10.16.2011

weeeiiird

Besides playing Oblivion once again (for Skyrim's sake, ya know), I'm thinking about how realize all those things I've begun between lectures and during the first term break half. Most of it works more efficient when using macros and I begin to find it annoying to create more complex stuff out of them. The point is that I badly need more advanced "code pasting" build within the language to actually make writing them motiviating enough for me. I simply don't want to objectify it on this level, so I have no real choice but do so. However, once I've finished n-dimensional loop macros and regexp replacement for nested and binary structures, I won't have to stick to macros that much or rather finally use macros and make convenience functions for image drawing and so on. My original goal - making custom stuff way easier and quicker to write while having an equal if not better performance. Using those macros isn't as nice as one might know from overloaded C++ operators. I'll probably create some template inline wrappers for C++-only use. Sometimes you have to seperate your codes in seperate technical levels and layers. Currently, I'd actually appreciate a C/asm base and a C++ wrapper above, simply to have operator loading reading. I know I won't need them later that much, but I also do not want to end up giving nothing out to a world that might get an advantage from it. I also know there's simply no real library out there for Linux like DirectX for Windows. I probably won't change that, but I can atleast oriented myself using it. Every time I start working on my toolkit, it's goal changes a bit and I'll eventually end up with wanting atleast a videogame toolkit. So there it be, get it finished, bro! Atleast enough to use it nicely for videogame programming, so that you can show what you did so far. There's still an internship I want to have in the games industry, so it's always good to give something they can analyse inside-out and see that I CAN create videogames somehow. I'm not too fond of luring companies without candy.

No comments: