• mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Roller coaster Tycoon is one of a lifetime game.

    Now everything is electron or react shit. Gone are the times of downloading fully featured software under 10mb.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I don’t think old=good is a good mentality though, lot of people seem to have it

      All the old software I know and use is exceptionally good, however I’ve heard about and chosen to use it because it’s survived the test of time (also because it’s still actively maintained and has had thousands of bug fixes over the years)

      Vscode and obsidian are pretty good and they’re electron, discord’s alright, pretty sure steam uses some kind of web wrapper as well.

      Real issue is electron is very accessible to inexperienced developers and easy to do badly, but I imagine people back in the old Unix days got an equal amount of shit bloated software

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Survivor bias is a thing and part of the reason people are nostalgic for old media.

        • Lennny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          For every There Will Be Blood, there exists an Alien vs Predator: Requiem

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I mean avp requiem is a cult classic because it’s so bad so maybe not a good example. You need a movie that is immediately forgettable which is difficult because I forgot their names…

      • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Discord is garbage software lmao. Has been from the beginning. I can’t stand using it.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          And I had to stop using vscode because of its ridiculous resource usage. I got tired of it filling up my home dir and just went back to vim.

          An intern was using it, but I saw that he had set it up to run locally and connect to the ETX we were using and figured he had found a way to avoid that. Nope, turns out it runs a server on the ETX that also likes to fill up the home dir and he also just uses vim now.

        • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Seconded. The only reason I have it installed is because my buddy refuses to answer his cell while we play games.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not saying it’s phenomenal but it’s generally pretty well featured, running in a browser it’s not that heavy resource wise and the API/developer features are very good

      • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        A fucking calculator needs megabytes to run? And I’m not talking about a full fledged graphic scientific calculator. I’m talking about a basic one.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Gnome calculator uses 103m, it’s loading style sheets for themes, UI libraries that make it look nice and modern, scientific calculator features, keyboard shortcuts, nice graphical settings menu, touch screen and screen reader support etc

          I don’t think in this day and age for all the niceties people are used to that’s unreasonable.

          Also other calculators are available, some are bloated but I’m sure there’s a rust or C one out there somewhere that uses a fraction of that with the bare minimum feature set

      • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Old=good is a great mentality specifically when standing the test of time is an important factor. For the most part, the old code that’s still used today is only still used because it’s proven good, whereas it’s a grab bag with newer code. And that’s the cause of the unwarranted nostalgia thay you’re rightfully criticising.

        It’s like with music. “Oh, the X’s were the best decade for music, today’s music is garbage”. No, 90% of everything is crud but unless you’re an enthusiast, once enough time has passed, you’ll only ever be exposed to the 10% that isn’t. 50 years from now nobody is going to be listening to Cardi B.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I listen to music on a new music radio station - the good new music really stands out

          Most people just like the (better bits of) stuff they listened to when they were young

          • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That isn’t the whole picture. I was born in 1988. The sampling of music from the 70’s that I’ve been exposed to is completely different to the sampling of music from the same period that someone born in '58 was exposed to in their lifetime. They got to listen to a bunch of bad stuff (and probably some great stuff) that I don’t even know exists.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Probably not as optimized though.

        RCT could run on a toaster from the 90’s (ok, maybe early 2000’s) and looked amazing for the time.

        OpenRCT can run on a toaster from the 2010’s and looks great because of the timeless art style of the original.

        It’s still an incredible feat, though!

        • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are very unlikely to write assembly that is more optimized than what a modern compiler could produce for anything longer than a trivial program. I don’t know if it made sense at the time of the original RCT, but OpenRCT would definitely not benefit from being written in assembly.

          • jas0n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I feel like that’s only true if I was asked to “write the assembly for this c++ program.” If I’m actually implementing something big in assembly, I’m not going to do 90% of the craziness someone might be tempted to do in c++. Something that is super easy in c++ doesn’t mean it’s easy for the CPU. Writing assembly, I’m going to do what’s easy for the CPU (and efficient) because, now, I’m in the same domain.

