www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - 2D game engine written in D is in progress

reply "solidstate1991" <laszloszeremi outlook.com> writes:
I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
indie games.

Features:

-Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
layers
-Support for sprite scaling and rotation
-Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
-Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
same size on one layer
-Collision detection
-Support for modding
-Sprite editor, tile map editor

It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't
decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
it).
Dec 17 2014
next sibling parent reply Ben Boeckel via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +0000, solidstate1991 via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

                                                   I still haven't
 decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
 by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
 it).


One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the artwork
under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato does).

--Ben
Dec 17 2014
parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:52:14 UTC, Ben Boeckel via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +0000, solidstate1991 via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

                                                   I still 
 haven't
 decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
 by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
 it).


 One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the 
 artwork
 under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato 
 does).

 --Ben


Or you could license it under GPL and have a commercial 
alternative license. At least then you get some payback from any 
closed-source commercial use.
Dec 17 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 
wrote:

 I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
 limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
 indie games.

 Features:

 -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
 layers
 -Support for sprite scaling and rotation
 -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
 -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
 work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
 same size on one layer
 -Collision detection
 -Support for modding
 -Sprite editor, tile map editor

 It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
 to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
 can come up with a better name I might change it. I still 
 haven't
 decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
 by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
 it).


Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all announce 
threads to Reddit):

https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/
Dec 18 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 01:00:30 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:

 It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
 to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if 
 you
 can come up with a better name I might change it. I still 
 haven't
 decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
 by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
 it).


 Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all 
 announce threads to Reddit):

 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/


Since others are mentioning commercial open-source models and 
that guy asked about using a more liberal license, let me mention 
another newer model.  Develop most of the codebase in the open 
under a permissive license like MIT/BSD/Apache but keep some of 
the features or patches closed, particularly those that would 
most interest potential commercial licensees.

This is the model used by Android, the most successful open 
source project ever, where AOSP is released as OSS then the 
hardware and smartphone vendors add their proprietary blobs and 
patches before selling the entire software bundle.  It's probably 
the best model if you want to be open source, get wide usage, and 
still have good commercial possibilities.
Dec 18 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 This is the model used by Android, the most successful open=20
 source project ever


i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has
nothing to do with android popularity.
Dec 19 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 This is the model used by Android, the most successful open 
 source project ever


 i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has
 nothing to do with android popularity.


I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  If 
the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the 
hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and 
used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other 
alternatives at the time.

It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window 
implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android 
and released their own proprietary versions.  Commercial vendors 
want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but 
AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work 
together.

This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it 
has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android 
and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some 
fragmentation too.
Dec 19 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via=20
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 This is the model used by Android, the most successful open=20
 source project ever


 i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has
 nothing to do with android popularity.


=20
 I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  If=20
 the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the=20
 hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and=20
 used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other=20
 alternatives at the time.
=20
 It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window=20
 implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android=20
 and released their own proprietary versions.  Commercial vendors=20
 want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but=20
 AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work=20
 together.
=20
 This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it=20
 has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android=20
 and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some=20
 fragmentation too.


what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not
having some closed-source patches.
Dec 19 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.airpost.net> writes:
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 15:05:05 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 This is the model used by Android, the most successful open 
 source project ever


 i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features 
 has
 nothing to do with android popularity.


 
 I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  
 If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the 
 hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and 
 used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other 
 alternatives at the time.
 
 It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window 
 implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked 
 Android and released their own proprietary versions.  
 Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own 
 proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform 
 on which they can work together.
 
 This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it 
 has led to a billion smartphones running some version of 
 Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with 
 some fragmentation too.


 what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), 
 not
 having some closed-source patches.


Which of those OSS licenses are the proprietary features and 
blobs I listed offered under?  None, and the choice of license is 
critical because you cannot offer closed-source patches under the 
viral GPL, ie it is the BSDL/Apache permissive licenses that make 
this winning mixed model possible.

If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no 
Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices 
because of binary blob drivers.  Without the proprietary add-ons, 
AOSP would be unusable.
Dec 19 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:04:22 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no=20
 Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices=20
 because of binary blob drivers.  Without the proprietary add-ons,=20
 AOSP would be unusable.


it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or other oem
have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really
has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that works as
additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like "hey,
android is open! it's cool! use android!" bullshit.
Dec 19 2014
next sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google 
 really
 has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that 
 works as
 additional coders and testers for free.


