On 4/10/2013 11:55 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Some of our consulting projects are conversion of C++ code into one of the said
> technologies. We usually achieve performance parity with the existing application.
>
> With C, C++ and Fortran it is easier to achieve a certain performance level
> without effort, while the other languages require a bit of effort knowing the
> runtime, writing GC friendly data structures and algorithms, and doing
> performance analysis, but it achievable as well.
>
> Many developers don't want to do this, hence my statement.

I've seen enough "performant" C++ code to disagree with your statement. If they knew what was going on with how C++ implemented their constructions, they could get a lot better performance.

The second problem with writing performant C and C++ code is the difficulty of refactoring code to try different data structures & algorithms. Generally, one picks a design up front, and never changes it because it is too hard to change it.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:52:58 -0400
Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote:

> On 04/10/2013 05:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >
> > For many (admittedly, not all) of them, I really don't believe "games" is an accurate term (Don't misinterpret that into a statement of "Only true 'games' are legitimate" because I never said such a thing.)
> 
> But that's essentially what you *are* saying by downplaying the gameplay that lies at the heart of the "interactive movies" you've used as examples.

That's because the heart of such games *isn't* the gameplay, it's the storytelling. I'm not downplaying anything that the developers themselves aren't already downplaying.

> It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, you're just very persistent in trying to turn it into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm merely using terminology to distinguish between story-driven titles and gameplay-driven tiles. *YOU'RE* the one who's falsely insisting that what I meant was "Only the one type is legitimate", despite my numerous statements to the contrary. How many times to I have to tell you in various wordings, "I'm *not* using 'interactive movie' pejoratively" before you'll stop trying to tell me what I meant?

> Let's take a
> statement from your original post:
> 
> "Modern  AAA/big-budget titles are interactive movies, not videogames, because their focus is story, dialog and cinematics, not gameplay."
> 
> Which is untrue when it comes to games like BioShock or GTA. At the end of the day both games are mostly shooters along with other gameplay elements (like driving in GTA), and you will spend most of your time playing the game and not watching cinematics.

So we disagree on the categorization of a few titles. Big freaking deal.

> I gave you a
> canonical example of what would be an interactive movie, and you
> tried to wave it away because it really was an interactive movie.
> 

That's a complete mischaracterization, and I find it interesting that you've claimed that while *completely* ignoring my very clear statement of:

"Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack of a better term."

Yes, obviously Heavy Rain is a canonical example of "interactive movie", and for goodness sake, I *AGREED* with you and yet you're still complaining.

> > It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too heavily on them, but that would be a completely different complaint.
> 
> Which has been the essence of your complaint,

Now you're just flat-out quoting me out-of-context. Here it is with the proper context re-added:

>>Keep in mind, even sandbox titles, which are definitely not
>>remotely "interactive movie" or cinematic at all (at least any
>>of the ones I've seen), have long been debated as to whether or
>>not they are "games". And note that nobody ever said that was a
>>bad thing. It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too
>>heavily on them, but that would be a completely different complaint.

What that means when it's *not* deliberately twisted around is:

>> The following are two completely *different* claims:
>>
>> A. Not being a "game" is an inherently bad thing.
>>
>> B. Too much indusrtry-wide focus on XXXX (for whatever XXXX) is a
>> bad thing.
>>
>> I am claiming B and *NOT* A. Stop trying to tell me I'm claiming A.

See?

> based on how games used
> to be and your particular tastes, sounding a lot like a grumpy old
> man who thinks the industry is suffering because they don't make them
> like they used to:
> 
> "Maybe I'm just projecting my own tastes into this, or maybe this is just because I don't have sales/profits/etc charts for the last 10-20 years to examine, but lately I'm finding it difficult to believe that "AAA" games aren't becoming (or already) a mere niche, much like high-performance sports cars. (Ie, big money, but small market.)
> 
> Part of this is because, as I see it, the "big/AAA games" *as they used to exist* up until around the early 2000's don't seem to be around much anymore."
> 

Oh for crap's sake. Yes, newer AAA/big-business games, on average, *do* direct significantly more of their emphasis on story/dialog/cinematic feel/etc than older ones. I was being diplomatic before, but that's really undeniable. Do you think all that comes at no cost in development resources? (Rhetorical, of course. I'm pointing out it's rhetorical so I don't get accused of hyperbole or of actually suggesting that you did think it didn't cost extra resources.) So that requires more sales for sustainability, and then I went on with my reasoning about diminishing audience - clearly marked with disclaimers about my lack of certainly (which you've conveniently quoted for me and also conveniently ignored).

