 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I laughed at myself when I recognized this text art right away. It's
been a few years...
# #
## ##
## ##
### ###
## ##
## ##
### ###
### ##### ####
#### ### ####
###################
###############
#########
###
###
###
#
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
>
> # #
> ## ##
> ## ##
> ### ###
> ## ##
> ## ##
> ### ###
> ### ##### ####
> #### ### ####
> ###################
> ###############
> #########
> ###
> ###
> ###
> #
Heh, nice.
I've only ever played Q2, so... ;-)
____ ____
\ \ \###\
\ \ \###\
\ \ \###\
\ \ \###\ ______________
\ \ \###\ \_____________|
\ \ \###\
/ / /####\ ___________
/ / /######\ \__________|
/ / /###/\###\
/ / /###/ \###\
/ / /###/ \###\
/___/ /###/ \###\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Kyle wrote:
>
>>
>> # #
>> ## ##
>> ## ##
>> ### ###
>> ## ##
>> ## ##
>> ### ###
>> ### ##### ####
>> #### ### ####
>> ###################
>> ###############
>> #########
>> ###
>> ###
>> ###
>> #
>
> Heh, nice.
>
> I've only ever played Q2, so... ;-)
>
> ____ ____
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\ ______________
> \ \ \###\ \_____________|
> \ \ \###\
> / / /####\ ___________
> / / /######\ \__________|
> / / /###/\###\
> / / /###/ \###\
> / / /###/ \###\
> /___/ /###/ \###\
quake >>= haskell
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> quake >>= haskell
How about Quake implemented *in* Haskell? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> How about Quake implemented *in* Haskell? ;-)
I could go grab a sandwich while it renders the next frame. Awesome!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How about Quake implemented *in* Haskell? ;-)
>
> I could go grab a sandwich while it renders the next frame. Awesome!
Really? And what makes you think that? OpenGL with hardware acceleration
is equally fast if you call it from C or Haskell. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Really? And what makes you think that? OpenGL with hardware acceleration
> is equally fast if you call it from C or Haskell. :-P
The original quake was not OpenGL... :) Though, they did release GLQuake.
And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just about
everything else?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Really? And what makes you think that? OpenGL with hardware
>> acceleration is equally fast if you call it from C or Haskell. :-P
>
> The original quake was not OpenGL... :) Though, they did release GLQuake.
You're probably right. I never saw it. (I only saw Quake II. For that
matter, I've never seen Quake III, although I'm told it exists.)
Of course, nobody has ever implemented Quake in Haskell. But they *have*
successfully implemented Doom. (And it loads original Doom "WAD" files.)
> And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just about
> everything else?
I actually can't decide whether you're being serious or not...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Of course, nobody has ever implemented Quake in Haskell. But they *have*
> successfully implemented Doom. (And it loads original Doom "WAD" files.)
Wow.. heh
I think they implemented Quake in C++.net at one point.
>> And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just
>> about everything else?
>
> I actually can't decide whether you're being serious or not...
Mmm, mostly not serious. :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they implemented Quake in C++.net at one point.
Given that Quake was already implemented in C++, what would the .net
part bring to it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