            The bottom line is cranking up the optimization level can get you a 2-5x win. Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.

            • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.

              Yes, it can. But why is this exclusive to assembly? What are you planning to do with your memory use in assembly that is not achievable in C++ or other languages? Memory optimizations are largely about data structures and access patterns. This is available to you in C++.

              Also, if you don’t want 90% of the craziness of C++ then why not just code in C++ without 90% of the craziness? As far as I know what’s what a lot of performance-critical projects do. They operate with a feature whitelist/blacklist. Don’t tell me you have the discipline to work entirely in assembly and the knowledge to beat the compiler at the low level stuff that is not available to you in C++ but you can’t manage avoiding the costly abstractions.

              I think it speaks volumes how rarely you hear about programs being programmed in assembly. It’s always this one game and never any meaningful way to prove that it would gain performance by not being written in C++ when using a modern compiler.

              • jas0n@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I shouldn’t have used C++ as the example. Even C would work. I agree with everything you’re saying, but the original premise. I think if you put ASM vs C, C++, rust, etc, performance would fall near 50/50.

                I’m not the best assembly guy, and I’m not advocating we all write it. But I always felt that the compiler optimization assumption was wrong or weak. Everything would be aligned nicely for my sanity, not performance =]

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fun quote from an interview with Chris Sawyer:

      Latterly the machine code came back to haunt us when the decision was made to re-launch the original game on mobile platforms as RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic a few years ago, and it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.

        • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          #include <iostream> // because writing to the console is not included by default.
          int main()
          {
          std::cout << "C++ is simple and fun ... you cretin\n";
          return 0;
          }

          I had a machine language course in uni, parallel with a C++ course. Not a fun semester to be my wife, or a relative of any of my classmates. Best case our brains were in C++ mode, worst case you needed an assembler to understand us.

          And yes I know my code format will piss people off, I don’t care, it’s the way I write when other less informed people don’t force me to conform to their BS “Teh oPeNiNg bracket shouwd bwee on teh sam line ass teh declawation

          Edit: added a \n for the sake of pedantry :)

  • lugal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t know if everyone gets the reference: RollerCoaster Tycoon is in fact writing mostly in assembly to use the hardware more efficiently

      • Faresh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Writing it in assembly would make it pretty much the opposite of portable (not accounting for emulation), since you are directly giving instructions to a specific hardware and OS.

          • __dev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s no less true than games written in C, or otherwise with few dependencies. Doom is way more portable than RCT precisely because it’s written in C instead of assembly.

          • Faresh@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            you’re not usually directly accessing/working on the hardware

            I mean, you are. Sure, there’s a layer of abstraction when doing tasks that require the intervention of the kernel, but you are still dealing with cpu registers and stuff like that. Merely by writing in assembly you are making your software less portable because you are writing for a specific ISA that only a certain family of processors can read, and talking with the kernel through an API or ABI that is specific to the kernel (standards like Posix mitigate the latter part somewhat, but some systems (windows) aren’t Posix compilant).

          • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            We created the world of monorail 1. Everything exists to bring more people to monorail 1. What is monorail 1? It is a 4 car monorail that takes the shortest possible path back to the start of the station. We have several other attractions at the park such as: The Pit; Memento Mori; Install CSS, but none of them are the main attraction.

  • einlander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago
    • Programming was never meant to be abstract so far from the hardware.
    • 640k is enough ram for everybody.
    • The come with names like rust, typescript, go, and python. Names thought up by imbeciles.
    • Dev environments, environmental variables, build and make scripts, and macros, from the minds of the utter deranged.

    They have played us for fools

    • mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I dabbled with making a fairly complex program for a microcontroller the other day and quickly hit the stack limit for a simple object.

      It wasn’t so much that it was a large object, but to provide flexibility I was amazed how fast I filled the memory.

      I’ve done heaps with memory managed languages in the past but shit as soon as I had to think about what I was doing under the hood everything got hard af.

      So serious question - does anyone have any good resources for a competent programmer, but with no clue whatsoever how to manage memory in a microcontroller space and avoid fragmentation etc?

      I got it to work but I’m sure I did shit job and want to be better at it.

      • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        The best book I’ve ever bought on programming, and the second best book I bought for a class in uni, was https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1824214 it may be worth checking out on libgen and buy if it suits your needs.

        Whenever I do low-level programming on the AVR architecture, I’ll make a memory map. As in I’ll map out where I’ll put what. It may not be suitable for more complex programs, but it does the job for me. And it has enabled teamwork in assembly in the past.

        If you want to work in a language that doesn’t offer memory management, but manually mapping memory isn’t feasible either, how about building your own memory management? Or perhaps use an RTOS? I’ve used freeRTOS before on various arm-based micros, and it does take a bit to get started, but after that it’s easy sailing.

        Sorry for the following tangent, all semi intelligent content in this comment is found above this line.
        BTW I tried CoOS once, I wouldn’t recommend it… OK it was 12 years ago, I can’t remember exactly what was wrong other than the documentation was crap, but I don’t need to remember why to hold a grudge.

    • CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Adobe promised that Lingo was the future of ‘PC and internet gaming’

      Luckily by the time I had to learn to write that garbage I already coded in several other languages. Made it easier, but somehow more painful. I’m pretty sure that shit was designed so that executives could look at the code and pretend they understood what was going on. At least with ‘common terms’ it eliminated the need for commenting out most of the time. One line of code would take a paragraph of text lol.

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Your game will actually likely be more efficient if written in C. The gcc compiler has become ridiculously optimized and probably knows more tricks than you do.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      Especially these days. Current-gen x86 architecture has all kinds of insane optimizations and special instruction sets that the Pentium I never had (e.g. SSE). You really do need a higher-level compiler at your back to make the most of it these days. And even then, there are cases where you have to resort to inline ASM or processor-specific intrinsics to optimize to the level that Roller Coaster Tycoon is/was. (original system specs)

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you’re writing sloppy C code your assembly code probably won’t work either

          • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I recently came across a rust book on how pointers aren’t just ints, because of UB.

            fn main() {
                a = &1
                b = &2
                a++
                if a == b {
                    *a = 3
                    print(b)
                }
            }
            

            This may either: not print anything, print 3 or print 2.

            Depending on the compiler, since b isn’t changed at all, it might optimize the print for print(2) instead of print(b). Even though everyone can agree that it should either not print anything or 3, but never 2.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            A compiler making assumptions like that about undefined behaviour sounds just like a bug. Maybe the bug is in the spec rather than the compiler, but I can’t think of any time it would be better to optimize that code out entirely because UB is detected rather than just throwing an error or warning and otherwise ignoring the edge cases where the behaviour might break. It sounds like the worst possible option exactly for the reasons listed in that blog.

            • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              The thing about UB is that many optimizations are possible precisely because the spec specified it as UB. And the spec did so in order to make these optimizations possible.

              Codebases are not 6 lines long, they are hundreds of thousands. Without optimizations like those, many CPU cycles would be lost to unnecessary code being executed.

              If you write C/C++, it is because you either hate yourself or the application’s performance is important, and these optimizations are needed.

              The reason rust is so impressive nowadays is that you can write high performing code without risking accidentally doing UB. And if you are going to write code that might result in UB, you have to explicitly state so with unsafe. But for C/C++, there’s no saving. If you want your compiler to optimize code in those languages, you are going to have loaded guns pointing at your feet all the time.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    try writing it it in Assembly

    Small error, game crashes and takes whole PC with it burning a hole in the ground.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It was really easy to crash an Apple II game and get into the assembler. And my goodness am I glad I didn’t destroy my computer as a kid randomly typing things in to see what would happen.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Remember old Apple, had to use them when learning to program, there were 2 types, one with the OS on a diskette, one with a small hard drive, and they randomly showed a large bomb in the middle of the screen and you had to reload the OS. Probably the compuler that broke everything.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Step 1: Begin writing in Assembly

    Step 2: Write C

    Step 3: Use C to write C#

    Step 4: Implement Unity

    Step 5: Write your game

    Step 6: ???

    Step 7: Profit

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      2 months ago

      The game Roller Coaster Tycoon was famously hand written in raw CPU instructions (called assembly language). It’s only one step removed from writing literal ones and zeros. Normally computers are programmed using a human-friendly language which is then “compiled” into CPU instructions so that the humans don’t have to deal with the tedium and complication of writing CPU instructions.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        To further emphasize this, I had an assembly course in university. During my first lab, the instructor told us to add a comment explaining what every line of assembly code did, because if we didn’t, we would forget what we wrote.

        I listened to his advice, but one day I was in a rush, so I didn’t leave comments. I swear, I looked away from the computer for like 2 minutes, looked back, and had no idea what I wrote. I basically had to redo my work.

        It is not that much better than reading 1s and 0s. In fact in that course, we spent a lot of time converting 1s and 0s (by hand) to assembly and back. Got pretty good at it, would never even think of writing a game. I would literally rather create my own compiler and programming language than write a game in assembly.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m probably completely insane and deranged, but I actually like assembly. With decent reverse engineering software like Ghidra, it’s not terribly difficult to understand the intent and operation of isolated functions.

          Mnemonics for the amd64 AVX extensions can go the fuck right off a bridge, though. VCVTTPS2UQQ might as well be my hands rolling across a keyboard, not a truncated conversation from packed single precision floats into packed unsigned quadword integers.

          • emergencybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            I had a course in uni that taught us assembler on z/os. My advisor told me most students fail the course on the first try because it was so tough and my Prof for that course said if any of us managed to get at least a B in the course, he’d write us a rec letter for graduate school. That course was the most difficult and most fun I’ve ever had. I learned how to properly use registers to store my values for calculations, I learned how to use subroutines. Earned myself that B and went on to take the follow up course which was COBOL. You’re not crazy, I yearn to go back to doing low level programming, I’m mostly doing ruby for my job but I think my heart never left assembler hahaha

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Ah yes, there was this guy in our tech school class that used to code golf in assembly. Was a crack in math and analytics too, which might explain it somewhat. Well, everyone is different i guess.

        • ericbomb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          To send the point home even more, this is how in python you make a line of text display:

          print("Hello World")

          This is the same thing, in assembly (According to a blog I found. I can’t read this. I am not build better.)

            org  0x100        ; .com files always start 256 bytes into the segment
          
              ; int 21h is going to want...
          
              mov  dx, msg      ; the address of or message in dx
              mov  ah, 9        ; ah=9 - "print string" sub-function
              int  0x21         ; call dos services
          
              mov  ah, 0x4c     ; "terminate program" sub-function
              int  0x21         ; call dos services
          
              msg  db 'Hello, World!', 0x0d, 0x0a, '$'   ; $-terminated message
          

          But python turns that cute little line up top, into that mess at the bottom.

          I like python. Python is cute. Anyone can read python.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            That assembly is for a DOS application. It would be more verbose for a modern Linux or Win32 application and probably require a linker script.

            But python turns that cute little line up top, into that mess at the bottom.

            Technically, not quite. Python is interpreted, so it’s more like “call the print function with this string parameter” gets fed into another program, which calls it’s own functions to make it happen.

            • ericbomb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah over simplifying it a bit, and that’s funny that the stupid thing I found wasn’t even stupid enough.

              But was mostly trying to impart that we should be happy for modern languages, because for every line you write in a modern language, it’ll do a dozen things on the back end for you that in assembly you’d need to do by hand.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    Shifts bit to the left

    Um what am I doing

    Shifts bit to the right

    program crashes

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I wanna see someone make a GPU accelerated game in assembly.

    Just throw the Vulkan and DX12 C APIs in the garbage and do it all yourself lol.