And now you come along, slap the big generic "grumpy old man" "don't make them like they used to" labels over the whole thing, and now I'm supposed to believe not only that your "poisoning the well" tactics somehow *aren't* a logical fallacy, but also that I'm the one being categorically dismissive?


> > And really, is it so damn horrible to have and voice a negative opinion on something?
> 
> Not at all, but when the constant refrain is grumpy-old-man ranting, it is pretty horrible.

Convenient then how the negative opinions just happen to be of your horrible grumpy-old-man variety rather then types you would accept as the "not at all horrible" negative opinions. Next time I'll make sure anything I dislike isn't something you'll decide to imagine a grumpy old man might agree with. True, I admitted to some grumpy-old-man-ness, but I'm not the one abusing it for ad hominem ammunition.

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 08:03:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/10/2013 11:55 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Some of our consulting projects are conversion of C++ code into one of the said
>> technologies. We usually achieve performance parity with the existing application.
>>
>> With C, C++ and Fortran it is easier to achieve a certain performance level
>> without effort, while the other languages require a bit of effort knowing the
>> runtime, writing GC friendly data structures and algorithms, and doing
>> performance analysis, but it achievable as well.
>>
>> Many developers don't want to do this, hence my statement.
>
> I've seen enough "performant" C++ code to disagree with your statement. If they knew what was going on with how C++ implemented their constructions, they could get a lot better performance.
>
> The second problem with writing performant C and C++ code is the difficulty of refactoring code to try different data structures & algorithms. Generally, one picks a design up front, and never changes it because it is too hard to change it.

Fair enough, I have left the C daily coding on the job in 2002 and C++ in 2005, so I can hardly consider myself an expert in optimization tricks in those languages.

Nowadays I get seldom the opportunity to write new C++ code on the job.

--
Paulo

On 4/10/2013 11:57 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 22:50:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/7/2013 3:59 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> The current compilers just don't have the amount of investment in more than 20
>>> years of code optimization like C++ has. You cannot expect to achieve that from
>>> one moment to the other.
>>
>> This is incorrect, as dmd, gdc, and ldc all use the backends of C++ compilers,
>> and the code generated is as good as that of the corresponding C++ compiler.
>
> Correct, assuming the frontend organizes the intermediate information in a way
> that the backend can make the best use of it, or am I wrong?

Of course.

On 04/11/2013 04:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> No, you're just very persistent in trying to turn it into the "No True
> Scotsman" fallacy. I'm merely using terminology to distinguish between
> story-driven titles and gameplay-driven tiles.

Then you could call them "story-driven games" instead of "interactive movies", and also acknowledge that the gameplay element is still a strong component. Your insistence on denying the massive amounts of gaming elements that are still part of these titles shows you have an ax to grind, backed up by the fact that you even started your argument by saying your personal tastes may have been informing your theories.

> So we disagree on the categorization of a few titles. Big freaking deal.

Since it's the heart of your argument, it is a big deal.

> Yes, obviously Heavy Rain is a canonical example of "interactive
> movie", and for goodness sake, I *AGREED* with you and yet you're still
> complaining.

You just have a funny way of agreeing, what I'll call disagreeable agreeing.

> Oh for crap's sake. Yes, newer AAA/big-business games, on average, *do*
> direct significantly more of their emphasis on story/dialog/cinematic
> feel/etc than older ones.

Yes, there's no doubt about that, and do you know *why* they do this? It's because, just like movies, these big budget cinematic games tend to sell a whole lot more, both in quantity and dollar volume. And just like the movies, it's also a big risk. But they are still games, and it's the gamers who flock to these blockbuster titles.

