SCAR Include Developers/Contributors! A single low level library to work on together?

[LordJashin]

A Collaborative Include:

 

A low level, general purpose, for any game, and anything, INCLUDE. No attachments to games AT ALL.

And we all work on it together (All the Developers/Contributors get repository access)!

 

What will be in it:

 

??? WE will think about this later!---------------------

 

If you wanna do this: VOTE YES, then we'll brainstorm ideas, I want everyone in on this, and contribute to the thread your ideas of this at the time, and new ideas. We can brainstorm a philosophy for stuff, and the best way for everything to be done, and etc. If you don't want to do this: I'm sorry you read down to this line...

 

 

 

Lets not let the limitations of forum software get to us either. Blast away on the thread, make as many replies as you want.

Edited June 9, 2013 by LordJashin

[slacky]

I see no reason to keep it very basic... I would rather just see where it goes. I can contribute, if someone else finds time to help out.. Just the two of us sounds to weak, and wont make an interesting project.

 

It will as well depend a little on what this is all about, as it's not specified very well, yet. ( I need to have at least a bit of interest to help out! ).

 

So whether I will contribute or not, depends.

Edited June 9, 2013 by slacky

[shadowrecon]

how about you help me work on GMRL's 07 Anti-Randoms? lol. J/k. but seriously i need some help if you get on skype soemtime i can explain where i am at in the development of them.

[LordJashin]

I want everyone in on this! Brainstorm, and put ur ideas in this thread's replies! Note: Just brainstorming about the include, the thread's main idea, is I want you guys to VOTE YES and that this is a good idea, for us to embark on ...A new collaborative Include!

 

Some questions I thought up, of how to run this and my answers:

 

1. What we need?

Jashin: An advanced commenting system, and if you don't use it, others need to fill the gap (if they know).

An advanced Change Log (Important), A place to put our ideas, and thoughts because we don't always post them on the forums (for the include)...,

A philosophy on, What should we add as functions, does it have to be Utilitarian? Or can it be just creative/non applicable,

also how will we section files, folders, and WHAT scripting practices should we use in scripts e.g. var X, Y versus var Point(X, Y)

Should we even have a setup procedure or need one? Should we use outside DLL's and folder/section/etc how would we LOAD them...

 

We could also have a text file for questions for each other. E.g. Jashin adds SimilarColors function. BlankName -> Asks why did you add that, its really damn slow for me. Brings up another question, should we add functions that run really sloww (Also a utilitarian issue)?

Maybe we can separate them into different files e.g. TIA-Utilitarian.scar, TIA-Non-Utilitarian.scar.

What defines? How should the whitespace be organized for readability

 

 

Tbh, I think the library should be a mix of Creative/Non-utilitarian AND Utilitarian. BUT Separate them into different files.

 

Note: we can't have the library be Too large in file size. Too much code still keeps a relatively small file size though.

 

These are my thoughts for now, they are subject to change though, i reserve this right

 

how about you help me work on GMRL's 07 Anti-Randoms? lol. J/k. but seriously i need some help if you get on skype soemtime i can explain where i am at in the development of them.

 

Kk I'll call u if ur on.

Edited June 9, 2013 by LordJashin

[shadowrecon]

The less files you separate the include into the easier it will be for users who search includes for functions. I say design a hierarchy file system with files that users can only add new functions under the file which pertains to that type of function? So you don't have 2k files with 200 lines of code in each. I would not require a setup procedure since it is a universal include instead require include developers to setup there functions and un-setup the function before it exits. This could save on the total amount of ram used by scar at any one point in time and require less from the script writers. Ex if the function needs the fonts for a game then setup the font it needs in the begging of the function and before it exits unload the font.

 

/include name

/Human

--Mouse.scar

--Keyboard.scar

/TFunctions

--TPA.scar

--TBA.scar

--TIA.scar

/Client

--Pixels.scar

--DTM.scar

--Bitmap.scar

--Find.scar

/Games

/RS2

--

/RS07

--

/SeaFight

--

/Macros

--CodeFormating.scar

 

includename.scar

[LordJashin]

Excellent idea Shadow! Then we can separate the Utilitarian and non-utilitarian by putting the Non-utilitarian functions BELOW the Utilitarian ones.

 

I love these ideas, thanks for contributing your thoughts! I think we should extend this to games, but I don't want the File size becoming a problem. Which reminds me, I'm going to run Loseless PNG Compression on the SPS images (loseless means Loses no quality), to try and make the file size better.

 

Knowing that if we DO extend this to games e.g. Games folder or w/e. That it will STILL follow the guidelines, and good ideas on how everything should run..

 

Like... each game can have its own Setup procedure before you run its functions, etc.....Also we need to make sure Code is Minimized in some ways, e.g. we don't need too many defines, or too many include files or w/e....(general idea)

 

EDIT:

 

LOL Shadow, you beat me to it:

 

 

What name should the include have?

 

Think of some guys, here's some I thought of:

 

CSI: Collaborative SCAR Include

Edited June 9, 2013 by LordJashin

[Wanted]

I don't understand, base OSI already accomplishes this.

[slacky]

So it sounds more and more like a regular include (MSSL comes to mind, GMRL, and by all means OSI). I was dreaming of a library that takes care of the more complex, and/or resource hungry jobs in a smart sense (which no includes does so far) + and then some other stuff. Many of the current includes does not care about the speed, as long as it's fast enough for whatever they need...

Edited June 9, 2013 by slacky

[LordJashin]

I don't understand, base OSI already accomplishes this.

 

Not in all aspects, not everyone has include access. this won't need a Setup File, needs folder restructure. Make it so everything is contained in functions, and isn't really long code.

 

etc, aspects, etc. Collabrativeness,

 

just post your thoughts, this is just to brainstorm, we could also revise OSI, (but everyone would still need include access (thats the whole point of the "collabrative")

 

So it sounds more and more like a regular include (MSSL comes to mind, GMRL, and by all means OSI). I was dreaming of a library that takes care of the more complex, and/or resource hungry jobs in a smart sense (which no includes does so far) + and then some other stuff. Many of the current includes does not care about the speed, as long as it's fast enough for whatever they need...

 

We can do that, but wouldn't that need external libraries? Well if it does use external, that's fine, but it has to 1. Work 2. be faster 3. not mess up

IF we do, do that, we could folder structure it, then make it a DEFINE...library loads...then instead of using SCAR's "SLOW" stuff, it can run the library's methods that are faster.

