"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:inipn4$14rq$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I admit I've never actually played any version of Empire. But then I've never really been particularly into resource-management strategies (I *think* that's what Empire is...something similar to Civilazation, right?)
>
> I've never played Civilization! But, I wouldn't call it resource
> management really. Every turn, you can make more units (more
> or less depending on how many cities you've captured), and while
> that's an important part of the game, I'd say more of it is
> positioning your guys and advancing without leaving your own cities
> open to be conquered.
>
> Resource management makes me think of something like Warcraft where controlling the gold mines is more important than army positioning. Holding cities is vital to victory in Empire, but positioning your army is at least as important too.
>

Ah, so it's really more a straight strategy game, maybe with a slight tactical leaning. Maybe I should give it a try sometime then. Is it turn-based or realtime? I'm usually more a turn-based fan, although Pikmin was a damn good realtime strategy.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Is [Empire] turn-based or realtime?

Turn based.

Here's the site: http://www.classicempire.com/

I like the old version - the text mode graphics are nice.

Don't blame me if it gets you fired and divorced :) Easy to lose track of time once you get into it!

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:inj0g1$1hgr$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Is [Empire] turn-based or realtime?
>
> Turn based.
>
> Here's the site: http://www.classicempire.com/
>
> I like the old version - the text mode graphics are nice.
>
> Don't blame me if it gets you fired and divorced :) Easy to lose track of time once you get into it!

The text mode version seem to just run by itself (really, really fast). The other one works for me. Still learning it, but seems pretty cool so far.

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> And yea, you're right that software rendering sucks performance-wise. But the main orginal point was t have a way to just toy around with image drawing in an easy classic DOS-style. From there, my thoughts were "ok, how to make this approach as close to being efficient as it can realistically get?"

There was a c++ drawing library proposed to be ported to D, which does what you talk about.

On 05/04/2011 04:13, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Wait, I'm a dumbass!
>
> Actually QtD needs to have Qt's MinGW in PATH, not the regular MinGW.
> Hold on a second, let me see what you need to do..

Qt has its own MinGW? o_o'

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 05/04/2011 14:06, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-04-05 13:08, Matthias Pleh wrote:
>> So I think for short or middle term such solution like gtkD, QtD, DWT
>> are good, but for the long term the D community needs a D GUI library
>> completly written in D.
>>
>> Just my thoughts
>> °Matthias
>>
>
> You do know that DWT is completely written in D?
>

Really? What about the parts of SWT that written in C? Or are those very small compared to the whole codebase?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 05/04/2011 21:54, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:49:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:infu1q$6bn$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Am 05.04.2011 22:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>>
>>>> I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably the "Awesomebar".. the feature in FF3+ that searches all
>>> visisted URLs (and the page titles) for the word you type into the
>>> URL-bar (and not just completes URLs like before).
>>> http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/04/21/a-little-something-awesome-about-firefox-3/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yea, it's also really, really ugly.
>
> You just like swimming upstream, don't you :)
>

It's just one thing after the other... :P Nick, if you're like this when you're still quite young, I can't imagine how you'll be when you get old to the age of 50 and 60...

Hum, maybe your grumpiness/anti-ness will get so incredibly high that it will actually overflow and revert to a low value. Then you'll be a happy, carefree spirit, sell you CRT that you've managed to keep working for so many decades (which by the time will be a relic worth a lot of money), buy one of those 4D infinite-resolution meta-spacial monitors that are the latest tech, start using all the latest and popular software and applications, including "MindBook" - kinda like Facebook, but a neuro-social network that connects everyone's mind (the mobile phone evolved into a neural communication device) and allows one to share one's thoughts directly to all friends (even private thoughts if you're not careful :P). It's the collective consciousness that is all the rage with the kids, and that all the old adults (ourselves that are young now) think is too fashionable/intrusive/dehumanizing/immoral/childish/not-childish/useless/wasteful/whatever-choose-your-own.

Or not. :P

PS: no offense intended. :)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 05/04/2011 10:04, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-04-05 01:16, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On 2011-04-04 15:41, Matthias Pleh wrote:
>>> Am 05.04.2011 00:14, schrieb Daniel Gibson:
>>>> Maybe your company could help the DWT or QtD guys?
>>>> Getting something stable out of that would most probably not take as
>>>> long as developing your own cross-platform GUI toolkit.
>>>> Furthermore many people are already familiar with SWT and Qt, so they
>>>> wouldn't have to learn another toolkit for D.
>>>
>>> You have missed the point. For our company the decision is made. We
>>> already use C++/Qt now.
>>> But I really like the D programming language and I use it for all my
>>> private projects. So I think, we, as the D community, should create a
>>> modern D GUI library entirely written in D.
>>
>> Feel free to do that if you want, but I think that most people around
>> here
>> would agree that your time would be better spent improving the
>> existing GUI
>> toolkit bindings - such as qtd or dwt. A _lot_ of time and effort goes
>> into
>> making a truly solid and complete GUI toolkit. Why duplicate all of
>> that work?
>> There's just too much else that needs to be done for D. And even if we
>> _want_
>> duplicate that work with a GUI toolkit which is completely written in
>> D, you'd
>> need a large team to develop it properly. And given the general
>> difficulties
>> in getting contributors for the various major D projects, I rather
>> doubt that
>> you're going to manage that.
>>
>> So, do whatever you want, but I really don't think that developing a
>> new GUI
>> toolkit for D is really the best use of your time. There's plenty of
>> other
>> stuff that needs doing which would be of greater value.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> I completely agree. Qt has been around since 1992 and SWT since the
> 1990s, starting as a toolkit for smalltalk. They both have come very far
> in their development.
>

I completely agree too.
Even if DWT's Javaness is eventually completely unbearable for someone, it would still be much better to change it (even if as a fork/new-project and not part of the main project) than to build something entirely new from scratch.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

"Bruno Medeiros" <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote in message news:inl5cp$2gkf$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 05/04/2011 21:54, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:49:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:infu1q$6bn$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> Am 05.04.2011 22:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably the "Awesomebar".. the feature in FF3+ that searches all
>>>> visisted URLs (and the page titles) for the word you type into the
>>>> URL-bar (and not just completes URLs like before).
>>>> http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/04/21/a-little-something-awesome-about-firefox-3/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yea, it's also really, really ugly.
>>
>> You just like swimming upstream, don't you :)
>>
>
> It's just one thing after the other... :P Nick, if you're like this when you're still quite young, I can't imagine how you'll be when you get old to the age of 50 and 60...
>
> Hum, maybe your grumpiness/anti-ness will get so incredibly high that it will actually overflow and revert to a low value. Then you'll be a happy, carefree spirit, sell you CRT that you've managed to keep working for so many decades (which by the time will be a relic worth a lot of money), buy one of those 4D infinite-resolution meta-spacial monitors that are the latest tech, start using all the latest and popular software and applications, including "MindBook" - kinda like Facebook, but a neuro-social network that connects everyone's mind (the mobile phone evolved into a neural communication device) and allows one to share one's thoughts directly to all friends (even private thoughts if you're not careful :P).

I already have that "share private thoughts if you're not careful" thing. It's called talking to myself.

Oops, did I just type that out loud?

> It's the collective consciousness that is all the rage with the kids, and that all the old adults (ourselves that are young now) think is too fashionable/intrusive/dehumanizing/immoral/childish/not-childish/useless/wasteful/whatever-choose-your-own.
>
> Or not. :P
>
> PS: no offense intended. :)
>

Heh :) Damn Borg kids...

I think I'm basically turning into Cranky Kong (if you've ever played Donkey Kong Country):

"They can't keep this level of graphics up for much longer! We used to be lucky if we only got three shades of grey, let alone any real colors!"

"Look!...look at this!...as I rock, my beard swings! Waste of frames in my opinion!"

On 4/7/11, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 04:13, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Wait, I'm a dumbass!
>>
>> Actually QtD needs to have Qt's MinGW in PATH, not the regular MinGW. Hold on a second, let me see what you need to do..
>
> Qt has its own MinGW? o_o'

I'm not sure what's special about it, maybe they've just preconfigured it to work better for Qt. I think compilation of QtD fails unless you use the one that's distributed with Qt.