Agetian on 19/3/2005 at 08:06
Hmm... to say that everything written with the help of .net framework is bloated crap sounds kind of n00bish to me (sorry). I've seen many good programs written for .net, and they're not buggy at all.
It's not at all about the platform itself, it's all about the people who use it. If someone can write good programs in good ol' C++, OK by me. If they can use the newer C# to write good stuff, it's OK by me as well. :p
BTW, I've also seen a lot of crappy and buggy stuff written in non-.net languages.
So, for me it doesn't really matter whether the Fleshloader is .net-oriented or not. If some people think that 20mb (for the .net framework) is way too much to download or have a strong prejudice against .net, I don't really care about that.
Sorry, I just wanted to state my opinion about making the Fleshloader. As long as it turns out good, make use of whatever language you like.
- Agetian
Dario on 19/3/2005 at 09:30
Quote Posted by van HellSing
I'd change the name. FleshLoader sounds too kinky :p.
I agree.
T3Loader or something?
DSLoader...
T3Loader could work because you can abbreviate it with T3L.
DSLoader becomes DSL - forget that idea.
Kingers on 19/3/2005 at 09:36
[David] OrbWeaver is correct, in the whole manifest file idea and similarly with regards to malicious files.
[SneaksieDave] It will probably be built under .NET 2.0 however if you later need that it is also about 20 MB so even on 56k thats only about half an hour.
.NET is the future because it is so much easier to use, has increased security, is faster to build applications and can work on many platforms. It is not a bad thing, its probably one of the best moves Microsoft has made for development.
[Mandrake] This is down to the programmer if they don't use the features properly then you will suffer from it, trust me .NET applications work just as fast as most other applications if coded properly.
As for FleshLoader as the name it may be changed closer to release but that in itself is something that can be resolved right up to the last minute.
[Agetian] Thanks a lot for helping defend the power of .NET rarrgh! :thumb:
GlasWolf on 19/3/2005 at 11:12
I vote for Shadowloader.
And as I see it, the problem with using something like .net is that people want a single, convenient download for a util like this. There's already evidence that some people (myself included) are uneasy about it, and eventually a group will splinter off and do their own version. The .net-reliant version will then die in the water, wasting the efforts of all involved.
I'm full of praise for Kingers for stepping up to the plate, but I'd give that aspect in particular some serious thought.
OrbWeaver on 19/3/2005 at 11:15
As long as the format for distribution is standardised and documented, it is of no consequence how many splinter groups wish to create their own loaders.
Of course, if people want to start being territorial and creating their own, incompatible, archive formats, then they will - but everybody will lose in that situation.
Kingers on 19/3/2005 at 11:28
[GlasWolf] Ha, I was thinking along the same lines and have changed the application to be called Shadow. As for .NET I find it astonishing that so many people are opposed to it. Chances are you already have it through Windows Update anyway! Its ludicrous to have a group make a completely separate version simply because my version uses .NET and this will result in problems because no one can enforce one standard!
[OrbWeaver] Well said!
van HellSing on 19/3/2005 at 11:37
Shadow sounds nice.
As for .NET, I was reluctant to install it at first, but there are just too many handy little tools that use it now. I downloaded it a few weeks ago and have no complaints about it whatsoever yet.
Kingers on 19/3/2005 at 11:48
Yeh, .NET :thumb:
Mandrake on 19/3/2005 at 11:49
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Shadow sounds nice.
As for .NET, I was reluctant to install it at first, but there are just too many handy little tools that use it now. I downloaded it a few weeks ago and have no complaints about it whatsoever yet.
Just "Shadow" ?
or ShadowLoader ?
Kingers on 19/3/2005 at 11:50
Well everyone should be pleased to know that the interface and its underlying code are now finished and ready for testing when the final format for the maps is agreed upon!