 

Just make sure that they are significantly faster, and not just like 0.001 faster or w/e. Cuz why even mess with it, if only 0.0001

 

 

Note: With "Collaborative", if you do say, go do the external library thing, some of us might need help either in 1. understanding the plugin code 2. how to use it 3. w/e else. Haven't seen a C++ library loaded with SCAR before in a while.

Edited June 9, 2013 by LordJashin

[Wanted]

This isn't making sense to me at all. You're basically suggesting an include that is like free wiki that anyone can directly edit and it automatically affects everyone. That's not a good idea.

 

OSI's development takes place on github. Anyone on github can make pull requests and anyone who proves the worthiness of judging which changes should be made etc has direct access. This is called logical orderly development, instead of chaos.

 

The idea of containing everything with in functions is inefficient and impractical. Set up OSI isn't needed for a lot of things and really is petty to say it's inconvenient.

 

OSI is entirely portable with anything while minimizing over resourcing via extended folders and game defines etc.

 

Of course there's a lot of things I don't think belong in an include because they cross the line of where script code should be, that's why I don't mind people making include extensions like GMRL.

 

OSI's progress is completely open to any logical additions and revisions. Feel free to suggest anything for open minded conversation. Most people don't realise all of the implications of their ideas... something that only comes with tons of experience.

 

It's hard to percieve a lot of the things related to OSI like it's structure and efficiency unless you're not already able to. It's a matter of a master's eye being able to see the purpose and reasoning behind it.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wanted

[slacky]

This isn't making sense to me at all.

Wow, no clue at all??? Most of us seems to be able to understand at least parts of this, but yet you struggle, try reading what is already said, maybe you can find some clues to what It's about, maybe try to allow some new information in your head: There are some exorcises that can lower your latent inhibition...

 

This isn't making sense to me at all. You're basically suggesting an include that is like free wiki that anyone can directly edit and it automatically affects everyone. That's not a good idea.

I do not believe he means an open library where everybody have access to contribute, but rather not as hard to join in on. And also I would believe it's not a hierarchy-structure, or "I am the boss, and I say you can't do that, EOD"-kind of library (the later example is the feeling I get of OSI). If I am to freely contribute to anything, I must be able to work freely, not being limited by some giant ego (unless I accept that he made a fair point). I would rather work side by side with someone, without having to discuss each function I implement.

 

..This is called logical orderly development, instead of chaos.

That gave me a good laugh, thank you!

 

Anyone on github can make pull requests and anyone who proves the worthiness of judging which changes should be made etc has direct access

... Good luck to anyone who wishes to be granted "open" access; Mission Impossible 5 is now announced...

 

The idea of containing everything with in functions is inefficient and impractical...

Oh? So less functioncalls = inefficient? Try creating a recursive function which iterates over it self, compare it to a for loop - see the overhead of functioncalls now?... Whenever needed: A function could be split up in to smaller pieces to allow for more control/structure, but not at the cost of much speed whenever speed is crucial: You can't say that one thing is the better in most every case, it depends on all the variables... But let's not get in to that - I do not see which post your statement is referring to, so I find your claim rather unneeded.

Edited June 9, 2013 by slacky

[LordJashin]

All the Developers/Contributors get repository access. This is a very general statement for SCAR Include Developers/Contributors. And there isn't many of us, so this in no way is a totally open thing...like going to the public swimming pool and jumping in.

 

Me, Wanted, ShadowRecon, Janilabo, Bixby Sayz, some others, ARE the active SCAR Include Developers and Contributors for the most part. Anyone else that wants repo access needs to be active and wanting to contribute (and pretty good).

[Wanted]

Wow, no clue at all??? Most of us seems to be able to understand at least parts of this, but yet you struggle, try reading what is already said, maybe you can find some clues to what It's about, maybe try to allow some new information in your head: There are some exorcises that can lower your latent inhibition...

 

You somehow have mistaken comprehension for reason. The premise here is obvious to me, clearly. My statement referred directly to the purpose of creating something that already exists and is better organized than what is suggested here.

 

A Collaborative Include:

 

A low level, general purpose, for any game, and anything, INCLUDE. No attachments to games AT ALL.

And we all work on it together (All the Developers/Contributors get repository access)!

 

What will be in it:

 

??? WE will think about this later!---------------------

 

If you wanna do this: VOTE YES, then we'll brainstorm ideas, I want everyone in on this, and contribute to the thread your ideas of this at the time, and new ideas. We can brainstorm a philosophy for stuff, and the best way for everything to be done, and etc. If you don't want to do this: I'm sorry you read down to this line...

 

 

 

Lets not let the limitations of forum software get to us either. Blast away on the thread, make as many replies as you want.

 

Base OSI is non game specific.

It is open for any suggestions for additions etc.

Anyone has the ability to gain access

 

I do not believe he means an open library where everybody have access to contribute, but rather not as hard to join in on. And also I would believe it's not a hierarchy-structure, or "I am the boss, and I say you can't do that, EOD"-kind of library (the later example is the feeling I get of OSI). If I am to freely contribute to anything, I must be able to work freely, not being limited by some giant ego (unless I accept that he made a fair point). I would rather work side by side with someone, without having to discuss each function I implement.

 

In the case that he did (which at this point after reading his last post is obvious he isn't) it would clearly be a bad idea.

 

Now knowing after reading his last statement that he isn't talking about that and again referring to a system in which anyone who capable of contributing in some way can. I don't see how it would differ or be any superior to the system I already have in place.

 

The system in place is not hard at all to join in on. If you come up with an idea or function etc you can suggest it, if it's a good idea and logically fits than it is implemented. Pretty soon you obtain reputation and are given permissions to make those type of contributions directly without someone ensuring that you are capable of doing so.

 

There is no giant limiting ego here. I don't mandate anything that doesn't have a logical counter argument that makes sense. This is exactly the problem I had at SRL where executive decisions are made by some body who doesn't even work on the include at all.

 

Of course I see the point of feeling constrained by the fact that this is supposed to be a team effort and everyone has to live with each others contributions and collective decision instead of a loan wolf (or SRL style oligarchy) calling all the shots. I've been doing this for 7 years, if you don't think for a second that I can't relate to such a feeling more than you can than you have no idea who I am and why I'm here or helped Freddy start this community.

 

One of the biggest things about this thread that bothers me is the fact that it is so broad. I don't like vague generalizations being made about how things can be improved. Specific arguments, ideas, creativity, etc needs to be discussed directly if there is any hope of achieving such goals. I don't mind open discussion about it but condemning me for pointing out such fallacies is the same thing is it not?

 

That gave me a good laugh, thank you!

 

I don't understand what is funny about that at all which leads me to believe you think it's false and are sarcastically mocking me, however I could be wrong. If that's the case then I'm glad I could entertain you, if the ladder than I really don't appreciate it.

 

I don't try to bundle up knowledge and experience I have with hopes of keeping it all for myself. My posts have the intention of enlightening others and understanding their view points and if appropriate helping them achieve putting it into practice.

 

... Good luck to anyone who wishes to be granted "open" access; Mission Impossible 5 is now announced...

 

Clearly it's not a good idea to grant anyone the power to do whatever they want on a team project that relies heavily on experience, knowledge, creativity, efficiency, structure etc. I'm a firm believer in truth over subjectivity. If there's a better way to do something etc and someone suggests it show their worthiness and their permissions are adjusted accordingly. If it's subjective than it isn't worth arguing over in the first place.

 

Oh? So less functioncalls = inefficient? Try creating a recursive function which iterates over it self, compare it to a for loop - see the overhead of functioncalls now?... Whenever needed: A function could be split up in to smaller pieces to allow for more control/structure, but not at the cost of much speed whenever speed is crucial: You can't say that one thing is the better in most every case, it depends on all the variables... But let's not get in to that - I do not see which post your statement is referring to, so I find your claim rather unneeded.

 

For someone who is quick to say I should try reading what is already said you clearly over looked the post directly above mine that I was referring too.

 

Not in all aspects, not everyone has include access. this won't need a Setup File, needs folder restructure. Make it so everything is contained in functions, and isn't really long code.

 

I'm not sure how you deduced

 

"containing everything with in functions is inefficient" into "less functioncalls = inefficient?"

 

Arguing about that at this point is pointless clearly there is a misunderstanding at hand.

 

Jashin is referring eliminating the "need [for] a Setup File" saying that it needs folder restructure and that everything is contained within functions.... clearly that doesn't make sense at all? Constants, globals, variables, etc. are all going to be contained within functions, therefore eliminating the need for SetUpOSI? That makes no sense at all unless I misunderstood something.

 

I agree that functions should be broken apart as much as possible for further control... as well as user capability etc. I encourage you study OSI very hard and notice how I have individual files arranged such as Login, Text etc. things like ChooseOption and Login are broken down into dozen of smaller functions sometimes that are not even used. Another example of why someone shouldn't just be turned loose with include access without first understanding what they are suggesting verses what is already in place.

 

There are very few specific examples of non-generalized (Semi)direct suggestions in this thread and I will now reply directly to all of them (please point out if I missed any)

 

The less files you separate the include into the easier it will be for users who search includes for functions. I say design a hierarchy file system with files that users can only add new functions under the file which pertains to that type of function? So you don't have 2k files with 200 lines of code in each. I would not require a setup procedure since it is a universal include instead require include developers to setup there functions and un-setup the function before it exits. This could save on the total amount of ram used by scar at any one point in time and require less from the script writers. Ex if the function needs the fonts for a game then setup the font it needs in the begging of the function and before it exits unload the font.

 

/include name

/Human

--Mouse.scar

--Keyboard.scar

/TFunctions

--TPA.scar

--TBA.scar

--TIA.scar

/Client

--Pixels.scar

--DTM.scar

--Bitmap.scar

--Find.scar

/Games

/RS2

--

/RS07

--

/SeaFight

--

/Macros

--CodeFormating.scar

 

includename.scar

 

I disagree entirely. Function categorizing and file placement should be balanced. Take a look at OSI, surely you wouldn't want to combine all of the Array type functions into a single huge file. Broken down it's more manageable, navigational, and organized. However this may be not always be the case if you point out a specific example I'll possibly reconsider.

 

If you're really into powercoding/fast searches /changing etc you should look into thins like Notepad ++ and other great coding tools.

 

I don't understand how loading and unloading after every single function is more efficient at all. You want to load the fonts one time and then use them at will instead of reloading them and freeing them each time (much more intensive) if you really want you can manually control resource uses with things like Free/Load fonts when appropriate.

 

We clearly need a SetUp function.

 

All the Developers/Contributors get repository access. This is a very general statement for SCAR Include Developers/Contributors. And there isn't many of us, so this in no way is a totally open thing...like going to the public swimming pool and jumping in.

 

Me, Wanted, ShadowRecon, Janilabo, Bixby Sayz, some others, ARE the active SCAR Include Developers and Contributors for the most part. Anyone else that wants repo access needs to be active and wanting to contribute (and pretty good).

 

Is this not exactly what is already in place with OSI?

 

Few of you might not have direct access to OSI 2 repo yet but mainly because there isn't a need to. I haven't seen direct interest in RS07 from anyone who doesn't have OSI access. RS2 hasn't been made yet... feel free to start a branch etc. start discussions about specific examples of what you'd like to see etc. and when given direct access extreme prejudice and caution should be exercised when making any changes. Obviously given direct access doesn't mean you can go in and do whatever you see fit.. if its something minor or semi minor you can begin committing work etc but going in and making massive changes without discussing it with the rest of us such as adding huge major player forms that are called on the start up of OSI etc. and things like huge structural changes and messing with more or less subjective aspects like coding style, function headers, etc needs to be discussed prior to doing so in order to avoid the headaches.

 

This is what comes with working on a team. If you want to do whatever you want go loan wolf it on your include and see how it works out, if you discover something share it with the rest of us. Otherwise the cloud of negativity from slacky or the general broad and vague discussions like these lead to no where but malcontent and confusion.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wanted
grammatical errors

[shadowrecon]

I do agree with wanted. I was just proposing ideas. As Freddy has said anyone can make an include and if they make it through the process of setting it up then everyone has access, but honestly this is going back to the days in SCAR way before your time, LordJashin, when there were include wars. This was because the community was large and everyone wanted to be on top with there include and there were users to use the includes but honestly as small as the community is we should keep the "Code Bin" which houses any function you can think of. Id consider that like this include you are proposing. Instead why not actually contribute to the communtiy and like Slacky said create these much needed functions we need, like better text-finding methods and OCR algorithms instead of venturing off and creating an include which would have the same functions as OSI. Name one function you cna think of you want to create that OSI, GMRL, MSSL, etc doesn't have you would like to create? I dont believe there is one i believe it is the fact you want to create an include and honestly you have a include, why not just open that up to anyone? You also have GMRL which ive been working on restructuring and trying to keep compatible with OSI because i see no reason to reinvent the wheel but instead add an axle and cart and go somewhere with ease.

 

Ive been back a month and managed to fix SPS, and make it compatible for 2 games. Something i think is very useful, an entrie community at SRL love SPS our community is just small and once people get comfortable with GMRL and its standards they may actually use it. But going off and making includes is only going to confuse new members when OSI could be the next bigger and better SRL but simply maintaining it and letting Wanted design all the game functions is not going to create this community. Ive been working my ass off trying to find ways to solve randoms and creating the functions i need while paying the $8 bucks a month when i don't even play the game. Anyways im getting off my soap box, but this community is to head strong and NOT willing to work together. If there are/were any functions you wanted to see or develop OSI has a suggestion forum. Create these constants and etc that dont do anything different isnt going to be the next innovation. It is functions that do something new.

[LordJashin]

Well this is a retarded thread I made, but it does bring in discussion, which I will have. Don't need a new include anymore, might as well just work on OSI, and bring up the issues to it, instead of just remaking the wheel.

 

I'll point out some specifics, that I think maybe should be changed with OSI, then go into greater detail later: 1. Organization & Structure 2. Commenting (a very tiny issue but might as well bring it up) 3. New ideas too i wanna bring up...

 

Forward note: I did make a shit load of changes to OSI, in my time working on it, July/August 2012 - Now. Probably made some mistakes with some of the restructuring I did. But the MAIN issue was still in place. Well, a small issue, but it still has caused problems for people. the RS2 automatically looking for login screen + a combined giant long Setup procedure. I really think we should make it sectioned out into different files, and not have this big conglomerate thing. But yeah people would want to look up a constant, but couldn't cause RS2 was looking for the login screen, and you HAVE to setupOSI; to see some of the constants (cause of the update system I added, and some changes)....bit long of a forward note

 

1. Organization & Structure: For SETUPOSI procedure, I believe we need some major changes, because its just a big conglomerate of code, and its not easy to look at for anybody. This is like the FIRST FILE anyone's gonna look at in the include, because its the actual file they include. I think it should look nicer. Reasoning. Well OSI & RS2 are supposed to be separate, BASE OSI, sure it should/could be in the setup procedure. But when we have all this RS2 crap in there. What if this person doesn't even want RS2, and just wants BASE OSI, and has to look at all this extra stuff. What if somebody wants to add a RS07 section, are we gonna make the setup procedure even LARGER, and put RS07's setup crap in there too?

 

I think it'd be so much more Simplistic, nice, on target, relevant, and future proof, responsive to have it like this:

 

[scar]

procedure SetUpOSI;

begin

try

OSI_Variance := 3.0;

OSI_WriteAndLog('Routines Enabled');

{$IFDEF BASS}

Lib_Bass_Init('Divi\Libraries\Bass.dll');

{$ENDIF}

{$IFDEF RS2}

SetupRS2;

{$ENDIF}

MouseSpeed := 15;

SetColorSpeed2Modifiers(0.2, 0.2);

ColorToleranceSpeed(1);

except

HandleOSIException;

finally

if not OSIExceptionThrown then

begin

IsOSISetup := True;

OSI_WriteAndLog('Successfully Setup!');

end;

end;

end;

[/scar]

 

And it also makes sense, because RS2 is an Option, people have to DEFINE it, to even use it. While BASE OSI functionality comes first, and foremost, and doesn't need a DEFINE. Now what to do instead? Why can't we just have a RS2.scar file in the RS2 folder that has its OWN setup procedure. Maybe even throw the {$I rs2/smart.scar} RS2 defines in there too. Yeah that sounds like a great idea:

 

[scar]

// RS2 Includes!

{$IFDEF RS2}

{$I RS2\Core\Text.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\GameTabs.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Chat.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Login.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\WorldSwitcher.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Inventory.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Object.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Map.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Bank.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\DepositBox.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Amount.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\NPC.scar}

{$I RS2\Misc\Trading.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\AbilityBook.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\ActionBar.scar}

[/scar]

 

Put all those in there too! The only problem with moving these around, is FORWARD Declarations, but that's already solved I think...since the RS2 includes are already Below the OSI includes...so all the forwards must already be in place.

 

Some of this is my fault too though, I have put some jargon around OSI, and also in the Setup procedure. Need to rethink what I put in there, I think some of it is unnecessary tbh. Or maybe it is, because of the try, except, finally....ill check eventually

 

The folder structure, and file structure. I don't think extra files is completely bad. But TOO many can be bad/confusing or w/e. I think that because OSI is open to change, it should reflect that with some of the structuring. Like the RS2 folder should be inside a "Games" folder. Because maybe somebody may want to add another game (RS07, Pserver, w/ethefk). I mean I shouldn't really have to argue some of these things...organize things according to subject, and etc. Tbh, I don't like how I have the folders setup right now:

 

 

Is a folder structure similar to this, is this the way it should be done:

 

/include name

/Human

--Mouse.scar

--Keyboard.scar

/TFunctions

--TPA.scar

--TBA.scar

--TIA.scar

/Client

--Pixels.scar

--DTM.scar

--Bitmap.scar

--Find.scar

/Games

/RS2

--

/RS07

--

/SeaFight

--

/Macros

--CodeFormating.scar

 

Maybe we should rename "Divi" to "Base" to reflect more of the purpose of that folder. Which is to provide OSI base functionality...via functions built off scar divi. Which then are used in RS2, and etc. But "Divi" just refers to SCAR Divi, and ALL The functions RS2, and base osi are built off SCAR Divi, everything is! So I think this is a logical idea. Subfolders I think are pretty well done...except for the Level1, 2, but yeah i referred to that once already i think.

 

File structure: Its pretty good now! But, what if files get too large? Or we want to add new things...Should we separate things into separate files? I like Janilabo's idea. He has Relevant, Associated, and different files that people can look at. This functions sort of like a code bin in a sense. This was the idea I've been sort of gunning for in a sense. I don't like how OSI is so unchanging, and I believe if I see a cool function, I'd love to add it in to an associated file. and someone could find it, and like it as well even if its NOT USEFUL for anything! With SCAR Divi, everyone experiments around anyways. This has to be thought out though cuz. Would if be better to have them all in the same folder, or a new...Associated folder? Like SLACKY has a good little OpenCV SCAR plugin going on, and some functions that do some pretty cool maybe even semi-useful things! It would be cool to have like a place for these things. Its not like these functions don't do anything either. Its not like we will put WriteLn('your a boss') as a function. But semi-useful, interesting things...

