Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
7 crawler(s) on-line.
 23 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 OlafS25,  Karlos

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  51 secs ago
 Karlos:  1 min ago
 Hypex:  10 mins ago
 pixie:  11 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  41 mins ago
 R-TEAM:  44 mins ago
 BigD:  49 mins ago
 michalsc:  51 mins ago
 hUMUNGUs:  52 mins ago
 zipper:  56 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga Development
      /  Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
AmiDARK 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 8:31:19
#61 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Mar-2007
Posts: 469
From: South France

@all :
Thank you to everyone for sharing your opinion but please no "war" :p

1. Concerning Daytona debug help. I already answered that I will be happy to fix all these and, I already start this. The objective for me is to improve and finish the AmiDARK Engine so, no problem with the bugs he is pointing out.

2. But what daytona said is out of the bounty scope in my opinion so that's why I said that it should be better that I create a new thread for the debugging. Receive the Bounty and continue with the Daytona debug help :)

3. I only regret the way Daytona speak without seeing that his way of speaking is a bit "condescending" like said anotherAmiga User. I understand his point of view concerning quality. I only show the minimal amount of energy just because I wish that he use no more words that can be interpreted negatively and that he only concentrate to the debug.

Thank you all for your supports whatever it is.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
zzd10h 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 8:36:48
#62 ]
Amiga Developer Team
Joined: 21-May-2012
Posts: 1077
From: France

@AmiDARK

And don't forget to take in consideration my previous post, please...

Last edited by zzd10h on 14-Jan-2015 at 08:36 AM.

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
noXLar 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 9:20:47
#63 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 8-May-2003
Posts: 736
From: Norway

@zzd10h

Quote:
Do you agree that AmiDark completed the bounty ?


i did a small donations too this project, i would say yes, because we know it wasn't completed too begin with

_________________
nox's in the house!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
zzd10h 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:03:35
#64 ]
Amiga Developer Team
Joined: 21-May-2012
Posts: 1077
From: France

@noXLar

3 / 0

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Yssing 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:18:49
#65 ]
Super Member
Joined: 24-Apr-2003
Posts: 1086
From: Unknown

I too contributed to this bounty, knowing well, that it was not finished.

I to think that he did what he promissed, so pay him please.

When reviewing code, in this case, please note that he used a lot of time on it, hence it is a very personal project, in the sence that it is a child of his.
Also remember that the written word will always be percieved in the mood of the reader, not the writer.
In the case or reviewing a child, well we all know how parents are, right!

My point is simply this: choose your words carefully, be extremely diplomatic!

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Daytona675x 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:25:06
#66 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 5-Jan-2011
Posts: 491
From: Germany

@phoenixkonsole
Quote:
Let's say I release solid works source code .... Which is not as fast as catia v5..... Makes this the slower code worthless?

Of course not. But you talk about "solid works source code".
Here we got broken unstable source code.

Quote:
Can the shown demo examples be compiled or is there anything broken?

They can be compiled, but the result of the compilation process are very unstable executables. That's a fact.
The thing is: only because something compiles doesn't mean it is not broken.

As being said it's probably a matter of definition:
Your definition may be that the bounty is fulfilled even if the compilation result is highly unstable, as long as it compiles. He just talks about "it can be compiled".

My definition is that the compilation's result should at least satisfy the most minimal quality checks. It shouldn't be a matter of luck if it runs as it should or not (and sorry, no matter what, but that's the case right now). In my opinion the lack of mentioning the fact that all is extremely buggy and unreliable is a sort of mis-selling.

@OlafS25
Quote:
you write a engine (whatever code quality) in one week for that money? Really? Wow

Sorry, but what's that for a kind of comment?
It is not of any interest to this topic how fast you think I do or don't do something, since I'm not the one selling this code-mess. And the amount of money doesn't matter neither.
It's more about telling people the true state of this piece of code. It is definitely not alpha nor beta and it is definitely not even near stable. That are facts.

@AmiDARK
Quote:
However, like I said, your ideas for improvements are really good but I don't agree with you concerning the engine stability.

We aren't talking about adding luxury features or cosmetic improvements. We talk about wheter something works at least or if it crashs (and it doesn't make it better if it sometimes does not crash). If you don't agree regarding the engine's stability issues, then, sorry:
then you obviously don't have the basic knowledge or simply don't want to see and admit and fix the obvious massive critical flaws in your code.

Quote:
I think you will not see your "negative" and "pejorative" words like saing "my ridiculous reaction" .. It's a lack of respect

Knowing about the principle of cause and effect would also help you to improve your coding-skills

Quote:
OpenGL 2 (that is our Amiga standard) does not allow something better for sprites.

What? OpenGL 2 on Amiga? But you know that the most important feature of OGL2 is GLSL? Cool, didn't know GLSL was standard on Amiga.
Okay, back to reality Even MiniGL has better functions for realizing something like sprites without using the immediate mode.

