|
Socoder -> On Topic -> How r I maikering dem aPPz.? |
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 02:06 | |
Jayenkai
|
In the spirit of this month's challenge, I think I'd like to code a nice App or two. (considering I'm apparently not in much of a game making mood this month.. let's hope that doesn't last the full year, or my GameAWeek plan might be severly messed up!) But apps should be small, and apps should be neat, and apps should run without 17,000 additional installs for the end user.. What makes small neat apps that run without 17,000 additional installs for the end user? -=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' 
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 08:59 | |
|
mike_g |
Perhaps Java? If its safe to assume your users have the JRE the standard library has a pretty monolithic tookit. For GUI apps Swing is easy to use, especially if you have Netbeans.
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 09:02 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
This morning I set about reconstructing SoC, using the base LCC C compiler download thingy. I'll probably just aim it at quick-fire APP development, though, as opposed to trying to build a complete game engine around it.. Mostly 'cos the Sound stuff ticked me off last time 
-=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 09:56 | |
Phoenix
|
But Java still requires 17,000 additional install files for the end user. I almost never use Java apps, and therefore my JRE version is probably very old (that was the issue last year when I wanted to try something JL made in Java).
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 14:38 | |
Scherererer
|
Obviously you should be using BlitzPlus, duh  .I'm a fan of using C#.NET, Java is my second choice. Ultimately, though, if the user is using windows (XP or higher), then in all likelihood they've already got the .NET framework installed (at least v2.0, which you can build apps for in either VS2005 or 2008). And as for java, enough sites are using java plugins nowadays that most computers I've seen either come with it installed by the manufacturer or the end user ends up with it on their machine anyway. I think the time when people need to be worrying about the JIT engines is kind of behind us, at the very least when it comes to those two platforms. -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Sat, 03 Jan 2009, 14:51 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
I'd agree, if I hadn't been thinking that for about 7 or 8 years, now.. When "Macromedia Flash" first appeared, and folk started talking about "Animation online" and "Possible Applications" and silly nonsensical sillyness, that seemed stupid, and it ALWAYS required that SILLY Flash install.. But, damn, that worked. Java's still trying. Hell, Microsoft THEMSELVES are still trying to catch up. Flash got where it is by using that good old standard of Good Old Standards. Flash 10 will more than likely run Flash 1 just as well, if not better, than Flash 1 did. Stick with sticking with things, they tend not to inexplicably destroy things as you go along... .. Assuming you built them well to begin with. .. I'd rant more, but I'm too hungry, so sod it.. Basic Gist, Sod all that, I'm sticking with LCC, as it actually works... As in, it actually works.. I just need to make it all a bit more Jay Friendly. -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Sun, 04 Jan 2009, 02:24 | |
JL235
|
With Java I'd still recommend you targetted 5 rather then 6, but at the source code level this just means you can't use a few non-essential Java 6 classes. However for the user some things (like Java2D) on the Java 5 JVM are half the speed when compared to the latest Java 6 JVM. This means you can get varying performance results for different users who have the same hardware. Ok it's because their JVM isn't up to date but people are less inclined to update that then most apps. I agree most machines come with Java, it's at a point where it's strange not to have it. But people don't like running .jars! It's strange because people have less of a problem installing .NET. In fairness though it's trivial to wrap it to look like a normal Windows app. But .NET, it's kinda so assured to be there. Especially in a few years time. It almost makes me want to switch (again). |
| Sun, 04 Jan 2009, 10:08 | |
|
Scherererer
|
I agree with JL on using Java 5... just don't use anything less! I personally can't stand to use Java 4 and below... On opening jar's, isn't there something out nowadays that wraps the jar into an exe? I know jar's themselves have typically given me issues in the past when trying to run them like executables. (btw, fun fact, jar's are just zip files 0_o) -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Sun, 04 Jan 2009, 17:32 | |
|
JL235
|
Instinct I don't believe they are exactly the same, for example I'm pretty sure they can have a jar header file too to state things like what class inside is the main class.
 (btw, fun fact, jar's are just zip files 0_o) |
| Sun, 04 Jan 2009, 19:59 | |
|
Scherererer
|
It's possible... but if you take any jar file, and rename it to .zip, you can open it no problem with winzip, the shell extension, or whatever extractor you use.
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Sun, 04 Jan 2009, 23:12 | |
|
JL235
|
That doesn't mean it's a .zip. All it means is that the application can open .jars (by this I'm not saying it's not a .zip). Most (and should be all) applications don't rely on the file extension when deciding how to decompress a file. Instead they look internally at the files header information. For example if you rename a .bmp to a .jpg it can still be opened in paint! But it does also say on Wikipedia that the jar format is based on the zip format. |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||