adam wrote:Having a java client that could connect to the server could allow others the ability to play that might not otherwise be able to.
KnightVision wrote:But I read that this project is going to be written in C++11 anyhow.
KnightVision wrote:It's not that big of a deal to install the JVM
KnightVision wrote:if this is being coded in C++11 it also means this will need the 4.x DotNetFramework
KnightVision wrote:which is just like the JVM in many respects.
KnightVision wrote:So there really is no difference in users needing to install stuff ahead of time.
KnightVision wrote:In fact Mac and linux will not be able to install 4.x+ versions of the DotNet, do to MS controlling all of it and as easily as one thinks.
KnightVision wrote:It's why JAVA hasn't stopped the minecraft community because it can be installed on any OS.
KnightVision wrote:DotNet cannot, at least not without a lot of headache. Sure older versions of the DotNet 2.x and 3.x could be installed on MAC and Linux with the help of Mono etc etc.. but 4.x is not 100% working yet.
KnightVision wrote:Meaning C++11 will be a problem for linux and MAC users.
KnightVision wrote:It's why I chose JAVA as my code of choice. Makes things so much easier and nicer for the programmer AND the end user.
KnightVision wrote:Granted C++11 is a library C++ new standard.
KnightVision wrote:But if your using Visual Studio AND the DotNet Framework, then my paragraph above makes sense.
KnightVision wrote:What I should have said is that earlier versions of the DotNet / Visual Studio can't compile C++11 code. Only the newer versions of Visual Studio that work with DotNet 4.x+ can.
mrout wrote:KnightVision wrote:It's not that big of a deal to install the JVM
It is if you like security.
mrout wrote:You don't even need late versions of Visual Studio on Windows - g++ and clang++ work fine.
jherico wrote:mrout wrote:You don't even need late versions of Visual Studio on Windows - g++ and clang++ work fine.
'work fine' here having the meaning of 'require you to stop using the tool you're already experienced with and learn an entirely new build system'.
For every 'feature' you introduce into the codebase that eliminates the ability to use a commonly used development tool, cut your workforce by 20%. If the tool is Eclipse or Visual Studio, change than number to 40%. Make it hard enough to work with the code to eliminate enough of your workforce and you might as well just recruit people with enough money to purchase Unity licenses (or willing to get a second job to fund it) and make the game that way. It would be faster.
mrout wrote:This isn't up for discussion, and the decision has been made.
Zardoz wrote:Seriously, if you are developer that only know how work using only a specific IDE, you are doing a very poor publicity of your capacity as developer. The code is the code, and you not should have problem in using a plain Makefile, an Ant file, CMake, or any other nice building toolset, if is well documented.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest