
#5 C++      4         7      9.7     10      3    :33.7 Points

>>203   "Does the number include compilation time? " No(C++ code with OOP abstractions can lower its performance: plain C code is unaffected).
 Current table: Does anyone like to correct these values?

_____________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
When you can give the right answer, even though your past road was one of death, you open up a new road of life.

>>202
>>205
LISP ALWAYS WINS

>>205
Set Lisp speed to Scheme level. Lisp compilers are not that good.

>>207
Really? Have you tried disassembling a properly optimized routine, with enough declarations. The code can look almost as good as compiled optimized C. There is also a lot of choice of compilers: SBCL, OpenMCL(Clozure - not to be confused with Clojure), Allegro. Here's a large list:
http://www.cliki.net/Common%20Lisp%20implementation

>>205
Haskell and C should have higher ratings for syntax.

And besides that, Scheme has first class continuations, they are very costly to implement, and make compiler design much harder, unless you're willing to compromise speed a bit ( using spaghetti stacks, as opposed to normal stacks).

http://www.mail-archive.com/cl-faq@lispniks.com/msg00041.html

Language should be Lisp only so FV can reach satori and finally put the last ) into /prog/'s sad life

Jesus christ, are you still on about the language? !: This will never be completed.

>>207 I agree with this point.
>>208 "Properly optimized routine" would reduce the ease( of development ) 
>>209 Haskell syntax will be raised by 1(as its power of expression is much higher than C).
 C syntax rating remains the same(using complex syntax in C(e.g. (unsigned char)*func(int **c)) mostly causes trouble).

Language    Syntax Ease Speed Libs Bugs Total
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Scheme 8           7      7        5      8    :35 Points
#2 Haskell  8           5      9        8      9    :39 Points
#3 Lisp       9.5        9      7        8      8    :41.5 Points
#4 C           5          6     10      10      3    :34 Points
#5 C++      4         7      9.7     10      3    :33.7 Points
 


_________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
How do ideas come? What a question! If they come of their own accord, they are apt to arrive at the most unexpected time and place. For the most part the place is out of doors, for up in this northern wilderness when nature puts on a show it is an inspiring one. There seem to be magic days once in a while, with some rare quality of light that hold a body spellbound: In sub-zero weather there will be a burst of unbelievable color when the mountain turns a deep purple, a thing it refuses to do in summer. Then comes the hard part: how to plan a picture so as to give to others what has happened to you. To render in paint an experience, to suggest the sense of light and color, air and space, there is no such thing as sitting down outside and trying to make a “portrait” of it. It lasts for only a minute, for one thing, and it isn’t an inspiration that can be copied on the spot...

>>211
does anyone else find the targeted advertising exceedingly well placed

>>209
A language's rating is inversely proportional to the amount of syntax in it.

>>215 rating reflects ratio of amount of code produced to clarity of expressions.



______________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
What Djisktra thinks of machines that could think is as relevant today as Algol Programmer's Guides

Hmm, i estimated how JavaScript would compare.
Language    Syntax Ease Speed Libs Bugs Total
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Scheme 8           7      7        5      8    :35 Points
#2 Haskell  8           5      9        8      9    :39 Points
#3 Lisp       9.5        9      7        8      8    :41.5 Points
#4 C           5          6     10      10      3    :34 Points
#5 C++      4         7      9.7     10      3    :33.7 Points
#6 JS         7         10     4        3       5     :29 Points (disqualified - interpreted/runtime system)



_____________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion. Next question.

LISP 41.5

WINRAR!

>guy that won't type FV's name
>still posting in the thread

ಠ_ಠ

>>219
I'm just passing by, and thought I'd just point that out, actually.

>>217
(disqualified - interpreted/runtime system)
Aren't there Javascript compilers?  And anyway, we could use it for scripting (if scripting is wanted).

>>221 There no native code compilers; they merely translate it to Java(which is a runtime-based system(JVM)).
Ingame scripting isn't restricted to development language. It could be anything. Of course it will only look like JavaScript/Scheme/etc while being domain specific language.  



________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

>>222
Ingame scripting isn't restricted to development language. It could be anything. Of course it will only look like JavaScript/Scheme/etc while being domain specific language.  
Why would we implement a whole language parser when we could just use something like SpiderMonkey?

>>222
Use Python or Lua as your scripting language.

>>224
Fuck off, ABC is the superior choice

What the hell 225 posts?

How far in development are you?

>>226
We have a name.

Ahh well, I guess I gotta start learning lisp.

>>1-
[b](USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)[/b]

>>226
We're 225 posts in.

A 200+ post thread in 2 days. And how can anyone say FV is bad for /prog/?

>>231
Quantity is not the same as quality. Spam is spam is spam is spam is spam.

WE MUST PETITION FV TO BE UNBANNED!

I can't believe we are still talking about this. What language are 99.99999% of commercial games written in? Well there's your answer.

