Crashing... - Page 2

Magic.X · 20th February 2006, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by ^..^
The point is, that it just can't be done in a few moments.

Not a few moments but should be ready after 2 hours, at least for me as i've the needed routines already done for Hotlist. If I've some time left beside my major projects, I'll give it a shot.
Its really not that much of a big deal, all you need is a timer, and a row of commands to be sent.

^..^ · 20th February 2006, 16:52

No i meant rewriting AVS in order to include autosaving would take quite long.

Magic.X · 20th February 2006, 17:40

Why?

Its even easier without the need to hack. Again, all you need is a timer and a call to the save procedure.

But I dont think doing your custom AVS is so good.
One should ask the dev group if one could contribute stuff to the official version instead. Otherwise there'd be a need to rewrite every new release your own, also there'd be finally some progress on AVS developement.

hornet777 · 20th February 2006, 21:32

how about rewriting it for better overall stability, obviating the need for "auto-save" or any other band-aid. Yes I know it would take a while, and I certainly am no coder, so am vulnerable on these points to criticism, but don't we already have enough experience with kludges with Windows? What's needed is a master C-programmer to rework the code, and doesn't have a day job

.

Delphi:

Visual Basic:

.NET:

C:

assembler:

Tuggummi · 20th February 2006, 22:22

I know im probably the odd man out, but i really hate auto-save feature in any program

It's just... just... see! I can't even explain it, because it frustates me so!

PAK-9 · 21st February 2006, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by hornet777
how about rewriting it for better overall stability, obviating the need for "auto-save" or any other band-aid. Yes I know it would take a while, and I certainly am no coder, so am vulnerable on these points to criticism, but don't we already have enough experience with kludges with Windows? What's needed is a master C-programmer to rework the code, and doesn't have a day job .

Delphi:
Visual Basic:
.NET:

C:
assembler:

Writing it in assembler, yea that will make it stable

Grandchild · 21st February 2006, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by PAK-9
Writing it in assembler, yea that will make it stable

Why would it? Because it's closer-to-the-root programming, more basic?
[just a question out of interest, no criticism]
Or was it sarcasm...

PAK-9 · 21st February 2006, 15:34

It was sarcasm

The lower level you program at the less stable the result is likely to be. If you coded AVS in Visual Basic it very rarely fall over (unless you used r33t h3x) but it would be crushingly slow (again, unless you used r33t h3x).

If you coded it completely in assembly it would be excruciatingly difficult to track down any bugs and probably be going over all the time... it would be pretty nippy though.

When its all said and done though, fixing (patching, bodging, whatever you want to call it) the existing AVS to a stable state would make a lot more sense than writing it from scratch... assuming all you want is the same functionality but stable.

And by the way it would take about 5 minutes to add an autosave to AVS if you get the source and have a passing familiarity with C.

Grandchild · 22nd February 2006, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by PAK-9
fixing [...] the existing AVS to a stable state would make a lot more sense than writing it from scratch... assuming all you want is the same functionality but stable.

So I take it you folks are making 'fridge' to achieve the next level vis program

PAK-9 · 23rd February 2006, 08:21

yea... 'making'

hornet777 · 23rd February 2006, 23:23

admittedly, C is probably the best overall compromise, in terms of language

jheriko · 24th February 2006, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Magic.X

One should ask the dev group if one could contribute stuff to the official version instead.

ROFL

make a fork... otherwise it will never happen :P

and I am SO working on fridge.

MaTTFURY · 25th February 2006, 04:37

maybe with the sourceforge page up, something or someone might be able to make it stable ¬_¬

20th February 2006, 17:40	#3
Magic.X Major Dude Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Leipzig / Germany Posts: 859	Why? Its even easier without the need to hack. Again, all you need is a timer and a call to the save procedure. But I dont think doing your custom AVS is so good. One should ask the dev group if one could contribute stuff to the official version instead. Otherwise there'd be a need to rewrite every new release your own, also there'd be finally some progress on AVS developement. -=[The Ultimate VJ-Tool for AVS]=- Hotlist 2.3 developement thread (old)

20th February 2006, 22:22	#5
Tuggummi Bin King Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Finland Posts: 2,179	I know im probably the odd man out, but i really hate auto-save feature in any program It's just... just... see! I can't even explain it, because it frustates me so! Texer Resources Im retarded... err i mean retired! Probably both...

21st February 2006, 15:34	#8
PAK-9 Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 1,374	It was sarcasm The lower level you program at the less stable the result is likely to be. If you coded AVS in Visual Basic it very rarely fall over (unless you used r33t h3x) but it would be crushingly slow (again, unless you used r33t h3x). If you coded it completely in assembly it would be excruciatingly difficult to track down any bugs and probably be going over all the time... it would be pretty nippy though. When its all said and done though, fixing (patching, bodging, whatever you want to call it) the existing AVS to a stable state would make a lot more sense than writing it from scratch... assuming all you want is the same functionality but stable. And by the way it would take about 5 minutes to add an autosave to AVS if you get the source and have a passing familiarity with C. http://PAK-9.deviantart.com ...innit

23rd February 2006, 08:21	#10
PAK-9 Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 1,374	yea... 'making' http://PAK-9.deviantart.com ...innit

25th February 2006, 04:37	#13
MaTTFURY Major Dude Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Australia, Posts: 1,356	maybe with the sourceforge page up, something or someone might be able to make it stable ¬_¬ i am not normal, no really.

20th February 2006, 16:52	#2
^..^ Major Dude Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: There Posts: 1,002	No i meant rewriting AVS in order to include autosaving would take quite long.

20th February 2006, 21:32	#4
hornet777 Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 87	how about rewriting it for better overall stability, obviating the need for "auto-save" or any other band-aid. Yes I know it would take a while, and I certainly am no coder, so am vulnerable on these points to criticism, but don't we already have enough experience with kludges with Windows? What's needed is a master C-programmer to rework the code, and doesn't have a day job . Delphi: Visual Basic: .NET: C: assembler:

23rd February 2006, 23:23	#11
hornet777 Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 87	admittedly, C is probably the best overall compromise, in terms of language

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode