Menu
What's new
RunUO Community

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

.NET 4.0 Standard - VS 2010 Solution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vorspire

Vorspire

Knight
MarciXs said:
I am not fighting ... see that's the most weird part in it. I had my argument about as to whyt it hasn't been upgraded(what the thread is about, your argument(as to mine)). And all of sudden I have to explain as if I was against it(the idea itself).
I dunno, should I repharse it? My argument as to why RunUo hasn't been upgraded to 4.0 is because quite frankly it can run under 2.0. And 4.0 would need higher system reqs... that's what I think ...
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read or learn anything from what anyone has said in this thread, sheer ignorance must be total bliss.

.NET 4.0:
Less code required to achieve goals, one example being optional parameters for Constructors, Methods, etc
Much faster compile time, less memory usage.
Optimized Sockets and Networking

RunUO specifics:
Faster, Dynamic Save Strategy
Faster Networking

Just off the top of my head and that's still 5 damn good reasons for upgrading
 
I

imachamp

Guest
MarciXs said:
I am not fighting ... see that's the most weird part in it. I had my argument about as to whyt it hasn't been upgraded(what the thread is about, your argument(as to mine)). And all of sudden I have to explain as if I was against it(the idea itself).
I dunno, should I repharse it? My argument as to why RunUo hasn't been upgraded to 4.0 is because quite frankly it can run under 2.0. And 4.0 would need higher system reqs... that's what I think ...
Click to expand...
Even thought RunUO clearly has advantages with moving to 4.0 (as stated above). It clearly has advantages for the custom code base as well. Just because its not currently in RunUO, doesnt mean it wont be by the custom script release forums. There are plenty of features in 4.0 that those scripts (and newer ones) can take advantage of. So far, you have said that requiring 2.0 is bad because it ups the minimum requirements for the OS. However, every OS lower than XP is no longer supported by Microsoft, so they should be irrelevant anyway. There is more to gain than there is to lose.
 
MarciXs

MarciXs

Sorceror
Vorspire said:
You obviously didn't read or learn anything from what anyone has said in this thread, sheer ignorance must be total bliss.

.NET 4.0:
Less code required to achieve goals, one example being optional parameters for Constructors, Methods, etc
Much faster compile time, less memory usage.
Optimized Sockets and Networking

RunUO specifics:
Faster, Dynamic Save Strategy
Faster Networking

Just off the top of my head and that's still 5 damn good reasons for upgrading
Click to expand...
Dude, you asked argument as to why it hasn't been upgraded, so if my argument is invalid then why hasn't Runuo upgraded then? That's what you wanted to know.

If you know so better than I do as to why runuo hasn't been upgraded, why can't you just tell?

Why do you keep telling me what features has it got etc. I use .NET 4 myself. Argument as to why runuo hasn't been upgraded? Doesn't use so much from above 2.0 and to preserve somewhat minimum system reqs. What is your argument? You haven't had one yet, yet still trying to prove me that this isn't the case? What is it then?

By the way imachap, not just the OS also the System specs.
But I'm done arguing as to why my argument couldn't be true while none of you have provided your own argument.

P.S Oh hang on I think I could somewhat sense your argument, one of the following: Ignorant developers, possibly developers that don't follow latest tech. Developers who don't care about users. Developers who want to make it harder for shards to be built. Something along those lines.
 
Pure Insanity

Pure Insanity

Sorceror
Here's a great argument as to why .net 4 would of been nice to have as a standard a while back. Ravenal's (sp?) new AI system that he was working on. One of the reasons the RunUO Dev team refused to use it in RunUO (even though it was better in every way and then some compared to the old crappy AI) was because his AI system required .net 4.0

So they decided it would be better to leave RunUO crippled instead of updating it's support (or even letting him add it as an optional .net 4 feature.) Stuff like this will come and go and never make it into the svn at this rate, because it is OPTIONAL. Which is silly. We could of had one of the greatest AI's in emulation as I speak, if it wasn't for people living in the past and scared to adopt new tech.

That would be like you strictly using IE 6 till this day, because it works. Even if everything else out there worked better, was safer, ect.

The argument (don't change what isn't broken) works when it comes to hardware usually. But not software, as programming languages move at a breakneck pace. New features get added, bugs get fixed, stuff gets improved. Living in the past is just...dumb when it comes to software. I'm guessing you're one of those few still on IE 6...you know, since it still works.
 
MarciXs

MarciXs

Sorceror
Pure Insanity said:
Here's a great argument as to why .net 4 would of been nice to have as a standard a while back. Ravenal's (sp?) new AI system that he was working on. One of the reasons the RunUO Dev team refused to use it in RunUO (even though it was better in every way and then some compared to the old crappy AI) was because his AI system required .net 4.0

So they decided it would be better to leave RunUO crippled instead of updating it's support (or even letting him add it as an optional .net 4 feature.) Stuff like this will come and go and never make it into the svn at this rate, because it is OPTIONAL. Which is silly. We could of had one of the greatest AI's in emulation as I speak, if it wasn't for people living in the past and scared to adopt new tech.

That would be like you strictly using IE 6 till this day, because it works. Even if everything else out there worked better, was safer, ect.

