Author |
Message |
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
version 1.2b linked at top |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Version 1.3 at top |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maverick
Age:39 Gender: Joined: Feb 26 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: The Netherlands Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Can you include an non-installer version please? (zipped?)
I hate to install programs that doesn't really require an installer.
Oh, maybe it would be better if the original template.sss is renamed to template.sss.org or template.sss.bak. I think thats what people usually use as extension. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Done.
This application really needs an installer. You don't need it now because you have installed an earlier version so the components are already registered in your system. But I've been adding more components so if you get any error you must do a full installation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Maverick wrote: | maybe it would be better if the original template.sss is renamed to template.sss.org or template.sss.bak. I think thats what people usually use as extension. |
Ok, next version will rename template.sss as template.sss.bak |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire I'll count you!
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Jul 14 2003 Posts: 4608 Location: A Dream Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
xor eax wrote: | the components are already registered in your system |
You're adding registry keys? Please don't, just use an INI. _________________ This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mine GO BOOM Hunch Hunch What What
Age:40 Gender: Joined: Aug 01 2002 Posts: 3614 Location: Las Vegas Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Cyan~Fire wrote: | You're adding registry keys? Please don't, just use an INI. |
Actually, its a whole bunch of VB dlls and such that make it so bloated and require the installer to verify that they are all there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire I'll count you!
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Jul 14 2003 Posts: 4608 Location: A Dream Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
When I used to write VB programs (please, please never quote me on that) I just included the link to the MS site for the necessary DLLs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Cyan~Fire wrote: | You're adding registry keys? Please don't, just use an INI. | I'm not adding registry keys. The installer is doing it for the new components.
Mine GO BOOM wrote: | Actually, its a whole bunch of VB dlls and such that make it so bloated and require the installer to verify that they are all there. | Exactly.
Cyan~Fire wrote: | I just included the link to the MS site for the necessary DLLs. | It is not only about DLLs and runtimes. OCX components must be registered as OLE servers. Most of the OCX components of the program are standard windows components that are already present when you install this application. But there is at least one component which is not so common, smbutton.ocx. (I am installing all this stuff in the program folder, not in the System folder, to keep your system more clean.)
I'm an assembly programmer, but I use VB or Delphi for simple projects like this ( I just hate C... sorry). This program has no mystery at all, it's just reading/moving/saving data all the time (no fast graphics are required, no complex calculations, no mystery in any way). Data comes from txt files. VB is pretty fast in random disk access. I don't see the advantage of assembly here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1st0rt Miss Directed Wannabe
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Aug 31 2003 Posts: 2247 Location: Blacksburg, VA Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
If you can write assembly... C shouldn't be that hard since it can be directly translated _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Yes, it's not hard. It's just annoying... all those "{" and its correspondent "}" :p If I have to write it in C I would use assembly instead. But I thought this kind of program is ok for a language like VB. Text files and text boxes... that's what it's all about. I built it in a couple of weeks of free time. It would take the double for me to write it in assembly. And I bet you won't notice any perfomance gain in the asm version. Not in this kind of code. Hmm.. I think I'll use asm for the ASSS version so we can compare. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire I'll count you!
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Jul 14 2003 Posts: 4608 Location: A Dream Offline
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Yes, Cyan, you are right. But if you use some other OCX (such as smbutton.ocx) you have to distribute it since it is not included with the VB run times and standard components.
About perfomance between asm and VB, I admit VB waste much more resources and memory having loaded tones of code that your program won't use... I checked the max memory usage to be about 30 MB (having 8 files loaded for editing) and the min is about 5 MB. I guess asm would waste less than a half. But I thought it is not a big problem with modern computers. The ASSS asm version of the editor will be much more efficient internally, but it won't be faster or "better" in the same proportion.
And I still haven't heard a "shut up you shitty VB programmer!", which is cool :) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire I'll count you!
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Jul 14 2003 Posts: 4608 Location: A Dream Offline
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Although I am nearly as obsessed with efficiency as Ekted is, I definitely do not support ASM coding. That's just way too much effort for so little gain. (And produces such unreadable code.) I, however, absolutely do not understand your aversion to the C syntax. I find it the most organized and (if well-written) the most readable of all the languages I've encountered.
And anyway, brackets are easier to type than the words VB forces you to use. You prefer "End Sub" over "}" and End If over "}" and even Wend over "}"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well.. I'm kinda obssessed with efficiency too, but not always. This program is just a little tool. You can write it in C or asm, and you will end up sending WM_SETTEXT/WM_GETTEXT messages to Text windows all the time as well. It will be much better code, no doubt. The thing is about the price to pay for it. You can call me cheap for chosing VB :p
About C syntax... don't get me wrong. I think C is a pretty good language. I was kidding about the brackets. They are not worse than End Sub, Loop Until, etc. But I don't think asm is unreadable. I find it to be transparent... :p When debugging your asm code you see almost the same source you wrote. And you are forced to think as the machine does, which could be bad for your mental health but is good for the code you write.
On the other hand, low level is almost a joke in Windows. It is not REAL machine code, it runs in Ring 3 into the VM. You have to write an VxD to "get out of The Matrix". You don't even see the real memory but the space reserved for you by the VM... 4 GB of linear addresses for each process, a joke. It is not pure x86 asm, it is Win32 asm. That's why it is so similar to C in windows. You wouldn't think of calling BIOS Int 10h to change the video mode without crashing the system, you have to use APIs for almost everything so it's very similar to C or any other language in the end. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Version 1.4 is at top.
I will be testing this version in the next days. When ready I will release the version 2.0 and I'll start working in the ASSS setting editor. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Do somebody think that an option to compare CFGs could be useful? It can be used to check settings differences from pub to subarenas, or to check what is changed between different settings versions of same arena.
Bah! with luck I will end this program about next year or so... :p |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire I'll count you!
Age:36 Gender: Joined: Jul 14 2003 Posts: 4608 Location: A Dream Offline
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well, there's always diff or windiff. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Cyan~Fire wrote: | Well, there's always diff or windiff. | True... these tools can do the job quite well.
Right now I can only see 2 advantages in a custom made comparision:
-The ability of comparing CFG with SET (that's something WinDiff will never do...).
-A more clear list of differences, that can be saved to disk or printed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maverick
Age:39 Gender: Joined: Feb 26 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: The Netherlands Offline
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
That would be very usefull.
It would be so much easier to compare subarena setts which are based on pub compare with pub settings. Also other way around. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Ok then. You want it to compare files 1 to 1 or 1 to many?
It can be: compare File1 to File2
or: compare File1 to File2, File3, ..., FileN
I guess the 2nd option is better |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maverick
Age:39 Gender: Joined: Feb 26 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: The Netherlands Offline
|
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Second option makes first option possible aswell. However it might be a bitch to move a file into a seperate directory to just compare one file to the one in the new directory.
Good GUI is of the essence here, if you don't do it good the feature will become unusable.
For example (the program I like and use the most for file comparing) ExamDiff. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xor eax Novice
Joined: Jun 01 2005 Posts: 93 Location: Spain Offline
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maverick
Age:39 Gender: Joined: Feb 26 2005 Posts: 1521 Location: The Netherlands Offline
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Offline
|
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Sure, A grid or something like this would be ok. Just put the data aligned to be comfortably readable.
About the right colors, etc, please tell me any other thing you want to change in the program. Is the validation report ok? And my english is not very good, please warn me about incorrections you may find. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|