Well, those people want to do that, so why not?
Dec 19 2014
parent ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 +0000
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via=20
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google=20
 really
 has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that=20
 works as
 additional coders and testers for free.


=20
 Well, those people want to do that, so why not?


i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he want. what
i'm against is declaring android "open project". it's proprietary
project with partially opened source.
Dec 19 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 17:21:43 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or 
 other oem
 have, as i still got the closed proprietary system.


Not exactly, as the flourishing Android ROM scene shows.  While 
many people also jailbreak their Apple iDevices, it's not quite 
so easy to install your own ROM on them.  That comes from much of 
the source being open for Android, though certainly not all of it.


 what google really
 has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that 
 works as
 additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like 
 "hey,
 android is open! it's cool! use android!" bullshit.


What's wrong with reusing open-source work that has already been 
done in other contexts, through all the open source projects that 
are integrated into Android?  Those who worked for "free" did so 
because they wanted to, either because they got paid to do so at 
Red Hat or IBM and released their work for free or because they 
enjoyed doing it.  Nothing wrong with Android building on 
existing OSS.

As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely 
open.  You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware 
vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open 
source.  So you seem to be conflating the two.

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 18:50:14 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:59 +0000
 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce

 Well, those people want to do that, so why not?


 i have nothing against that, everyone is free to do what he 
 want. what
 i'm against is declaring android "open project". it's 
 proprietary
 project with partially opened source.


I'd say open source project with proprietary additions. :) But 
AOSP is not particularly open in how it's developed, as google 
pretty much works on it on their own and then puts out OSS code 
dumps a couple times a year.  That's not a true open source 
process, where you do everything in the open and continuously 
take outside patches, as D does, but they do pull in patches from 
the several outside OSS projects they build on.

In any case, AOSP releases all their source under OSS licenses, 
not sure what more you want.
Dec 20 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:58:58 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 Nothing wrong with Android building on existing OSS.


i never said that this is something wrong. unethical from my POV, but
not wrong.


 As for the hype, the source google releases, AOSP, is completely=20
 open.  You're right that it's then closed up by all the hardware=20
 vendors, but I doubt you'll find one who hypes that it's open=20
 source.  So you seem to be conflating the two.


i see such people almost every day. "i bought android-based smartphone
'cause android is open source!" i still can't understand how buying
closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still proprietary
system with opened source, not FOSS.

Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will adopt
GPLv3, which will never happen.
Dec 20 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 11:57:49 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 i still can't understand how buying
 closed proprietary crap supports FOSS. and android is still 
 proprietary
 system with opened source, not FOSS.


I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that 
AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much 
more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.  
Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream 
into the mainline linux kernel.

Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit 
called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for 
Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources 
with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only 
put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects 
and commercial vendors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaro

If they hadn't had success with Android commercially, there's no 
way they do that.  I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS 
has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a 
mixed fashion.


 Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will 
 adopt
 GPLv3, which will never happen.


What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.
Dec 20 2014
next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:02:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it 
 will adopt
 GPLv3, which will never happen.


 What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.


GPLv3 is single worst thing that ever happened to OSS
Dec 20 2014
prev sibling parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects that=20
 AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, get much=20
 more usage and patches because they're being commercially used.


can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more patches")
almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see how x86
code generator got better due to android, for example. ah, didn't i
told you that i don't care about arm at all? somehow people telling me
about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should care
about that "something". so i feel that i can do the same and argue that
i don't care.


 Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back upstream=20
 into the mainline linux kernel.


that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited?


 Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a non-profit=20
 called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, mostly for=20
 Android but also for regular desktop distros, and share resources=20
 with each other, employing several dozen paid developers who only=20
 put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, ie both OSS projects=20
 and commercial vendors:


you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-)


 I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS=20
 has never and will never do well, that it can only succeed in a=20
 mixed fashion.


why should i care if "OSS will do well"? i don't even know what that
means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making another
proprietary crap "do well" changes nothing. more than that, it makes
people forget about "F" is FOSS. so i'm not interested in "success of
OSS projects".


 Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it will=20
 adopt
 GPLv3, which will never happen.


=20
 What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.


yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do tivoisation
and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying hard to
help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there if a
given issue is annoying me.
Dec 20 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects 
 that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, 
 get much more usage and patches because they're being 
 commercially used.


 can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more 
 patches")
 almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see 
 how x86
 code generator got better due to android, for example.


Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an 
OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?  There are 
patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, 
that's all that matters.  As for the x86 code generator, Android 
has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were 
some patches sent back for that.


 ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all?
 somehow people telling me
 about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should 
 care
 about that "something". so i feel that i can do the same and 
 argue that
 i don't care.


 Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back 
 upstream into the mainline linux kernel.


 that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited?


 Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a 
 non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, 
 mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and 
 share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid 
 developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, 
 ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors:


 you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-)


 I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and 
 will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed 
 fashion.


 why should i care if "OSS will do well"? i don't even know what 
 that
 means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making 
 another
 proprietary crap "do well" changes nothing. more than that, it 
 makes
 people forget about "F" is FOSS. so i'm not interested in 
 "success of
 OSS projects".


You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, 
because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to 
care about FOSS doing well.  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" 
your needs and has any usage today is precisely because 
commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development, 
whether IBM and Red Hat's contributions stemming from their 
consulting/support model or the Android vendors' support paid for 
by their mixed model.

You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still 
exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead 
without it.  If that were the case, there would be almost no "F," 
just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS.  
Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but 
that world will never exist.


 Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it 
 will adopt
 GPLv3, which will never happen.


 
 What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.


 yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do 
 tivoisation
 and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying 
 hard to
 help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there 
 if a
 given issue is annoying me.


What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 
not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and 
more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral 
licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.
Dec 20 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via=20
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects=20
 that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc,=20
 get much more usage and patches because they're being=20
 commercially used.


 can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more=20
 patches")
 almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see=20
 how x86
 code generator got better due to android, for example.


=20
 Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an=20
 OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?


'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000?
sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but how much?


 There are=20
 patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise,=20
 that's all that matters.


nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that "much".


 As for the x86 code generator, Android=20
 has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were=20
 some patches sent back for that.


and it's possible that i sent even more patches. so what? why nobody
prise me for that? ah, i'm not a That Big Company that throws off their
leavings.


 You may not care about any of these patches for your own use,=20
 because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to=20
 care about FOSS doing well.


i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is that
with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i can't
see that as good thing.


  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits"=20
 your needs and has any usage today is precisely because=20
 commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development


i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't
have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously
thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial support"
is suits me lesser and lesser.


 You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still=20
 exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead=20
 without it.  If that were the case, there would be almost no "F,"=20
 just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS. =20
 Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but=20
 that world will never exist.


this world is still not exist. and dropping "F" will not help it.


 What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3=20
 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and=20
 more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral=20
 licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.


that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's
"viral" license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot
more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's "permissive"
license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks
(juniper, for example).
Dec 20 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


  >> Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an

 OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?


 'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 
 10000?
 sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but 
 how much?


 There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent 
 otherwise, that's all that matters.


 nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that 
 "much".


That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend 
time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If 
it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?


 You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, 
 because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem 
 to care about FOSS doing well.


 i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is 
 that
 with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i 
 can't
 see that as good thing.


I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist 
OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you 
prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant 
commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult 
to understand about that.

It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more 
individuals choose a permissive license for their personal 
projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing 
the GPL by default like they did in the past.


  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" your needs and has any 
 usage today is precisely because commercial vendors 
 contributed greatly to its development


 i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i 
 didn't
 have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm 
 seriously
 thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial 
 support"
 is suits me lesser and lesser.


You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?


 What you should worry about more is that not only has the 
 GPLv3 not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with 
 more and more projects choosing permissive licenses these 
 days.  The viral licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is 
 increasingly dying off.


 that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied 
 with it's
 "viral" license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it 
 has alot
 more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's "permissive"
 license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks
 (juniper, for example).


The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly 
consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open 
source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source 
pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used 
to open source and actually releasing products based on open 
source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing 
source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more 
money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton 
more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support 
contracts.

So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better 
commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly 
killing off the GPL.  I wrote about some of this and suggested a 
new mixed model almost five years ago:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing

What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous 
success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited 
mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
Dec 20 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via=20
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


   >> Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an

 OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?


 'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000?=20
 10000?
 sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but=20
 how much?


 There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent=20
 otherwise, that's all that matters.


 nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that=20
 "much".


=20
 That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend=20
 time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If=20
 it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?


i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the
numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why
else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers.
or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more
patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be
asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about "many more
patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will ask to
show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a
useless android-specific crap.

see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to
say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do is
compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet
numbers still looks impressive.


