gabereiser

To echo others, it’s against policy. Not that we don’t care (we do) but that it’s better covered (and serviced) elsewhere, this isn’t the forum for those kinds of discussions.

ECS is different. Systems coordinate entities, entities have components, some of them can be behaviors, some of them are not (vertex data). You would need to provide something that a component can inherit to derive that it’s a behavior. Unity does this by calling it a MonoBehavior (not Mono as in singular, mono as in Mono runtime, the name stuck).

Having an ECBS system: one could model all the permutations as described while keeping code concise, shareable, and non-repeatable. Unity is really an ECBS.

Inheritance vs non is as old as OOP vs functional. Each has their place, each has their pros and cons. Having functional components and behavior traits attached to object inheritance based entity nodes is probably the best of all composition. Entities can get more and more complex with inheritance chains (further classifying what components can be attached), components can include behaviors, data, events/triggers, sub-components. Behaviors (triggering events or waiting for) is where your game logic would mostly reside.

Yes. I can confirm it’s regardless of SKU

I'm sure the author would accept pull requests if you've got the time to show ValWithPtr safety.

Often what is “approved” and “delivered” conflict. In this case, they approved a part, a genuine part, but got a fake part, unbeknownst to them at the time.

One could say the fake part was not “approved”.

At least he offered a salary. I once was offered only equity in a non-formed dream corporation with the promise that "once we have a product"...

I stand with the equal human rights crowd. Chik-fil-a is not one of us. Their stance on LGBTQ+ folks is clear. I’m not LGBTQ but I believe we all should be allowed to live the lives we choose so long as we don’t harm others or break the law (which normally are designed to protect others).

I do love their chicken though.

It’s not invalid because a string is a string. You didn’t invent a new type.

I mean, if(len(O) == 32) technically is a validation but you’re right, by default it just fits for size.

>”Learning assembly language is basically useless at this point.”

I whole heartedly disagree. There’s an entire class of performance tuning you can do to math intensive applications that absolutely require knowledge of assembly to squeeze that last 0.5% out of the machine.

Video Games, Video Editing, Image Editing, Simulations, Scientific applications, all benefit from having some assembly sprinkled into their algorithms for speed.

Because of this, I don’t need crates or packages to do things for me, I’m capable of doing it on my own. I’m capable of building a 64kb demo scene executable. I’m capable of building a hardware accelerated video decoder. I’m capable of parallel vector operations because I can haz assembly. I can disassemble and reassemble binaries, libraries, files, stacks. I can even inject my own code.

If you have no need for speed and efficiency, then I’m sure a browser-based desktop app with some JavaScript will be fine for your use case.

alias and type redefinitions are conceptually the same. int and int_t are conceptually the same. I’m going to assume it’s my type, as defined in the signature of my method you’re calling. If you don’t adhere to the contract then the onus is on you. I’ll check existence, I’ll check conformity, but I won’t check that your string = my string.

This is the way. Look not at the characters but at the hex.