 

I've sort of FORCED this into OSI myself, with things like the BASS library, and NewKeyboardFunctions inside a DLL. This is a really good idea, that we can build on together in this thread. As to the EXACT FOLDER and FILE STRUCTURE, this still needs to be thought out more. Tons of options for it.

 

2. Commenting: Just a very tiny issue. I never liked how we put By: Nameofwhoever in the Header of FILES. Like this:

 

[scar]

{=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Official SCAR Include

Include File

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* procedure SetUpOSI;

By: Jashin1, Jashin2, Jashin3

* procedure FreeOSI;

By: etc.,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=}

[/scar]

 

It becomes repetitive, and unnecessary. When we actually go the function itself, and its Comment. WE CAN SEE THERE Who made it, and By:

So why have it twice? To give more credit? Credit's already given. Header files are good to tell people what functions are in the file, regardless of what SCAR (in its function list or Ctrl+Space) says. That's what I use it for anyway. Its more work, and i feel its unneeded.

 

3. New ideas, yeah I already brought one up with the...Associated files idea. But there's definitely more I can think of (eventually with my creative mind). A lot of this is for the Future of OSI, and in the future. As for now, with how OSI is now....idk anymore at the moment. Alot of these new ones, are with structure. But I also want to point out that, new files, and things for people are also good ideas sometimes. Like when i added the Change Log. Bixby Sayz, and me, and maybe others used it, and it helped us figure out each other's changes without having to interpret Github's Commit list. WHICH HAS ERRORS BECAUSE, what will happen is. If you do something it doesn't like, and you commit. To us the people looking at the commit. The WHOLE file will be RED, and the new file GREEN...even though maybe bixby only did like ONE THING to the original file perhaps, etc.

 

 

This is good for now...have at it.

 

EDIT: Just to retouch on the SETUP OSI procedure again. With RS2's auto looking for RSReady, and Login screen. I think this should be REMOVED, changed because some people just want to use RS2's functions and constants and variables that are setup (Fonts too). And NOT ACTUALLY BOT THE GAME........there is a way to do this now, but its ambiguous RS2_SkipRS2Ready or w/e

 

2nd Edit: lets keep level headed guys, help me out if you think one of these thoughts is wrong to you (wanted, slacky, shadow, whoever). Explain your reasoning. If I don't explain mine, don't respond to it, or just point me out on it please.

Edited June 10, 2013 by LordJashin

[shadowrecon]

Note on OSI setup this procedure should not be broken down because it does nothing the user needs to understand because it is a core setup routine. OSI is meant to be a useful include and if people want to learn to understand the code it should be spelled out with ABC blocks thats what tutorials are for. Make a tutorial explaining each step, just because you dont understand or it looks messy its because you dont understand language syntax. Defines are placed wired. Microsoft didnt simplify there DLL files for people to understand them better but instead provided better documentation for how to use the function. If you understood the function there would be no need to use an include, it would be easier to write you own functions. OSI has many standards devoted to capturing errors and fixing them if it can and if not providing some sort of error.

 

Note on RS2 setup: Why add more front end for the scripter. I dont want to have to add more procedures and functions which add time to the total compilation of the script which is what they do, it takes more time to process functions than it does to just have the function within the function that needs it, yes we are talking about processor ticks but still in a include that totals up to 10000+lines + the script that uses this the time adds up and over all slows down the proformance of the include. 2 distinct reasons a deffine if much better than a setup procedure.

 

 

Also do you understand that defines are PRE PROCESSOR commands which means if the define isnt defined then the code is not included shortening the code? Does that make since? this is why they are used.

 

Also if something remains unchanged and still works it means it was built well in the first place. If it isnt broke dont change it. That is the number one problem in america right now everyone wants to fix things that arnt broken which just cause mroe issues because these new solutions dont stand to the test of time. (Off topic i know.. lol)

 

Anyways LordJashin im not trying to hinder you in your development but instead tell you rearranging and spiting functions up is not going to add to any performance increases everything you have mentioned would either A slow it down even more (Taking out the defines) or be B change nothing at all but the way something is commented. Also if Slacky has a useful function he can post in in the OSI suggestions, or create a include him self if he has enough functions to consider it an include, or better yet post it in the code been where people can find the functions easily.

 

 

Dont forget OSI is Wanteds Baby, and he clearly lays our how he wants the comments and structure of the pascal langue to look in the OSI wiki. Tell me he has not thought out OSI and spent hours setting things up in a way he thought users would find functions easily. How would you like someone to jump in you include and tell you your commenting systems which have been thought out are shit or the way you layout your functions is shit just because you can understand them. Honestly i follow Wanteds coding very well with no problems. I have broken many of his functions down to understand them step by step and honesty it made me a better/ or i would like to think programmer. I also now use his methods of laying out the code and providing fail-safes even when someone else would think they were not needed. This is a good way to peruse things with coding. I am a Junior in college working toward a degree in Electronic Engineering i understand the concepts behind fail-safes. I am taking a computer programming class over algorithms next semester for fun and im excited! signed up for it today!

 

 

Anyways I say screw the comments and lets make some functions that people need now, and not functions someone MAY use in the next 10 years.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Side not I hate the LEVEL 1 and LEVEL 2 folder BS! First time i saw it i was lost, and took a few mins to understand it. Defiantly not clear.

Edited June 10, 2013 by shadowrecon

[slacky]

@wanted: I was not mocking you in any way, I actually found that part quite funny.

 

"I've been doing this for 7 years"...

- what ever "this" is, it sounds monotonous. I could tell you about my past 7 years as well, but I see no reason to do so.

 

".. that I can't relate to such a feeling more than you can than you have no idea who I am and why I'm here"...

- Is there a reason to why you assume some random dude knows who you are, and why your here?

- Is there any reason as to why you believe you can relate more to such a feeling then I? That statement is based on vacuum.