 You may not care about any of these patches for your own use,=20
 because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem=20
 to care about FOSS doing well.


 i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is=20
 that
 with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i=20
 can't
 see that as good thing.


=20
 I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist=20
 OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you=20
 prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant=20
 commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult=20
 to understand about that.


you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for
example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts
sending patches.

and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS
projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know what
"real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).


 It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more=20
 individuals choose a permissive license for their personal=20
 projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing=20
 the GPL by default like they did in the past.


ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux
success? i knew that!

from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose "permissive"
license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in
proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.

i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that
product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i
mean "the code i wrote without payment".

and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.


  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" your needs and has any=20
 usage today is precisely because commercial vendors=20
 contributed greatly to its development


 i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i=20
 didn't
 have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm=20
 seriously
 thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial=20
 support"
 is suits me lesser and lesser.


=20
 You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?


if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made
computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and
proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state
now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who
claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for real work",
so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take
emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before
corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.

you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". only
when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and,
btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.


 The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly=20
 consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open=20
 source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source=20
 pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used=20
 to open source and actually releasing products based on open=20
 source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing=20
 source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more=20
 money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton=20
 more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support=20
 contracts.


why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will
get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and
would sell it for a dime.


 So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better=20
 commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly=20
 killing off the GPL.


i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't believe
Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes". the bad
thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i can't live
'em alone in their brave new world.


 I wrote about some of this and suggested a=20
 new mixed model almost five years ago:
=20
 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dsprewell_licensing
=20
 What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous=20
 success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited=20
 mixed model is ultimately the endgame.


this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want to be
fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is, just
like vendor don't care about my needs.
Dec 21 2014
parent reply "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 15:44:05 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would 
 spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify 
 anyway.  If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  
 10%?  30%?


 i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the
 numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive 
 stats. why
 else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some 
 numbers.
 or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got 
 many more
 patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i 
 will be
 asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about 
 "many more
 patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will 
 ask to
 show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is 
 not a
 useless android-specific crap.


But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that 
patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show 
that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.


 see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very 
 hard to
 say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do 
 is
 compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet
 numbers still looks impressive.


Except that Android obviously has nothing so narrow as Hyper-V to 
which it's isolated to.


 I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these 
 hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or 
 whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work 
 without significant commercial involvement over the years.  
 Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.


 you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, 
 for
 example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors 
 starts
 sending patches.

 and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS
 projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know 
 what
 "real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).


What would be "proofs" of being made much more viable by 
commercial involvement?  As for linux and gcc not being the only 
mature projects, every other one you can think of very likely 
also benefited greatly from commercial investment.


 It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many 
 more individuals choose a permissive license for their 
 personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux 
 and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.


 ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate 
 Linux
 success? i knew that!


Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or 
llvm. :D


 from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose 
 "permissive"
 license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, 
 use it in
 proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.


If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?  Google runs a 
patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't 
release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel 
contributors?


 i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until 
 that
 product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
 product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. 
 oh, i
 mean "the code i wrote without payment".


You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code 
others wrote on top of your code.


 and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.


Yes, you mentioned that before.


 You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?


 if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made
 computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. 
 again. and
 proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable 
 state
 now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not 
 me who
 claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for 
 real work",
 so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... 
 let's take
 emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before
 corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.


I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such 
proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what 
you'll accept as proof.  As I said before, all the data is out 
there, you're free to prove it to yourself.


 you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". 
 only
 when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in 
 it. and,
 btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.


This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.


 The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was 
 mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using 
 open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release 
 source pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are 
 more used to open source and actually releasing products based 
 on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're 
 releasing source for permissive licenses also and products 
 make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and 
 Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes 
 off OS support contracts.


 why do you think that i should care how much money corporations 
 will
 get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their 
 freedom and
 would sell it for a dime.


I already explained why: because that means they put more money 
into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.


 So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a 
 better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models 
 are slowly killing off the GPL.


 i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't 
 believe
 Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes". 
 the bad
 thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i 
 can't live
 'em alone in their brave new world.


Stallman accidentally got some things right, but his turning FOSS 
into some sort of idealistic crusade for pure open source, ie 
free software, is hopelessly ignorant.  That's why the GPL is 
dying off.


