Today, everything st33d tries, breaks.

 

You should try a world record!

Hahaha! Fukk'n saved!

Ok, so I'm leaning towards SFML, SDL and Allegro... Looks like I'm seeing equal recommendation for each...Now I have to knock it down to 1 choice... Please if you have any further comments/bad experiences/good experiences with SDL, SFML and Allegro let me know so I can make up my mind  

Don't ever use SDL drawing operations. If you are going to use SDL, use it with OpenGL (which most definitely is not always the simplest).

The thing is, that SFML is the only true C++ library of these. The other two are C libraries.
SFML would be good practice on using classes and OOP, if you still have a need for that.

Otherwise, it's just a very nice structure.

Learn how to code! This has to be made! It's ridiculously cute.

SFML.

Portable, uses OpenGL and is free and open-source.
It allows you to easily scale, rotate and blend graphics, and has a built-in view system.
It's object-oriented and very easy to use. It even has support for custom shaders written in GLSL.
It also plays sound and provides threads.
Oh, and networking.

Some nice stuff above. This is what I knocked up today:



About 3 hours of work.

So you have even less to justify your attitude than I had originally thought.

I'll just consider myself trolled and go on with my day...

I still consider Linux the ultimate programming environment (and Mac comes close, sharing so many similarities thanks to their common UNIX base, so that's why I have no problem using it almost exclusively; but I have two computers, and one runs Linux and one is a Mac).

I do run everything as user in Windows, and run as... when installing, or run as... a terminal to do admin command line stuff (in a second admin account, I almost never touch the default admin account).

Also the first thing I do when getting a new computer is disable/delete all the anti-spyware/virus stuff.

Rarely there are programs that insist on writing to their install directories. If that's the case I put them in the user account (i.e. not Program Files or whatever). If that doesn't work I usually don't use them.

After ten or so years of this I had my first malware problem a couple of days ago, I think from a movie download. It was simple to remove from the user account, but still pretty annoying.

It's not like you can complain, downloading the movie illegally.

..not available for Linux?
This is excrement of a male cow.

I despise the typical Linux fanboy's insecurity and holier-than-thou attitude--I really do.

Hey, have you considered that perhaps they just released this and don't have any Linux developers on their team? Perhaps you should go do something more useful than ripping on free, open source software for daring to not support your OS of choice right off the bat. Maybe you could, I don't know, actually contribute and help make a Linux port?

I actually use Mac a lot more than Linux.

Made to enhance C++ creativity and not available for Linux?
This is excrement of a male cow.

Don't use different objects.
Use one object and different sprites.

LLVM is quite easy to use.  They have support for both JIT and static compilation.  And if your looking for an easy to use parser, check out the Spirit parser (comes with boost).  Its not as fast as say Lex and Yacc (or flex and bison if you prefer), but its a lot easier to use.

I do have Boost installed (even though I have not checked if I've gotten it working yet, since I haven't needed it), so I guess that's also worth having a look at.

Coming up with new concepts for my programming language makes me happy.
It brings me joy to know that I have created the best programming language of all time.

Too bad there probably never will be a compiler for it.

Write a compiler for it I've done it, once (well, technically it was an interpreted language, and what got written was an interpreter), but it's a brilliantly fun and educational way to waste time. Hell, if it IS the best programming language of all time, a compiler, even if it's a crappy one, might start people using the language and writing other compilers for it. You sort of need a reference implementation for it to be a real language, though.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to try to make a compiler at least for the basic stuff to begin with, like variables and the main function and a way to write to the console.

I really have no idea where to start, though. My knowledge of Assembly, hexadecimal and binary and stuff like that is less than limited; it's not even that.

You don't need assembly at all.  Outputting a language like C, and then running that through a C compiler is a perfectly valid option, and many compilers do this.

Well, I've thought of that too.

What I meant by expressing myself in such a way, saying that the user wouldn't even have to know that I've been using SDL, was that it shouldn't be more work than necessary for the user to install the library; (s)he should be able to just run the installation for the library and then get going.

Who is the "user" here, to you? Is it the person who will be using your library as part of a bigger project (i.e. a programmer), or the end-user, the person who just wants to install and play a game? If you're writing a library, your user has got to be a programmer. The end-user is your user's problem, not yours.

I mean the programmer.

So. Programmers are not stupid. If they know enough to want to use your library, they should know how to incorporate it into their project, along with any dependencies your library has (SDL, etc). Even more than that, if you try to "hide" what libraries your library is based on, and magically install it for them, they'll hate you for it. Programming is about control, and about access to knowledge. Tell people what your library is based on, provide documentation that tells them how you think it's best to have those dependencies set up to run well with your library, but leave them to work the rest out.

Of course they're not stupid. I just want it to be very quick to set up, and I do not, in any way, want to hide the fact that it's using SDL; I just want it to be very quick and easy to set up.

Open-source with a reasonable license. If the license is LGPL, I'll settle for a DLL and a header file so long as they work, because I don't want to statically-link and have to open-source my whole game.

I wouldn't even require credit, even though I would of course appreciate it. I give credit to the libraries I use in my programs.

A tight, focussed idea about what the library is for

I would provide many things. Tutorials would probably not appear right away, but I use Doxygen, and I would of course write a description.

A small library, with the minimum number of dependencies required for it to work. I'll take something that does a job in a half-dozen source files over some 300 file monster with a pile of obscure dependencies anyday.

A half-dozen? Six files? That's three classes.
No, my library would not have three classes.

An easy way to extend or tweak the library if I want to.

That's why I would want the source open.

[Good documentation, and an active forum where I can go for help.

Like I said, I use Doxygen.

Coming up with new concepts for my programming language makes me happy.
It brings me joy to know that I have created the best programming language of all time.

Too bad there probably never will be a compiler for it.

Write a compiler for it I've done it, once (well, technically it was an interpreted language, and what got written was an interpreter), but it's a brilliantly fun and educational way to waste time. Hell, if it IS the best programming language of all time, a compiler, even if it's a crappy one, might start people using the language and writing other compilers for it. You sort of need a reference implementation for it to be a real language, though.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to try to make a compiler at least for the basic stuff to begin with, like variables and the main function and a way to write to the console.

I really have no idea where to start, though. My knowledge of Assembly, hexadecimal and binary and stuff like that is less than limited; it's not even that.

If I think I'm going to come back to the code and wonder what the hell was going on, then it gets comments. Especially for the sake of co-workers that will have to maintain that crap in the future when I'm not around.

Every now and then though I do something like this:

Code:

// logically the bitmap will only be painted onto 1, 2 or 4 tiles, we can use conditionals for this
// to speed things up
// Of course with the option of scale, this could mean painting to many more bitmaps, and such a
// task can fuck right off for the time being

You truly are a grumpy programmer.

Procedurally generating circle-based islands of sorts (or "splats"), in OpenGL. They occupy 2 out of a possible 3 dimensions, currently. Height map to come!

Fix the broken link! I want to see!

Probably rewriting parts of compiler in assembly to make it faster?

Yea something like that.
And yea a compiler needs to be made first.

Having a compiler one day would be awesome.

Probably rewriting parts of compiler in assembly to make it faster?

There is no compiler to rewrite.

Coming up with new concepts for my programming language makes me happy.
It brings me joy to know that I have created the best programming language of all time.

Too bad there probably never will be a compiler for it.

What's it called? I will Assembly optimize it  

Vatn.

What's an Assembly optimisation? I think I have an idea what you're talking about, but I'm not entirely sure.

Being UNIX based, installing a library on Mac OS X is generally exactly the same procedure as in Linux.
But... damn. I don't want to have to change bunches and bunches of little details for every function and file to turn it into a DLL for an operating system that is of my least concern; if I write portable code from the beginning, I want it to be, well, portable. Surely I don't need to make any DLL or Shared Object files?

Haha! Awesome!
I suggested this exact thing to two of my friends who possess game development skills a few months ago.

So, yes, I would love to. I don't need WiFi, though. My iPhone gives me wireless 3G connection.
Also, why would you want to be connected to the internet while doing that?
Too much distraction and it drains more battery.

Also, why would you pay for a Mac if you're not even going to use it as one?
I have a MacBook Pro. I had never used Mac before getting it. I do not regret my choice.
I suggest you at least try Mac OS X before doing such a stupid thing (and by try I don't mean sitting with it for a day; use Mac OS X, and nothing else for at least a month or two).