 

 

I believe you know close to nothing about me, and nor I of you. Have a nice day! :-)

Edited June 10, 2013 by slacky

[Wanted]

I do agree with wanted. I was just proposing ideas. As Freddy has said anyone can make an include and if they make it through the process of setting it up then everyone has access, but honestly this is going back to the days in SCAR way before your time, LordJashin, when there were include wars. This was because the community was large and everyone wanted to be on top with there include and there were users to use the includes but honestly as small as the community is we should keep the "Code Bin" which houses any function you can think of. Id consider that like this include you are proposing. Instead why not actually contribute to the communtiy

 

Open discussion is allowed here, but with any conversation obvious regulation is needed to prevent chaos, and by regulation I mean allowing people to come in an and point out things possibly contradicting to the conversation idea.

 

Include wars weren't that bad. There is a huge difference between that and this. That was small factions of different ideology early crude includes coming about and at the beginning of innovation.. something that has come a long way since then and has obviously reached new domains. Also what was suggested in this thread was not another include, it was another collaborative include like (OSI, or SRL) something which clearly already exists here and would be counter productive and pointless due to the fact that it already exists.

 

like Slacky said create these much needed functions we need, like better text-finding methods and OCR algorithms instead of venturing off and creating an include which would have the same functions as OSI. Name one function you cna think of you want to create that OSI, GMRL, MSSL, etc doesn't have you would like to create? I dont believe there is one i believe it is the fact you want to create an include and honestly you have a include, why not just open that up to anyone? You also have GMRL which ive been working on restructuring and trying to keep compatible with OSI because i see no reason to reinvent the wheel but instead add an axle and cart and go somewhere with ease.

 

OSI is open to any improvements of any kind. Yes, you do not need an entirely new collaborative include to make additions or adjustments to the one in place. Instead point out your specific addition etc. and it will be discussed and if appropriate put into place, and if you're someone who continually does so.... you get more and more power to do things with out approval because you obviously know what you're doing based on your reputation. Obviously major changes will always be discussed, that's how you play on a team.

 

Ive been back a month and managed to fix SPS, and make it compatible for 2 games. Something i think is very useful, an entrie community at SRL love SPS our community is just small and once people get comfortable with GMRL and its standards they may actually use it. But going off and making includes is only going to confuse new members when OSI could be the next bigger and better SRL but simply maintaining it and letting Wanted design all the game functions is not going to create this community. Ive been working my ass off trying to find ways to solve randoms and creating the functions i need while paying the $8 bucks a month when i don't even play the game. Anyways im getting off my soap box, but this community is to head strong and NOT willing to work together. If there are/were any functions you wanted to see or develop OSI has a suggestion forum. Create these constants and etc that dont do anything different isnt going to be the next innovation. It is functions that do something new.

 

In latent terms. OSI is already at everyone's disposal for exactly what is suggested in this thread. People just need to learn how to do so. Doing something else like creating what is mentioned would result in confusion, counter production etc.

 

Well this is a retarded thread I made, but it does bring in discussion, which I will have. Don't need a new include anymore, might as well just work on OSI, and bring up the issues to it, instead of just remaking the wheel.

 

It's not a retarded thread. Discussions are necessary to happen. It's interesting watching this community grow because everyone's (mis)perception here is to create an include because that's all they've known coming here. This conversation was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

I'll point out some specifics, that I think maybe should be changed with OSI, then go into greater detail later: 1. Organization & Structure 2. Commenting (a very tiny issue but might as well bring it up) 3. New ideas too i wanna bring up...

 

Before you even read down I'd like to remind everyone that these things are in correspondence to OSI 1 and not the current OSI 2. OSI 1 in its current state was not designed be me really at all.. it under went massive changes in my absense leaving what you see today. OSI 2 is much much different, even from the original OSI 1 structure I introduced.

 

Forward note: I did make a shit load of changes to OSI, in my time working on it, July/August 2012 - Now. Probably made some mistakes with some of the restructuring I did. But the MAIN issue was still in place. Well, a small issue, but it still has caused problems for people. the RS2 automatically looking for login screen + a combined giant long Setup procedure. I really think we should make it sectioned out into different files, and not have this big conglomerate thing. But yeah people would want to look up a constant, but couldn't cause RS2 was looking for the login screen, and you HAVE to setupOSI; to see some of the constants (cause of the update system I added, and some changes)....bit long of a forward note

 

I believe that's actually where a vast majority of the current OSI1 layout came from. As far as RS2 goes that hasn't even begun with OSI 2 yet. The OSI 1 remains of RS2 is clearly a graveyard of code that needs to be scrapped and started over from scratch completely as I've stated before.

 

1. Organization & Structure: For SETUPOSI procedure, I believe we need some major changes, because its just a big conglomerate of code, and its not easy to look at for anybody. This is like the FIRST FILE anyone's gonna look at in the include, because its the actual file they include. I think it should look nicer. Reasoning. Well OSI & RS2 are supposed to be separate, BASE OSI, sure it should/could be in the setup procedure. But when we have all this RS2 crap in there. What if this person doesn't even want RS2, and just wants BASE OSI, and has to look at all this extra stuff. What if somebody wants to add a RS07 section, are we gonna make the setup procedure even LARGER, and put RS07's setup crap in there too?

 

I think it'd be so much more Simplistic, nice, on target, relevant, and future proof, responsive to have it like this:

 

[scar]

procedure SetUpOSI;

begin

try

OSI_Variance := 3.0;

OSI_WriteAndLog('Routines Enabled');

{$IFDEF BASS}

Lib_Bass_Init('Divi\Libraries\Bass.dll');

{$ENDIF}

{$IFDEF RS2}

SetupRS2;

{$ENDIF}

MouseSpeed := 15;

SetColorSpeed2Modifiers(0.2, 0.2);

ColorToleranceSpeed(1);

except

HandleOSIException;

finally

if not OSIExceptionThrown then

begin

IsOSISetup := True;

OSI_WriteAndLog('Successfully Setup!');

end;

end;

end;

[/scar]

 

If you look at OSI 2 you'll find this

 

[sCAR]procedure SetUpOSI;

begin

OSI_Variance := 3.0;

MouseSpeed := 15;

SetColorSpeed2Modifiers(0.2, 0.2);

ColorToleranceSpeed(1);

{$IFDEF RS07}

WriteLn('OSI RS07 routines enabled.');

SetLength(Players, 1);

{$IFDEF OSI_RS07_Color_Anti_Randoms}

WriteLn('OSI RS07 color random detection and solving enabled.');

InitiateAntiRandoms;

{$ELSE}

WriteLn('OSI RS2 color random detection and solving disabled.');

{$ENDIF}

{$IFNDEF DisableRS07Fonts}

LoadRS07Fonts;

{$ELSE}

WriteLn('Auto font loading disabled.');

{$ENDIF}

{$IFDEF SMART}

if InitSmartLib(OSIPath + 'SMART\libsmartremote32.dll') then

SMARTPath := OSIPath + 'SMART\'

else

begin

WriteLn('Couldn''t load libsmartremote32.dll');

TerminateScript;

end;

if (not (NonAutomaticSMART)) then

InitiateSMART;

{$ENDIF}

PlayerStartTime := GetSystemTime;

{$ENDIF}

end;[/sCAR]

 

Anything that isn't base OSI is placed at the end and is removed processor if it's not defined. I don't see any real purpose to changing this. If you still disagree I'll give you another chance to make a case.