 I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model 
 almost five years ago:
 
 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
 
 What I predicted has basically come true with Android's 
 enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my 
 time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.


 this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want 
 to be
 fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is, 
 just
 like vendor don't care about my needs.


I don't see how they're doing anything to you, nor do I say 
anything about a vendor's PITA.

Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter 
how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.
Dec 21 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that=20
 patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show=20
 that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.


do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?


 It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many=20
 more individuals choose a permissive license for their=20
 personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux=20
 and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.


 ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate=20
 Linux
 success? i knew that!


=20
 Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or=20
 llvm. :D


individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.


 from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose=20
 "permissive"
 license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution,=20
 use it in
 proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.


=20
 If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?


i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."


 Google runs a=20
 patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't=20
 release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel=20
 contributors?


does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking
about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with
accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system
whose output then sold is ok.


 i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until=20
 that
 product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
 product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely.=20
 oh, i
 mean "the code i wrote without payment".


 You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code=20
 others wrote on top of your code.


and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the
code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.


 I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such=20
 proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what=20
 you'll accept as proof.


that wasn't me who created such situation.


 As I said before, all the data is out=20
 there, you're free to prove it to yourself.


so you have no proofs. q.e.d.


 you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS".=20
 only
 when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in=20
 it. and,
 btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.


 This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.


and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software can't be
grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".


 why do you think that i should care how much money corporations=20
 will
 get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their=20
 freedom and
 would sell it for a dime.


 I already explained why: because that means they put more money=20
 into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.


the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.


 Stallman accidentally got some things right


no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each time RL
goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an accident
and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.


 That's why the GPL is dying off.


but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules and
subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually doing is
just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some time to
grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's freedom,
and then everything will start all over again.


 I don't see how they're doing anything to you


this is the root of the whole problem.


 Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter=20
 how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.


not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we have to
protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really don't
care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those tools
were designed.
Dec 21 2014
parent "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
Sigh, I did ask you some questions, which you've answered with a 
couple more questions, so I'll give you one last response.

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 18:52:00 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:


 But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that 
 patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show 
 that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother 
 me.


 do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?


No, I see that you asking me to quantify something and then 
dodging the question of why it should be quantified, ie when I 
asked you what your magical threshold of relevance is, makes no 
sense at all. :) In any case, whatever you think that would 
prove, I have not offered to prove it to you.  The raw data is 
out there: if you want certain statistics extracted from that 
data that only matter to you, it's up to you to collect them.


 ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to 
 emulate Linux
 success? i knew that!


 
 Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or 
 llvm. :D


 individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.


Whatever that means.  Both have become much more successful in 
recent years by using mostly permissive licenses.


 from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose 
 "permissive"
 license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, 
 use it in
 proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.


 
 If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?


 i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."


If you sent him patches, he's not stealing your code.  No wonder 
you left that part out, but your whole story made no sense 
without it.


 Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and 
 mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from 
 all linux kernel contributors?


 does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was 
 talking
 about selling the software product (as a standalone product or 
 with
 accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built 
 some system
 whose output then sold is ok.


I see, so it's okay if google takes outside patches for their 
kernel, creates a search engine on top of it, and then sells 
access to the advertising on that search engine without releasing 
any kernel source, but not okay if they sell those same servers 
with that patched kernel and search engine bundled without 
including any kernel source.  This is the classic idiocy of GPL 
zealots, where they imagine they are purists for "freedom" then 
twist themselves in knots when it's pointed out the GPL actually 
doesn't accomplish that in any meaningful way, since most GPL 
code actually runs on the server.  Of course, some then go use 
the AGPL, but that's a small minority.


 i see nothing bad from making money from the product... 
 until that
 product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access 
 to
 product sources AND i can't pass those sources around 
 freely. oh, i
 mean "the code i wrote without payment".


 You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to 
 code others wrote on top of your code.


 and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me 
 all the
 code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.


Funny how you don't make the same demands of google or some other 
cloud vendor who runs your code.  I guess distribution must be 
magical somehow, ie it's okay if they run your code on the 
server, just not on the desktop.


 I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make 
 such proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not 
 define what you'll accept as proof.


 that wasn't me who created such situation.


 As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to 
 prove it to yourself.


 so you have no proofs. q.e.d.