As an aside, the interesting thing about GTA, especially GTA3, is that the budget wasn't about the movie elements, of which there were few. It was about creating an immersive *environment*. It's really the artwork that costs so much money. There was also a story arc, but you can find stories in games going back decades.

As to why the industry is "sick", in Manu's terms, it's probably just competition with other forms of entertainment given the mobile explosion. The games industry did very well post 2000, despite the move to cinematic experiences.

> And now you come along, slap the big generic "grumpy old man" "don't
> make them like they used to" labels over the whole thing, and now I'm
> supposed to believe not only that your "poisoning the well" tactics
> somehow *aren't* a logical fallacy, but also that I'm the one being
> categorically dismissive?

Yet your pet theory does amount to how they don't make them like they used to, and maybe that's the reason the industry is failing, which sounds a lot like a grumpy-old-man complaint, doesn't it? Along with your usual ranting, of course.

Last post for me.

Am Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:11:05 +1000
schrieb Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com>:

> >>
> >> Btw: implementing -vgc shouldn't be too difficult: We have to
> >> check all runtime hooks
> >> ( http://wiki.dlang.org/Runtime_**Hooks<http://wiki.dlang.org/Runtime_Hooks>)
> >> for allocations, then check all places in dmd where calls to those
> >> hooks are emitted.
> >>
> >>
> > It's actually very easy to find hidden allocations. If you remove the gc entierly from the runtime hidden allocations will cause linker errors.
> >
> 
> Not a particularly user-friendly approach. I'd rather think of some proper tools/mechanisms to help in this area :)
> 

I like
"test-vgc.d(9) vgc[CONCAT]: (a ~ b) causes gc allocation"
a lot more than
"undefined reference to gc_alloc" ;-)

I posted a proof of concept pull request here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1886

It needs some work but maybe it will be ready for 2.063. Would be great if both of you could comment there as you probably have most experience in avoiding the GC :-)

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 04:23:07 UTC, xenon325 wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 16:08:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> It may as well be a mistake that nonvirtual functions are at all part of a class' methods. This has been quite painfully seen in C++ leading to surprising conclusions: http://goo.gl/dqZrr.
>
> "Non-Member Functions Improve Encapsulation" is invalid for D because of implicit friends.
>
> It was discussed before: http://forum.dlang.org/post/op.wbyg2ywyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain
>
> --
> Alexander

In some ways, implicit friends is the analogous to implicit virtual. With implied virtual you can at least state "final" for a reversal but with implied friends there's no way out other than through band-aid measures which cause headaches.

Really, the generality of the problem is analogous to the reasons why you do not allow implicit data typing or worse, implicit declarations. So in D a fundamental rule is being violated. IMO, everything should be explicit unless the intention can be calculated to be 100% certain (i.e., no possible alternatives). For example "auto" in D is fine, because the data typing is certain, but a data type of a value in a JSON struct being defined by the value is wrong, eg maybe the 0 (integer) was supposed to be 0.0 (real).

BTW, the UFCS solution to non-virtual methods creates the old C++ problem of constantly re-typing in the same symbol name of the class for every external member function. Not fun. Some syntactic sugar may help, perhaps clever use of template's, I don't know.

--rt

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:57:05 -0400
Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote:

> Your insistence on denying the massive amounts of
> gaming elements that are still part of these titles shows you have an
> ax to grind,
> 

Generic gameplay is not "massive amounts of gaming elements", but that's not what you're *really* interested in discussing is it?

You're *still* starting from your purely-fabricated assertion that I'm just trying to be nasty, which *you've* decided to be true *solely because* you've decided it to be true. Then you blatantly ignore everything I say to the contrary and repeatedly use your own personal attacks as *their own* proof.

Clearly you're not interested in even attempting a remotely rational discussion. The only thing you care to do is repeatedly bang your tired old "You're being a grumpy old man" drum of a complete non-argument.

I'm sorry I've given you the benefit of the doubt as to your true intent in all this and actually read all of your asinine claims up to now, but I'm not bothering reading the rest of this clearly twisted post of yours, nor will I be reading anything more from you in this thread. Maybe you'll be willing to be sensible in other discussions.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:39:01AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:29:25 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder if this is why I enjoy retro games more -- they require less concentration and lots of fun can be had for not too much effort. I find that a lot of modern games seem to require a lot of concentration -- keeping track of a convoluted storyline, keeping track of one's 3D surroundings, being on one's toes to react quickly at surprise enemy attacks, etc.. After a full day's worth of coding, that's the last thing I want to be doing. Much better to relax with something that can be played in a more relaxed/casual way.
> > 
> 
> Strange, I find the exact opposite to true. I always felt this summed it up perfectly:
> 
> http://semitwist.com/download/img/funny/digitalunrest-2008-09-29.jpg
> 
> (That said, I never thought MM9 was *as* hard as people made it out
> to be. At first it seemed the same as all the older megaman's, and
> then it wasn't long before I could get through the whole thing in about
> an hour. Still one of the best games ever made, though. But if you want
> a *really* hard MegaMan, try "MegaMan & Bass". I'm totally stuck in
> that.)
> 
> The last 10 or so years, big-budget games have tended to be designed specifically so that anyone can get to the end without much effort. The lack of challenge makes them tedious and boring.

OK, now I'm not so sure what I meant anymore, because I find this tedium and bore really tiring, whereas something like, say, the ancient Lode Runner with its incredibly complicated time-sensitive maneuvres is actually stimulating and, paradoxically enough, relaxing. OTOH, things like Quake and other FPSes I find exhausting, even if they're no more than mindless shoot-everything-that-moves deals.  Maybe the difference lies in the simplicity of rules in the older 2D games -- yes they can be challenging but the mechanics are easy to grasp, whereas in 3D environments, the complexity of movement possibilities can be overwhelming.

Big-budget hold-your-hand "games", OTOH, are tiring in another way, in a click-through ads kinda way. I have very little patience for anything with video clips, 'cos I rather be doing stuff instead of watching a video (I might as well watch youtube instead, etc.), yet I feel like I can't really get "into" the game if I don't endure through all those clips, 'cos I might miss some interesting game-world exposition or important story twist, etc.. So the result is that it's very tiring.

But maybe this all just reflects my personal biases, and has nothing to do with what is "objectively" tiring / difficult / etc..


> For example, the Mario and Zelda games have done nothing but get progressively easier sine the 80's (compare the battle system in the original zelda to *any* 3D zelda - the former is an addictive challenge, the latter is mindless button-mashing/waggle and *vastly* easier.) New Mario is fun, but notably easier than Mario 1/2/3/64. And then there's the old Kid Icarus. *Phew!* - that's not for the faint of heart. Most people don't even know that it has zelda/Metroid-like dungeons or horizontal levels because they never got past level 3.

Hmm. I beat nethack. Several times. I don't know of any other game that is as difficult to beat! But OTOH, its difficulty comes not from hand-eye coordination, but from the block-shuffling-puzzle type of inherent difficulty -- you have all the time in the world to think before making your next move, but your decision could mean the difference between life and death (i.e. the loss of the last 40 hours of gameplay, due to permadeath). I guess personally I prefer that kind of challenge to the how-fast-can-you-react kind.


> As far as "keeping track of a convoluted storyline", I rarely pay attention to the stories/dialog/characters/etc anyway. There are exceptions (like 2D JRPGs or Disgaea), but most games I just skip through the dialog (9 times out of 10 it's both uninteresting and irrelevant to the gameplay), and when a game doesn't let me skip a cutscene or scripted event I'll just grab a drink or snack or hit the can if I need to, or otherwise just hit "Switch Inputs" and find something not-too-horrible on TV while I wait for the tell-tale sound of a level being loaded off disc.

But you see, that's precisely the kind of thing that wears me out. I feel like I'm not getting the max out of the game if I don't watch all the cutscenes / read all the dialogs, but then I have to endure through the whole thing when it's poorly written and then it's not enjoyable anymore. This is one of the things I really liked about the older Ultimas: the technology was such that dialogs were minimal, but that meant that they got the point across without needing to sit through long cutscenes / sift through convoluted dialogues. The trigger keywords were more-or-less obvious, so you just hit town, chat up the few obviously-important NPCs using the obviously important keywords, get the info you need, and move out and do stuff.

The free-exploration style of the old Ultimas was also something I liked very much. I find sequence-breakers in many modern games very mimesis-breaking, especially when it's something trivial like exploring and beating an area before talking to the NPC who was supposed to tell you to go there, thereby breaking some poorly-written script that assumes you haven't been there yet. Forcefully railroaded games I also find annoying (why is that gigantic boulder sitting there on the road blocking my way for no good reason other than that the game devs don't want me to go there yet? how does talking to an NPC magically make that boulder vanish into thin air?). I much prefer open-exploration games where you have to actively search out stuff and discover what you have to do, rather than just being strung along by the arbitrary sequence the game devs decided must be how the story will pan out.

What *really* cinches it for me is when a well-written storyline is made to unfold *while* allowing free exploration (and multiple possible solution paths) at the same time. This gives me the freedom to plan ahead -- take advantage of the open exploration to prepare for what I anticipate is coming, so that I can beat the boss monster my way. Hidden secret bonuses that can only be found via free exploration is also something I really enjoy.

I guess I just like active entertainment over passive entertainment (I
don't even own a TV!).


T

-- 
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue. -- Yoon Ha Lee, CONLANG

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:24:14 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:39:01AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > The last 10 or so years, big-budget games have tended to be designed specifically so that anyone can get to the end without much effort. The lack of challenge makes them tedious and boring.
> 
> OK, now I'm not so sure what I meant anymore, because I find this tedium and bore really tiring, whereas something like, say, the ancient Lode Runner with its incredibly complicated time-sensitive maneuvres is actually stimulating and, paradoxically enough, relaxing. OTOH, things like Quake and other FPSes I find exhausting, even if they're no more than mindless shoot-everything-that-moves deals.  Maybe the difference lies in the simplicity of rules in the older 2D games -- yes they can be challenging but the mechanics are easy to grasp, whereas in 3D environments, the complexity of movement possibilities can be overwhelming.
> 

Ahh, I see what you mean, and I can relate.

Maybe part of it is sensory overload. There's a lot more to take in. And there's more visual/auditory  information to process and mentally filter out all the details to reach the "core" elements like "this is an enemy, shoot here", "this is an area of interest, go here", "this is dangerous, avoid" etc. And like you say, freedom of movement.

> Big-budget hold-your-hand "games", OTOH, are tiring in another way, in a click-through ads kinda way. I have very little patience for anything with video clips, 'cos I rather be doing stuff instead of watching a video (I might as well watch youtube instead, etc.), yet I feel like I can't really get "into" the game if I don't endure through all those clips, 'cos I might miss some interesting game-world exposition or important story twist, etc.. So the result is that it's very tiring.
> 

Interesting points, yea. Personally, I don't feel afraid of missing out on such things unless it's a JRPG (whether action JRPG or menu-based) or it demonstrates a high degree of storytelling quality (*and* grabs my interest) right from the start, like Disgaea, Splinter Cell 1-3, Izuna, or Max Payne. (Just as examples.)

> Hmm. I beat nethack. Several times. I don't know of any other game that is as difficult to beat! But OTOH, its difficulty comes not from hand-eye coordination, but from the block-shuffling-puzzle type of inherent difficulty -- you have all the time in the world to think before making your next move, but your decision could mean the difference between life and death (i.e. the loss of the last 40 hours of gameplay, due to permadeath). I guess personally I prefer that kind of challenge to the how-fast-can-you-react kind.
> 

I like both kinds :) At least, provided that the "how-fast-can-you-react" also requires active thinking and accurate execution, too, as a good bullet-hell shmup or MegaMan, Contra, etc.