 

And it also makes sense, because RS2 is an Option, people have to DEFINE it, to even use it. While BASE OSI functionality comes first, and foremost, and doesn't need a DEFINE. Now what to do instead? Why can't we just have a RS2.scar file in the RS2 folder that has its OWN setup procedure. Maybe even throw the {$I rs2/smart.scar} RS2 defines in there too. Yeah that sounds like a great idea:

 

[scar]

// RS2 Includes!

{$IFDEF RS2}

{$I RS2\Core\Text.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\GameTabs.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Chat.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Login.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\WorldSwitcher.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Inventory.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Object.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Map.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Bank.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\DepositBox.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\Amount.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\NPC.scar}

{$I RS2\Misc\Trading.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\AbilityBook.scar}

{$I RS2\Core\ActionBar.scar}

[/scar]

 

Put all those in there too! The only problem with moving these around, is FORWARD Declarations, but that's already solved I think...since the RS2 includes are already Below the OSI includes...so all the forwards must already be in place.

 

Some of this is my fault too though, I have put some jargon around OSI, and also in the Setup procedure. Need to rethink what I put in there, I think some of it is unnecessary tbh. Or maybe it is, because of the try, except, finally....ill check eventually

 

Pushing things off into separate game based folders and creating different main files the all converge ultimately into OSI.scar file sounds great if you're only thinking about it from an organization stand point of view. If we actually did that and went full organized nazi mode instead of balancing it with things like portability etc. then we would greatly limit our potential. Take for example if we needed different files to come in at different times to make sure no matter what resources the scripter uses there isn't some type of conflict. Also take into account if we want to be very specific about when events happen during the SetUpProcedure.. if it's between game specifics etc. than it would be impossible to place it correctly. Obviously these are two very general examples but you can think where this is going and what the possibilities of limitation are and why it isn't a good idea.

 

The folder structure, and file structure. I don't think extra files is completely bad. But TOO many can be bad/confusing or w/e. I think that because OSI is open to change, it should reflect that with some of the structuring. Like the RS2 folder should be inside a "Games" folder. Because maybe somebody may want to add another game (RS07, Pserver, w/ethefk). I mean I shouldn't really have to argue some of these things...organize things according to subject, and etc. Tbh, I don't like how I have the folders setup right now:

 

 

Is a folder structure similar to this, is this the way it should be done:

 

 

 

Maybe we should rename "Divi" to "Base" to reflect more of the purpose of that folder. Which is to provide OSI base functionality...via functions built off scar divi. Which then are used in RS2, and etc. But "Divi" just refers to SCAR Divi, and ALL The functions RS2, and base osi are built off SCAR Divi, everything is! So I think this is a logical idea. Subfolders I think are pretty well done...except for the Level1, 2, but yeah i referred to that once already i think.

 

File structure: Its pretty good now! But, what if files get too large? Or we want to add new things...Should we separate things into separate files? I like Janilabo's idea. He has Relevant, Associated, and different files that people can look at. This functions sort of like a code bin in a sense. This was the idea I've been sort of gunning for in a sense. I don't like how OSI is so unchanging, and I believe if I see a cool function, I'd love to add it in to an associated file. and someone could find it, and like it as well even if its NOT USEFUL for anything! With SCAR Divi, everyone experiments around anyways. This has to be thought out though cuz. Would if be better to have them all in the same folder, or a new...Associated folder? Like SLACKY has a good little OpenCV SCAR plugin going on, and some functions that do some pretty cool maybe even semi-useful things! It would be cool to have like a place for these things. Its not like these functions don't do anything either. Its not like we will put WriteLn('your a boss') as a function. But semi-useful, interesting things...

 

I've sort of FORCED this into OSI myself, with things like the BASS library, and NewKeyboardFunctions inside a DLL. This is a really good idea, that we can build on together in this thread. As to the EXACT FOLDER and FILE STRUCTURE, this still needs to be thought out more. Tons of options for it.

 

The OSI 2 structure is completely different than current OSI 1 (I don't know who put the levels in place...) and even different from my original OSI 1 structure.

 

There is no such thing as too many files etc.. as long as the files created and placement are placed under a well balanced ideology.

 

There's also really no point in adding a \games\ folder since it would just be a folder containing more folders and nothing else especially not yet considering there is nothing but games for the time being... this may change in the future if more categories or library usage are brought about... for now it's just redunannt and unnecessary.

 

Funny if you look at OSI 2's structure it looks surprisingly similar if not even better

 

https://github.com/OfficialSCARInclude/OSI2

 

Divi -> Base might be a good name change that would provide the end user with a more easily perceivable idea of what it's for.

 

I think once you take a look at OSI 2's structure you won't be saying anything about unchanging, too large files, or breaking them down ect. that's already done quite beautifully. Feel free to reevaluate your opinion after looking at it for yourself.

 

In regards to the whole BASS library, CVplugins etc. please you're going vague again... come back to direct specific examples so we can clear them up, thanks.

 

I'll come back to 'associated' files again later...

 

2. Commenting: Just a very tiny issue. I never liked how we put By: Nameofwhoever in the Header of FILES. Like this:

[scar]

{=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Official SCAR Include

Include File

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* procedure SetUpOSI;

By: Jashin1, Jashin2, Jashin3

* procedure FreeOSI;

By: etc.,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=}

[/scar]

 

It becomes repetitive, and unnecessary. When we actually go the function itself, and its Comment. WE CAN SEE THERE Who made it, and By:

So why have it twice? To give more credit? Credit's already given. Header files are good to tell people what functions are in the file, regardless of what SCAR (in its function list or Ctrl+Space) says. That's what I use it for anyway. Its more work, and i feel its unneeded.

