why not just make them for the *gasp* MSX?
just run them in an emulator which is also widely available if you dont want to make
maps or whatever on the msx.
Floris.
Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000, Maarten van Strien (cs^tbl) wrote:
>
> > And keep in mind that once an engine is done, the only thing
> > needed to make a 100% game is datafiles! NO additional code!! So, the
> > engine has to cover ALL needs!
>
> This is not necessary. There could be an engine that allows a kind of
> plug-ins that communicate with the engine through a well defined and
> documented interface.
>
> I see two advantages of plug-ins:
> 1. They can implement things that are useful in one game, but useless in
> another. No need for the engine to cover the entire spectrum of RPGs.
> 2. They can be loaded per scene. A boss monster requires different routines
> than a peaceful village. If all code must be in the engine, that code plus
> its data would be loaded all the time.
>
> > Oh, and then something else: what about making the editing tools (map
> > editor, sprite editor, dot editor, demo storyboard editor etc.) for windows ..?
>
> Making those tools for a non-MSX machine is a good idea. But remember that
> not everyone uses Windows. Especially among coders other operating systems
> are popular. We need something that is cross-platform.
>
> I think there are two options for cross-platform development: Java or
> cross-platform C/C++ libraries. Java allows the same binaries to run on many
> systems, cross-platform libraries allow the same source to compile on many
> systems.
>
> When making a set of tools, I think it's useful to re-use code from one
> tool for making the others. Object oriented languages make this easier to
> do. Maybe we could even integrate all tools. So I think plain C would not
> be a good choice. Yes, you can emulate OO using C, but why go through that
> trouble and not use an OO language instead?
>
> So it's between C++ and Java. I think Java is the better choice, because it
> is a lot easier to keep your programs free of bugs if you write in Java:
> 1. The language is smaller and easier to understand, this avoids mistakes
> by the coder.
> 2. Java catches more errors at compile time. Catching errors at compile
> time is important, because testing takes a lot of time and you can be sure
> you never tested every possible combination of actions.
> 3. If there is a bug, Java makes catching it a lot easier. Typecasts are
> checked by the virtual machine. Out of bounds array indexing is detected by
> the virtual machine. Because the virtual machine detects those errors, it
> gives you a very accurate error message, even including the file and line
> number of the offending code. In C++, the error can often only be seen
> indirectly (array out of bounds overwrites another variable, the wrong
> value of that variable shows up as a bug), making tracking bugs a lot
> harder.
>
> Bye,
> Maarten
>
> ****
> MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
> the body (not the subject) of the message.
> Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
> The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
> The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
> The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
> ****
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