> But you see, that's precisely the kind of thing that wears me out. I feel like I'm not getting the max out of the game if I don't watch all the cutscenes / read all the dialogs, but then I have to endure through the whole thing when it's poorly written and then it's not enjoyable anymore. This is one of the things I really liked about the older Ultimas: the technology was such that dialogs were minimal, but that meant that they got the point across without needing to sit through long cutscenes / sift through convoluted dialogues. The trigger keywords were more-or-less obvious, so you just hit town, chat up the few obviously-important NPCs using the obviously important keywords, get the info you need, and move out and do stuff.
> 

I never really played the Ultimas (I've always been drawn more to JRPGs than to the D&D/Tolkien-esque western RPGs). Although I do have a vague recollection of spending a few minutes in some 3D Ultima on DOS.

But I do get what you're saying: I *love* Zelda 2-style dialog:

"Stop and rest here."
"Sorry. I know nothing."
"Only the hammer can destroy a roadblock."

They cut straight to the chase and then shut up. I *love* that. Then the 16-bit ones expanded a bit and added a nice dash of character, but not overdone and still generally good. But modern NPCs talk the way my Dad does: They'll give you half their life story and entire social and emotional profile before finally getting to the point, and then they'll restate the damn point twenty times. Cliffs notes, people! ;)


> The free-exploration style of the old Ultimas was also something I liked very much. I find sequence-breakers in many modern games very mimesis-breaking, especially when it's something trivial like exploring and beating an area before talking to the NPC who was supposed to tell you to go there, thereby breaking some poorly-written script that assumes you haven't been there yet. Forcefully railroaded games I also find annoying (why is that gigantic boulder sitting there on the road blocking my way for no good reason other than that the game devs don't want me to go there yet? how does talking to an NPC magically make that boulder vanish into thin air?). I much prefer open-exploration games where you have to actively search out stuff and discover what you have to do, rather than just being strung along by the arbitrary sequence the game devs decided must be how the story will pan out.
> 

Yea.  I did get used to things like "talking to the right NPC magically advances time and triggers events" back in the 16-bit days, so I don't personally mind that except when it's done really poorly.

But, actually playing the game *myself*, and using my *own* brain to get through is exactly what I always found compelling about videogames. Ie, *I'm* the one overcoming the obstacles, not the player-character doing it on my behalf. So when modern games present me with a problem and then outright *deny* me the opportunity to actually solve it by solving it *for* me, that kinda pisses me off. It was *supposed* to be interactive, not passive! If your game is just going to solve it's own obstacles, then don't deceive me by claiming it's more of an interactive game than a passive movie spiced with some token movement controls. Ever see the second episode of Futurama, with the Moon theme park? Just like Fry, I want a lunar rover, but I just get a patronizing "Whaler's on the Moon" ride instead.

I do like both open-exploration and linear games, but in either case, the game has to let *me* play it. It can't just simply start playing itself whenever it's afraid I might be too dumb to succeed at anything requiring actual thought or skill. That's the *fun* part! The rest is window-dressing.


> What *really* cinches it for me is when a well-written storyline is made to unfold *while* allowing free exploration (and multiple possible solution paths) at the same time.

*cough* Splinter Cell 3 *wink wink, nudge nudge*  Gaming perfection.

> This gives me the freedom
> to plan ahead -- take advantage of the open exploration to prepare
> for what I anticipate is coming, so that I can beat the boss monster
> my way. Hidden secret bonuses that can only be found via free
> exploration is also something I really enjoy.
> 
> I guess I just like active entertainment over passive entertainment (I
> don't even own a TV!).
> 

Heh :)  Even if I absolutely hated passive entertainment, I'd still have a TV just so I wouldn't have to game at my desk or my computer. I spend so much time working on this thing I'd feel like brain-in-a-vat if it was my entertainment box, too.

But I do love a lot of passive entertainment, too (I'm a complete anime addict. And 90's/early-2000's SciFi is pretty damn addictive, too, as are other minimally-dramatic shows like Monk, Hunter, MacGyver.)