But also to show you that I'm not unfair here:
I have to agree with you on that: such things are out of the bounty's scope. Yes, it is not the best way to do it, but it works.
See? If one could say that of all your code I'd say "bounty fulfilled". But sadly...

But as I already said before:
it's not up to me to decide that. I only review and give information to you to become a coder and the others to be able to realize what the pay for.

Last edited by Daytona675x on 14-Jan-2015 at 10:27 AM.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmiDARK 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:35:41
#67 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Mar-2007
Posts: 469
From: South France

@Daytona675x

Quote:
They can be compiled, but the result of the compilation process are very unstable executables. That's a fact.

Did you already try to run the demonstration samples several times successively ?
The result is : No crash.
So your argument for stability is worst.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Xmas87 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:39:29
#68 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 17-Sep-2013
Posts: 248
From: Unknown

@thread.

Irrespective of the state of the amidark code, having a coder like Daytona675x offering FREE advice to improve things is awesome!
I would contribute to a bounty simply to get a coder of this quality to work on some unfinished projects!

Take a look at the link in his signature to see the stunning results of his coding! Wow.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Daytona675x 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:39:54
#69 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 5-Jan-2011
Posts: 491
From: Germany

@AmiDARK
It's hopeless. You just don't understand it
When I see bugs like the ones mentioned yesterday I don't have to compile and run something to definitely know without any doubt that the resulting executable simply can not be stable.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Overflow 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:41:22
#70 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2012
Posts: 1628
From: Norway

Cant you two just accept you got different views about degree of "completion" and move on?

Spend energy and time on coding/debugging/developing instead of nitpicking on every single word and sentance

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
zzd10h 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 10:48:54
#71 ]
Amiga Developer Team
Joined: 21-May-2012
Posts: 1077
From: France

@All

bla bla bla bla...

Samples compile fine !!!

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=39792&forum=15&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#749718


@AmiDark
Did you read the questions that are adressed to you, except Daytona posts ?

@Yssing

4 / 0

Last edited by zzd10h on 14-Jan-2015 at 10:49 AM.

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmiDARK 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:05:45
#72 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Mar-2007
Posts: 469
From: South France

@daytona675x : The world is full of people "knowing truth" and this point causes wars ... You're wrong and it's not the fact to "not understand"...
The truth is that you are wrong and the samples showing you the facts.
If you don't understand that, maybe you should consider that it is your vision of stability that should be reviewed too...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:10:35
#73 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 6376
From: Unknown

@AmiDARK

I understand (to a certain degree) what he means. He thinks that it should be at least at a level where it can be used for simple real-world projects but the problems he describes would make that impossible because nothing is more annoying if a software crashes without any comment or hint (division by zero, excedding limits that are not obvious and not trapped and so on).

At it current state it is propably alpha software and should only be used for testing and not for development. But I think the donators donated mostly for charity and because it is a "amiga based" software, not because they expected a ready or usable engine.

Stable here means (as I understand it) that you can use the functions safely without crashing whatever you write in the source and all possible errors are trapped. In this sense it is "unstable".

But I think there are different expectations between the people who donated and a professional developer like Daytona.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 14-Jan-2015 at 11:11 AM.

 Status: Online!
Profile     Report this post  
Britelite 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:14:41
#74 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Posts: 295
From: Finland

@AmiDARK

Quote:

The truth is that you are wrong and the samples showing you the facts.

He's not wrong about the bugs he has presented. And examples you yourself have written are not a good measurement of the engine, because you've written the examples knowing the limitations. And if it's possible for a random user to make the engine crash, then it's most certainly not stable.

Keep in mind, people using (or reviewing) the engine shouldn't need to know the limitations of DarkBasic/AmiDark/whatever, it still is not ok for it to crash because the user made mistakes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Daytona675x 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:31:47
#75 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 5-Jan-2011
Posts: 491
From: Germany

Quote:
Stable here means (as I understand it) that you can use the functions safely without crashing whatever you write in the source and all possible errors are trapped. In this sense it is "unstable".

You're close, but sadly it is worse:
actually it is even unstable if using the functions in the limited way as in the demos. If a crash or other undefined behaviour would only happen in rare cases I wouldn't be that strict.

But here it happes even if functions are used in a trivial way, with valid parameters (or what you'd expect to be valid parameters, sometimes you have to guess due to the lack of documentation). Actually it's even worse:

The missing initialization of the global bitmap-array alone makes the code react unpredictable - even if you don't use bitmaps at all (because it may crash when he cleans up the unitialized array at program's end...) It is pure luck if it behaves as expected (luck = the memory in question was zero).

And yes, although AmiDark will continue to say I'm wrong, I am not: even the demos are flawed. Every AmiDark-program that uses the engines normal Start / End code you compile is flawed. Fact.