If you really think using Scheme will cut down on your development time while allowing you to make a high quality game, don't you think fucking SOMEONE out there who writes games for a living would have thought of that? Don't you think SOMEONE would have written a game in Scheme already and made a million bucks? Thinking you're smarter than the hundreds of thousands of people out there who do this for a living instead of taking their advice is a guaranteed route to failure.

I can't believe you think Scheme is fast because it compiles to C code. All its doing is baking the runtime into the code. You can't even make a fucking struct in Scheme; either you only use vectors (which makes unreadable code), or you simulate it with a named list, meaning every fucking variable access is a tree search or hashtable lookup.

I can't believe you give these functional languages greater than 0/10 on your speed list. We are talking orders of magnitude here. If a game runs at 2 FPS in Lisp, it will run at >200 FPS in C++. This is not an exaggeration. This is the real deal. You need to take a serious look at some language benchmarks.

The only serious 3D game I know of of that was written with a Lisp dialect is Crash Bandicoot, and guess what? They had to write the entire game engine in C++ anyway to be able to actually draw 3D graphics in realtime, and they constantly ran into memory problems throughout the project (because garbage collection and functional languages in particular hog *insane* amounts of memory). The only reason they did is because the lead developer was eccentric; he made an uninformed language decision to his own personal desires for which the company suffered, and that's why it was phased out in the sequels and dropped when the company was acquired.

All this being said, I still say you should write the game in Python. You have not given one single valid reason why you wouldn't use it. You will get extremely rapid development cycle this way, and because it integrates so nicely with C, you can just replace bits of code with native C as things get slow. You will get many more people willing to participate this way because the project will be a) playable in months rather than years, and b) actually fun to code. And guess what else: Python is almost as fast as Scheme! (but still a thousand times slower than C++).

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&d=data&gpp=on&sbcl=on&mzscheme=on&python=on&calc=calculate&box=1

>>234
Thinking you're smarter than the hundreds of thousands of people out there who do this for a living instead of taking their advice is a guaranteed route to failure.
Right. From what I hear, the games industry is horrible to work in. Who's the smart one now?

Also, you need to take into account that A-list games programming is dominated by exactly the kind of programmer who would use C and convince themselves it was good. By this point, you don't even need that guy, because management has fallen into the same fallacy that you have (“If everybody does it, it must be great.”). Meanwhile, in the real world where people actually play games: ActionScript. Nintendo emulators. Board games.

>>234

Do you realize optimized LISP can be just as fast as C. And Scheme != LISP. Scheme, however, can be quite fast too.
Just look at the link you posted:
(median)
GNU C++: 1.00
Lisp SBCL: 3.83
Scheme PLT: 17.21
Python: 50.34
So, on average,  according to the tests given, Python is 50 times slower, and SBCL is 4 times as slower than C. How can you say
If a game runs at 2 FPS in Lisp, it will run at >200 FPS in C++.
is beyond me.
If something truly needs speed, you can drop in and write C code too, nothing forbids you from doing this. There are excellent FFI interface for Lisp.

You will get extremely rapid development cycle this way, and because it integrates so nicely with C, you can just replace bits of code with native C as things get slow.

And there's no condition here that Lisp doesn't satisfy. You can use ECL, if you want to write inline C code while coding in Lisp, it's a possibly too. Or you could just interface with a c written library if you use SBCL.
a) playable in months rather than years, and b) actually fun to code.
a) Prototyping is very fast in LISP, and I wouldn't say it's slower than python, maybe even faster due to the macro facilities.
b) I haven't seen a language more comfortable to code than CL.

I thus conclude that you are either a troll, or haven't done any real research on CL and just dismissed it based on stupid reasons such as hating the parens or hating functional style , which is not true for LISP, as it's a multi-paradigm language: If you want to write C-like code in lisp, you can do it fully, it will be efficient, may look ugly and inelegant, just like how it would look in C. I repeat: nothing forces you to write in a functional style, use all the loops and classes and objects and whatever else you might want.

wow, 236 posts and we haven't even decided on what programming language to use.  Least the /prog/ RTS had more progress then this garbage.

>>236
It's like Erik Naggum said, “If you can't write Lisp faster than C, you're too good at C.”

>>234
Finally someone who agrees with me. I have no idea why everyone is constantly sucking functional programming's dick. Scheme is a good traditional learning tool, but that's about it.

>>236
Don't just look at the median, look at the hard data. Lisp is 1-3 times C++ in half the tests, but in the rest it's an order of magnitude slower. You are likely to implement algorithms similar to many of these examples in a video game, so a median is not terribly useful now is it? These examples are also extremely generous to Lisp, as the performance bottleneck in modern games is always memory; the bandwidth to the video card, and the bandwidth from cache to ram. Lisp's performance is far, far worse under this scenario because it's a tremendous memory hog.

I actually really like the parens in lisp, and I really like functional programming. But remember what we're trying to build here: a video game. Lisp is just not a good idea for that.