The argument (don't change what isn't broken) works when it comes to hardware usually. But not software, as programming languages move at a breakneck pace. New features get added, bugs get fixed, stuff gets improved. Living in the past is just...dumb when it comes to software. I'm guessing you're one of those few still on IE 6...you know, since it still works.
Click to expand...
...dude... I'm using .NET 4. I only suggested my argument as to why RunUo wasn't upgraded... the whole bloody point of the the thread and you go on about ie6 and old OS'es ... oh dear god this is hopeless.. I am the fighter to not upgrade... whatever I give up. Seriously this is getting stupid.
 
Vorspire

Vorspire

Knight
MarciXs said:
Dude, you asked argument as to why it hasn't been upgraded, so if my argument is invalid then why hasn't Runuo upgraded then? That's what you wanted to know.
Click to expand...
If you could understand English:
I asked for a VALID argument, but the question was rhetorical, there are no valid arguments, you're making yourself look like a complete fool.

MarciXs said:
If you know so better than I do as to why runuo hasn't been upgraded, why can't you just tell?
Click to expand...
I already did about 2 posts ago, your attention span is extremely limited.

MarciXs said:
Why do you keep telling me what features has it got etc.
Click to expand...
Because, dude, you smoked too much weed, dude, and like, keep forgetting, dude.

MarciXs said:
I use .NET 4 myself.
Click to expand...
Why do you use it?
How do you use it?

MarciXs said:
Argument as to why runuo hasn't been upgraded? Doesn't use so much from above 2.0 and to preserve somewhat minimum system reqs.
Click to expand...
I guess you own a V-Tech or a FrogLeap laptop running the most out of date software known to the modern day world.

MarciXs said:
What is your argument? You haven't had one yet, yet still trying to prove me that this isn't the case? What is it then?
Click to expand...
I can't be bothered to quote ALL OF MY POSTS in this thread. Just so you know, that was sarcastic.

MarciXs said:
By the way imachap, not just the OS also the System specs.
Click to expand...
See comment about V-Tech and Frogleap laptops for more information.

MarciXs said:
But I'm done arguing as to why my argument couldn't be true while none of you have provided your own argument.
Click to expand...
I'm done arguing too, can you tell? (That was sarcastic too)
Everybody, except YOU, has had a valid point to make in this thread.

MarciXs said:
P.S Oh hang on I think I could somewhat sense your argument, one of the following: Ignorant developers, possibly developers that doesn't follow latest tech. Developers who doesn't care about users. Developers that want to make it harder for shards to be built. Something along those lines.
Click to expand...
Wow, a glimmer of hope, or not. That's about right for someone with such a limited attention span.

(I'm starting to think this fruit loop is part of the RunUO team)
 
Vorspire

Vorspire

Knight
MarciXs said:
...dude... I'm using .NET 4. I only suggested my argument as to why RunUo wasn't upgraded... the whole bloody point of the the thread and you go on about ie6 and old OS'es ... oh dear god this is hopeless.. I am the fighter to not upgrade... whatever I give up. Seriously this is getting stupid.
Click to expand...

This is only getting stupid because stupid people like you bring the discussion down to a stupid level.
 
I

imachamp

Guest
End of the day, 2 completely 100% valid arguments as to why .Net 4.0 should be the new minimum have been brought to the table... Networking enhancements (much faster) and faster saves. Both of which many users will benefit from. The only argument about leaving it 2.0 is that it would make people running win 98/ME/2000 have to upgrade, but as I stated before, since none of these OS's are supported by MS anymore, why should we. Time to move on, technology moves on, and we should be able to benefit from it in RunUO.
 
MarciXs

MarciXs

Sorceror
Jeff can you give me a link, I want to read about this networking enhancement, cause the only thing I can find it has enhanced security,not speed. Since I'm using .NET 4 I want to know more about it. As I said asking only cause I can't find info about it.
 
Pure Insanity

Pure Insanity

Sorceror
The networking enhancement he's speaking of is not a .net 4 feature. It's how networking is implemented using a new .net 4 feature.

Look at the source for yourself, easy to find all the .net 4 features. Then you'll wonder why the hell they'd disable them for virtually everyone except those that know enough about what they're doing...nothing more than a forced handicap atm.
 
MarciXs

MarciXs

Sorceror
Pure Insanity said:
The networking enhancement he's speaking of is not a .net 4 feature. It's how networking is implemented using a new .net 4 feature.

Look at the source for yourself, easy to find all the .net 4 features. Then you'll wonder why the hell they'd disable them for virtually everyone except those that know enough about what they're doing...nothing more than a forced handicap atm.
Click to expand...
Nice, found it. thanks .
 
milt

milt

Knight
At first I was like...

Code: 
using System.Linq;

But then I am sad.

Seriously though I was thinking the same thing for the past few days. Was using a bunch of Linq then I realized since I am going to release it I need to do it the .NET 2.0 way. Oh well :eek:
 
Vorspire

Vorspire

Knight
milt said:
At first I was like...

Code: 
using System.Linq;

But then I am sad.

Seriously though I was thinking the same thing for the past few days. Was using a bunch of Linq then I realized since I am going to release it I need to do it the .NET 2.0 way. Oh well :eek:
Click to expand...

Do it the 4.0 way, you'll help the cause by forcing people to upgrade to use your systems :)
 
Pure Insanity

Pure Insanity

Sorceror
Eh, I'm not sure there is enough active devs on the RunUO team lately that could update the svn to be compliant with .net 4...but I'd love to be proved wrong. ^_^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top