 

Yea I can see that. It was originally put in for legacy purposes. Another one of the original crap DNA genes that followed into OSI from SRL. I'll remove it and do the Dive->Base name change eventually.

 

3. New ideas, yeah I already brought one up with the...Associated files idea. But there's definitely more I can think of (eventually with my creative mind). A lot of this is for the Future of OSI, and in the future. As for now, with how OSI is now....idk anymore at the moment. Alot of these new ones, are with structure. But I also want to point out that, new files, and things for people are also good ideas sometimes. Like when i added the Change Log. Bixby Sayz, and me, and maybe others used it, and it helped us figure out each other's changes without having to interpret Github's Commit list. WHICH HAS ERRORS BECAUSE, what will happen is. If you do something it doesn't like, and you commit. To us the people looking at the commit. The WHOLE file will be RED, and the new file GREEN...even though maybe bixby only did like ONE THING to the original file perhaps, etc.

 

 

This is good for now...have at it.

 

"Associated files".. this just sounds like extended. Extra stuff that is useful but maybe not commonly used and should be separated out of automatically include files to reduce resource usage and not having to worry about limiting extras. \Extended\ it's there for this very reason.

 

Github has never wronged me with commenting. I don't know what you all are doing wrong. A change log is kind of pointless honestly it doesn't fully eliminate that problem you're talking about... I don't see why you can't just use the change log that everyone uses when they make github commits... if needed you can add an extra change log file for very long in depth changes but honestly things like that should require group discussion and explanation threads afterwards.

 

EDIT: Just to retouch on the SETUP OSI procedure again. With RS2's auto looking for RSReady, and Login screen. I think this should be REMOVED, changed because some people just want to use RS2's functions and constants and variables that are setup (Fonts too). And NOT ACTUALLY BOT THE GAME........there is a way to do this now, but its ambiguous RS2_SkipRS2Ready or w/e

 

2nd Edit: lets keep level headed guys, help me out if you think one of these thoughts is wrong to you (wanted, slacky, shadow, whoever). Explain your reasoning. If I don't explain mine, don't respond to it, or just point me out on it please.

 

Already covered this above.

 

Essentially RS2 is being scrapped. Stating it needs to be redone at this point is redundant. What you should be saying now instead is how

 

Note on OSI setup this procedure should not be broken down because it does nothing the user needs to understand because it is a core setup routine. OSI is meant to be a useful include and if people want to learn to understand the code it should be spelled out with ABC blocks thats what tutorials are for. Make a tutorial explaining each step, just because you dont understand or it looks messy its because you dont understand language syntax. Defines are placed wired. Microsoft didnt simplify there DLL files for people to understand them better but instead provided better documentation for how to use the function. If you understood the function there would be no need to use an include, it would be easier to write you own functions. OSI has many standards devoted to capturing errors and fixing them if it can and if not providing some sort of error.

 

Already covered the SetUp part, but I'm going to put another spin on this

 

To further what he said: OSI is a LIBRARY it's not a tutorial helper aid thingy. It's made to a be a powerful necessity for those who are worthy of welding its awesome power. Going through and changing it souly to aid those incapable and thus weakening it or otherwise is not our goal. Create something outside of OSI that explains it if that's your goal.

 

Dont forget OSI is Wanteds Baby, and he clearly lays our how he wants the comments and structure of the pascal langue to look in the OSI wiki. Tell me he has not thought out OSI and spent hours setting things up in a way he thought users would find functions easily. How would you like someone to jump in you include and tell you your commenting systems which have been thought out are shit or the way you layout your functions is shit just because you can understand them. Honestly i follow Wanteds coding very well with no problems. I have broken many of his functions down to understand them step by step and honesty it made me a better/ or i would like to think programmer. I also now use his methods of laying out the code and providing fail-safes even when someone else would think they were not needed. This is a good way to peruse things with coding. I am a Junior in college working toward a degree in Electronic Engineering i understand the concepts behind fail-safes. I am taking a computer programming class over algorithms next semester for fun and im excited! signed up for it today!

 

OSI being some inhuman child of mine is irrelevant. All that I care about is that its development is guided by prevailing truth. I have no qualms with people pointing things out so that I can explain them to them or possibly use usual criticism. This is actually something I wish I had more of. Again I much prefer specific examples etc. broad generalizations and vague statements make my head hurt very much.

 

Good luck in your career. I recently started a job with BMW that is consuming a lot of my time. Hopefully I can climb it all the way to the top.

 

Side not I hate the LEVEL 1 and LEVEL 2 folder BS! First time i saw it i was lost, and took a few mins to understand it. Defiantly not clear.

 

Read the above response to Jashin.

 

@wanted: I was not mocking you in any way, I actually found that part quite funny.

 

You'll have to excuse me. It's hard to perceive things over digital media... especially someone's intentions, and especially in that situation.

 

"I've been doing this for 7 years"...

- what ever "this" is, it sounds monotonous. I could tell you about my past 7 years as well, but I see no reason to do so.

 

This in context would refer directly to the entire original topic discussed in this thread. Scripting/Include making. Which is not monotonous to anyone here seriously attempting to discuss what this thread's purpose is for. Which is why it is being discussed here and not somewhere else.

 

".. that I can't relate to such a feeling more than you can than you have no idea who I am and why I'm here"...

- Is there a reason to why you assume some random dude knows who you are, and why your here?

 

There is no such assumption being made. It is clearly a statement stating that if you believe this set of information to be true than the only logical explanation is this.

 

- Is there any reason as to why you believe you can relate more to such a feeling then I? That statement is based on vacuum.

 

Yes obviously as stated the reason as it was clearly presented that I have been doing this for 7 years as implied opposed to your very short existence here. A feeling which obviously develops more over time with experience.

 

 

I believe you know close to nothing about me, and nor I of you. Have a nice day! :-)

 

This statement is quite possibly true, however ... its only flaw is that no one is claiming anything contradicting to it.. so its purpose for being stated is unable to be located by my perception.

 

Close to nothing.. however you've made it painfully obvious that I have dealt more specifically with this topic than you have.

 

The history and roots here go back further than you know... don't be quick to join a civilization and condemn its culture without knowing its origins and residents.

 

I'm not one to throw around weight and ego but respect is universal like the diameter of a circle compared to it's circumference.

 

Don't fight nature with science

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wanted