Lol, _you_ created the impossible situation of demanding proof 
you couldn't define, nobody is going to prove it to you.


 you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla 
 OS". only
 when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money 
 in it. and,
 btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.


 This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.


 and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software 
 can't be
 grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".


I was only agreeing that anything successful usually starts as 
guerilla and that when a large company starts investing a lot in 
it, they often make mistakes.  No idea how you draw the 
conclusion from that that OSS can't be made more viable through 
corporate support, especially given that that has been shown 
invariably to be the case.


 why do you think that i should care how much money 
 corporations will
 get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their 
 freedom and
 would sell it for a dime.


 I already explained why: because that means they put more 
 money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, 
 clang/llvm, etc.


 the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.


Well, a billion people do care, so the money and support they're 
pouring into those projects means they're obsoleting the projects 
you do care about. :)


 Stallman accidentally got some things right


 no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each 
 time RL
 goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an 
 accident
 and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.


Haha, "Stallman is god," thank you for making it clear that 
you're not thinking clearly on this topic.


 That's why the GPL is dying off.


 but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules 
 and
 subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually 
 doing is
 just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some 
 time to
 grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's 
 freedom,
 and then everything will start all over again.


Keep dreaming.  I've pointed out to you the economic reasons why 
permissive licenses are winning, but you either don't understand 
them or are willfully ignoring them.


 I don't see how they're doing anything to you


 this is the root of the whole problem.


 Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter 
 how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.


 not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we 
 have to
 protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really 
 don't
 care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those 
 tools
 were designed.


Except when that purpose is to run the software on the server, 
then you don't care about "freedom."  The "freedom" that you want 
isn't really provided by the GPL, and is impossible if you demand 
that all software must be completely free, instead of parts of 
software being open source, like with Android.

But it's not about reality and any meaningful definition of 
freedom for people like you, it's about creating some fantasy 
inconsistent definition and then clinging to it, no matter how 
irrational.
Dec 21 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "solidstate1991" <laszloszeremi outlook.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 
wrote:

 I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
 limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
 indie games.

 Features:

 -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
 layers
 -Support for sprite scaling and rotation
 -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
 -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
 work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
 same size on one layer
 -Collision detection
 -Support for modding
 -Sprite editor, tile map editor

 It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
 to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
 can come up with a better name I might change it. I still 
 haven't
 decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
 by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
 it).


I'm halfway throught the development. Now the engine is in a 
debuggable state. The display of sprites works well, the 
collision detection is simple (pixel based collision detection is 
not yet implemented), no effects, no input event handling.
Jan 24 2015
parent reply "solidstate1991" <laszloszeremi outlook.com> writes:
https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine

Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be 
expanded later.
Feb 03 2015
parent reply "Zoadian" <dlang zoadian.de> writes:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:

 https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine

 Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be 
 expanded later.


had a quick look:

public class Color....

This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache
friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data
oriented design'.
Feb 03 2015
next sibling parent Ben Boeckel via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 17:15:28 +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:

 had a quick look:
 
 public class Color....
 
 This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache
 friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data
 oriented design'.


http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/data-locality.html

--Ben
Feb 03 2015
prev sibling parent reply "solidstate1991" <laszloszeremi outlook.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 17:15:29 UTC, Zoadian wrote:

 On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 
 wrote:

 https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine

 Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be 
 expanded later.


 had a quick look:

 public class Color....

 This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache
 friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data
 oriented design'.


Thanks for the suggestion.

Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of 
the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the 
easiest way I could come up with.
Feb 03 2015
parent "Ondra" <pokorny.ondrej gmail.com> writes:
 Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of 
 the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the 
 easiest way I could come up with.


Hi,

you have wrong approach to this problem. From design OOP view it 
is perfectly ok and this is how you universities teach it in 
their SQL classes... But you probably don't aim for clean OOP 
design but for speed. You work with every single sprite as 
entity. But you should aim to process sprites in batch. Your 
sprite should be probably struct, then feed array of them into 
separate function instead of calling on every sprite.

Difference:
foreach(sprite)
  sprite->doSth();

vs:
doSth(sprite[]);

this is good read:
http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/flyweight.html
Feb 04 2015
prev sibling parent "ZILtoid1991" <ziltoidtheomnicent gmail.com> writes:
https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine

0.9.0 version due to the difference in usability. Needs a lot of 
debugging and testing, but now it can render hundreds of sprites 
without an issue.
Apr 14 2015