And again: if something compiles that doesn't say anything about the executable's stability or quality.
This here will compile, but don't expect it to be stable... With a certain degree of luck it may even not crash on AOS That's more or less what's happening inside AmiDARK, a little exaggerated maybe, but nevertheless.

struct Really {
int wrong;
};
Really *buggy;
printf("%d",buggy->wrong);
++buggy;
memset(buggy,0,sizeof(Really));

Last edited by Daytona675x on 14-Jan-2015 at 11:33 AM.
Last edited by Daytona675x on 14-Jan-2015 at 11:32 AM.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AmiDARK 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:33:27
#76 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 28-Mar-2007
Posts: 469
From: South France

@Britelite
Read the bounty : It's not yet finished engine.
It is not yet devoted for users development as pointer as Olaf said...
Read my 1st comment at the top of the 4th page ... I remind you just in case :

1. Concerning Daytona debug help. I already answered that I will be happy to fix all these and, I already start this. The objective for me is to improve and finish the AmiDARK Engine so, no problem with the bugs he is pointing out.

2. But what daytona said is out of the bounty scope in my opinion so that's why I said that it should be better that I create a new thread for the debugging. Receive the Bounty and continue with the Daytona debug help :)

3. I only regret the way Daytona speak without seeing that his way of speaking is a bit "condescending" like said anotherAmiga User. I understand his point of view concerning quality. I only show the minimal amount of energy just because I wish that he use no more words that can be interpreted negatively and that he only concentrate to the debug.

I'd like that people that comments reads ALL MY statements ... Not only THE WHICH THAT interest them !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Britelite 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:39:03
#77 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Posts: 295
From: Finland

@AmiDARK

Quote:

Read the bounty : It's not yet finished engine.

I don't care about the bounty, I don't care if you get the money now or after stuff is fixed. I'm just commenting on you insisting that you're code isn't flawed or unstable.

Quote:
3. I only regret the way Daytona speak without seeing that his way of speaking is a bit "condescending"

Might be, but he's still correct. And to be honest, his comments are a lot nicer than many code reviews I've been a part of :)

I'm guessing you've never had your code reviewed before, as you seem to be taking it way to personally. Remember, he's commenting on your code, not on you.

Quote:
I'd like that people that comments reads ALL MY statements ... Not only THE WHICH THAT interest them !

I've read all your statements (and the whole thread), doesn't change anything I've said ;)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
zzd10h 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 11:45:56
#78 ]
Amiga Developer Team
Joined: 21-May-2012
Posts: 1077
From: France

@AmiDARK

"I'd like that people that comments reads ALL MY statements ... Not only THE WHICH THAT interest them !"

Toi aussi, lis TOUTES les réponses, stp !

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 12:13:37
#79 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 6376
From: Unknown

@Britelite

"code review" sounds like the perfect night mare to me :)

What Daytona (and others) seem to forget is that Amidark (as far as I know) is not a professional developer but learned it by this project. You can discuss rightfully how usable it is in its current state and all Daytona mentions sounds reasonable but I do not think that (at least most) people donated because they expected anything soon. Propably most did it just to help Amidark, so in this sense with opening sources and compiling some examples (and running them without crashing) it is fullfiled.

From a programmers point of view using it is is not usable at all. It is a nightmare to program without any hints on errors (if you do not know the limitations), if even worse sometimes error happens randomly inside a sub sub routine without any hints, missing documentation, missing examples and so on

It is good if skilled developers help him to improve the engine, removing potential errors if it results in a usable game engine for game developers and a more experienced Amidark :)

But that is a topic for another thread and not the intention/goal of the bounty

"The missing initialization of the global bitmap-array alone makes the code react unpredictable - even if you don't use bitmaps at all (because it may crash when he cleans up the unitialized array at program's end...) It is pure luck if it behaves as expected (luck = the memory in question was zero)."

Now I again know why I prefer Pascal to C

But again most donators not expected anything. Amidark will certainly continue with his "baby" because if you have done something yourself you identify with it. In this sense I have personal more hope for this project than for many other projects who are abandoned now.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 14-Jan-2015 at 12:22 PM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 14-Jan-2015 at 12:21 PM.

 Status: Online!
Profile     Report this post  
Britelite 
Re: Request for review: AmiDark Source Code
Posted on 14-Jan-2015 12:18:47
#80 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Posts: 295
From: Finland

@OlafS25

Quote:
"code review" sounds like the perfect night mare to me :)

It feels like it at first, but it is really helpful.

Quote:
What Daytona (and others) seem to forget is that Amidark (as far as I know) is not a professional developer but learned it by this project.

All the more reason to actually listen to suggestions made in the review, and not keep on insisting that there's nothing wrong. There's no shame in admitting you're wrong and learning from the feedback.

Quote:
You can discuss rightfully how usable it is in its current state and all Daytona mentions sounds reasonable but I do not think that (at least most) people donated because they expected anything soon. Propably most did it just to help Amidark, so in this sense with opening sources and compiling some examples (and running them without crashing) it is fullfiled.

Like I said, I don't care about the bounty. To me it makes no difference if he gets the money now or after fixing.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle