|
Post by rosy on Oct 18, 2021 14:38:05 GMT -6
Is it possible, at least some time, to develop RC basic based on version 3.13, in which only bugs and minor improvements would be corrected? I do not understand these new features introduced since 3.14, a lot of things are working wrong, especially building for android, everything has grown a lot, takes much longer and no effect.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 18, 2021 19:06:47 GMT -6
Its still the same code base. The main change has been moving to more recent versions of SDL2. This has also meant having to move to newer versions of the android sdk as well.
If there are bugs they will be fixed as I am made aware of them. If you would like to help, please provide detailed bug reports with examples and ask questions on areas you are having trouble with.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Oct 19, 2021 9:55:14 GMT -6
Why these newer versions when the old ones worked?
Even if the bugs are fixed (Another question: when?), Which, for example, the speed of building the APK will also be corrected ? Because in this state, writing for Android no longer makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 19, 2021 14:07:33 GMT -6
Why these newer versions when the old ones worked? Even if the bugs are fixed (Another question: when?), Which, for example, the speed of building the APK will also be corrected ? Because in this state, writing for Android no longer makes sense. The newer versions is because I have been continuously trying to improve RCBasic over time. The slow build times on android can probably be improved but I am still in the process of learning how the latest version of android sdk works and google's documentation kinda sucks. I have mentioned in a few other post that this is free and opensource software. If you think its taking to long to fix bugs or improve certain features then pull the source code and help out. Here is the link: RCBasic Source CodeIf you can't contribute code, then contribute documentation, create unit test, create examples with detailed comments, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Oct 19, 2021 15:55:39 GMT -6
So instead of looking for errors I should create "unit tests"?
The problem is that almost nothing has been improved and a lot deteriorated ... And you devoted a lot of time and work ...
|
|
|
Post by kennn on Oct 19, 2021 19:54:25 GMT -6
The problem is that almost nothing has been improved and a lot deteriorated ... Really? The old version is better?
|
|
|
Post by aurel on Oct 20, 2021 9:55:24 GMT -6
ufff rosy be careful ..it is the private message from kennn ps ..it is joke !!! be careful...
|
|
|
Post by kennn on Oct 21, 2021 18:01:57 GMT -6
ps ..it is joke !!! be careful... Hi, the problem was finally solved!
|
|
|
Post by kennn on Oct 21, 2021 18:20:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Oct 22, 2021 13:44:05 GMT -6
Can you download version 3.13 from this github?
I looked at FOR in main.cpp. Checking condition 2 seems unnecessary on lines 960 and 965, lines 962 and 967 better like this:
loop_stack.top (). counter [0] .nid_value [0] .value [byref_offset] + = next_step;
And in lines 926-942 it is better not to IF first and then set IsNegative?
|
|
|
Post by kennn on Oct 22, 2021 15:46:33 GMT -6
Can you download version 3.13 from this github? I looked at FOR in main.cpp. Checking condition 2 seems unnecessary on lines 960 and 965, lines 962 and 967 better like this: loop_stack.top (). counter [0] .nid_value [0] .value [byref_offset] + = next_step; And in lines 926-942 it is better not to IF first and then set IsNegative? Oh....sorry.....I only have a superficial understanding of RCBasic. I believe that Noob is able to solve this complicated problem. I hope that Noob will solve this problem very soon. Johnno56 may solve this problem as well. Please wait for them. (If both of them disappear, no other member comes to help you. I think that this is the major problem of learning RCBasic.)
|
|
|
Post by johnno56 on Oct 22, 2021 17:11:56 GMT -6
Kennn,
My understanding of RC's development is zero... My eventual ability to solve this problem is pretty much non-existent... Learning RCBasic (or any Basic) should not be effected by the size of the development team. Complete documentation and experience of existing members are a major factor in learning... Core RCBasic issues are a different story. Having only one developer can be a problem (available time to resolve issues etc) in reference to pressure... Having a larger team would obviously see issues disappear quicker and development of RC would also be quicker. Having a small development team does indeed run the risk of RC "stalling" if the developer was to "disappear". (no pressure intended, n00b... lol) There is no easy way around this. Unless one, or more, of us are capable of learning how to "develop", then one developer we will have and the rest of us may have to learn to be more patient and flexible... imho.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 22, 2021 18:11:31 GMT -6
Can you download version 3.13 from this github? I looked at FOR in main.cpp. Checking condition 2 seems unnecessary on lines 960 and 965, lines 962 and 967 better like this: loop_stack.top (). counter [0] .nid_value [0] .value [byref_offset] + = next_step; And in lines 926-942 it is better not to IF first and then set IsNegative? next_step is the value of the step added to the current value of the counter and its used to check if the "Next Step" value is the range of the FOR loop. Your suggestion will basically cause the FOR loop to increase the step counter more than it should and in many cases may just cause the loop to not run at all.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Oct 23, 2021 1:25:27 GMT -6
What more? From what I can see, Next_step is exactly the same as you are adding there. Unless I have some hallucinations ...
Is it possible to go back to github to 3.13? To have the source code 3.13
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 27, 2021 11:13:12 GMT -6
If you want version 3.13 I can provide a link to it when I get home. I think every version going back to 3.07 is still online.
|
|