• mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Roller coaster Tycoon is one of a lifetime game.

    Now everything is electron or react shit. Gone are the times of downloading fully featured software under 10mb.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I don’t think old=good is a good mentality though, lot of people seem to have it

      All the old software I know and use is exceptionally good, however I’ve heard about and chosen to use it because it’s survived the test of time (also because it’s still actively maintained and has had thousands of bug fixes over the years)

      Vscode and obsidian are pretty good and they’re electron, discord’s alright, pretty sure steam uses some kind of web wrapper as well.

      Real issue is electron is very accessible to inexperienced developers and easy to do badly, but I imagine people back in the old Unix days got an equal amount of shit bloated software

      • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Discord is garbage software lmao. Has been from the beginning. I can’t stand using it.

        • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Seconded. The only reason I have it installed is because my buddy refuses to answer his cell while we play games.

    • sushibowl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Fun quote from an interview with Chris Sawyer:

      Latterly the machine code came back to haunt us when the decision was made to re-launch the original game on mobile platforms as RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic a few years ago, and it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.

      • CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        27 minutes ago

        Is there not a way to take assembly and automatically translate it to some higher level language?

        Edit: Post-post thought: I guess that would basically be one step removed from decompilation which, as I understand it, is a tedious and still fairly manual process.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Well worth it. The mobile version is amazing, that is to say, almost exactly the same as the original.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s probably not because it’s sucks. It’s because they’re trying to perfectly replicate an existing target. They have to read the assembly, digest it, then create the identical solution in C++. If they were just creating a new game, it likely would be much faster.

        • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          #include <iostream> // because writing to the console is not included by default.
          int main()
          {
          std::cout << "C++ is simple and fun ... you cretin";
          return 0;
          }

          I had a machine language course in uni, parallel with a C++ course. Not a fun semester to be my wife, or a relative of any of my classmates. Best case our brains were in C++ mode, worst case you needed an assembler to understand us.

          And yes I know my code format will piss people off, I don’t care, it’s the way I write when other less informed people don’t force me to conform to their BS “Teh oPeNiNg bracket shouwd bwee on teh sam line ass teh declawation

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Probably not as optimized though.

        RCT could run on a toaster from the 90’s (ok, maybe early 2000’s) and looked amazing for the time.

        OpenRCT can run on a toaster from the 2010’s and looks great because of the timeless art style of the original.

        It’s still an incredible feat, though!

        • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 hours ago

          You are very unlikely to write assembly that is more optimized than what a modern compiler could produce for anything longer than a trivial program. I don’t know if it made sense at the time of the original RCT, but OpenRCT would definitely not benefit from being written in assembly.

          • jas0n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            I feel like that’s only true if I was asked to “write the assembly for this c++ program.” If I’m actually implementing something big in assembly, I’m not going to do 90% of the craziness someone might be tempted to do in c++. Something that is super easy in c++ doesn’t mean it’s easy for the CPU. Writing assembly, I’m going to do what’s easy for the CPU (and efficient) because, now, I’m in the same domain.

            The bottom line is cranking up the optimization level can get you a 2-5x win. Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.

            • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              46 minutes ago

              Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.

              Yes, it can. But why is this exclusive to assembly? What are you planning to do with your memory use in assembly that is not achievable in C++ or other languages? Memory optimizations are largely about data structures and access patterns. This is available to you in C++.

              Also, if you don’t want 90% of the craziness of C++ then why not just code in C++ without 90% of the craziness? As far as I know what’s what a lot of performance-critical projects do. They operate with a feature whitelist/blacklist. Don’t tell me you have the discipline to work entirely in assembly and the knowledge to beat the compiler at the low level stuff that is not available to you in C++ but you can’t manage avoiding the costly abstractions.

              I think it speaks volumes how rarely you hear about programs being programmed in assembly. It’s always this one game and never any meaningful way to prove that it would gain performance by not being written in C++ when using a modern compiler.