Jump to content

denverpotsmoker

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by denverpotsmoker

  1. Surprised you guys don't get into the documentary/non-fiction movies/videos on this message board.

     

    this one is pretty good:

      1001 Classic Commercials by Mill Creek Entertainment 2009

     

    review:

     01. tons (3 DVDs) of old commercials from the 1950s to early 1980s.

     02. i've checked out disc 2 and there's some pretty good cigarette commercials on that one.

     03. pretty good menu system, very graphically oriented and creative with a giant robot, etc.

           not super great, but at least different.

     04. on a downside, the month day year of original broadcast are NOT included.

     

    note: I'm currently on Disc2, and the soda commercials are pretty cool.

     

    VTS_01_1.vob yall!

  2. Muchos Gracias Rick Brewster!

     

    I'm almost certain that "layer technology" is missing from many modern programs.

     

    I don't know how teachers are expected to grade electronic papers without it.

     

    In addition, digital editing of text documents would be much easier with visible/non-visible layers.

     

    OFFTOPIC:

    I myself am working on a font that has more editing characters than just new paragraph:

    new document = ND! (with a circle around it) =ALT+051

    delete = DEL

    R! = Research (with a circle around it)

    SP? = Check spelling

    "STAR" symbol = important

    * = annotation (high astrick)

     

    ....imagine if I could insert them in a layer above my text! OMG!

  3. I was noticing that .pdn saves layers.

     

    That got me thinking about "layers technology" and I was wondering what paint.net developers thought about this subject.

     

    Here's some questions:

    01. who first thought of layers for use in graphics programs?

    02. why don't (do you think) other types of programs use layers?

     

    The second question is the most important to me...

     

    For instance, text editors could use layers so that copyediting marks could be put into the file, without changing the original text. These marks could be hidden similar to the way paint.net layers work...and yet that isn't in any text editor that I know of.

     

    Just wondering...thanks.

  4. Yeah, I pretty much "gave up" on graphics programming after the Apple IIe. I tried some on my Atari 800XL, but the graphics just didn't look as good. I was pretty young at the time (elementary school).

     

    Check out my new module template (I put them in folders then have a batch file paste them in the order required)...part of what I call "structural commenting" using ascii art...you delete the // line numbers for actual code, but the concept is kept for reference both in program code and for other coders.

    saturn5-ABBV--template v4.txt

  5. You really shackle creativity when you tell someone how to think or how they can express their thoughts. Luckily, you can work around such barriers with languages like XLISP and C#, to really accomplish your vision.

     

    Kudos to paint.net developers for supporting C# instead of python/java/etc.

  6. Yeah, back then structural commenting was, like, impossible and stuff.

    I'm guessing getting a print out of your code was a pain, though probably possible.

     

    My mother said one of the biggest problems with coders back then was them misorganizing their (code) punch cards.

    The operators would then have to get them to remember how to put the cards in order over the phone.

     

    Yeah, disorganization is very bad for computers. Today we have folders and files to help organization.

     

    I never got much into assembly programming. I dunno why.

     

    Oh yeah, pretty sure using goto's would compile quicker due less replacement coding in compilation. That's

    pretty significant.

  7. If you look at the historical context of Dijikstra's paper, I think he might have been right.

    Fact 01: Programmers often had to time-share computers, meaning that one glitch or non-ending loop could cost thousands of dollars

                  AND a loss of allocated time on a computer.

    Fact 02: Many financial institutions also time-shared mainframes, so one non-ending loop could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Fact 03: Being in such a "time-sensitive" coding environment, if a bad goto needed to be found, many programmers would have to work

                  on debugging it. Thus, sloppy/unformatted/undocumented code could cost a ton of money.

     

    Those would be very "harmful" things back then.

  8. @ArgusMagnus

    That's what I was saying.

     

    They could have easily suggested wait loops using gotos, but they (the magazine/book code writers) kept telling everyone to use FOR-NEXT loops.

     

    FOR-NEXT Loops were new then, and (I guess) it just made it so easy to do (as compared to making a wait loop using goto), that I guess everyone just jumped on that bandwagon and used FOR-NEXT for those doomed wait modules...to their own program's eventual deprecation.

     

    I think it is sad, and probably the reason I prefer to make my own looping constructs to this day.

  9. Well, grouping symbols are probably better done using structural commenting (IMO).

    //=====================LOOP01: start

     

    //=====================LOOP01: end

     

    The hierarchal structure could be good, but what if someone needed to "figure 8" through code?

     

    All I'm saying is that the "computing world" lost a whole generation of programs due to that FOR-NEXT (wait)

    code from the early 1980s. Who's to say if that was a bad thing or not as those programs couldn't do much,

    but it is a real chin scratcher. Now, that code could have been suggested in goto form...but it was not.

    Coincidence?

     

    I read an interesting "web opinion" page in the mid-2000s that was titled something like "Real-Time Programming",

    that really said some stuff that made sense. The person was arguing that code should have more system time checks

    in it, instead of just relying on processor speed.

     

    You know, stuff like:

    //==============================timer loop (start)

    delay = 10; //seconds

    TIME = DateTime.Now.TimeofDay;

    if (WAIT < TIME + delay) then <loop>;

    //==============================timer loop (end)

     

    In this way, the program always will take 10 seconds to do whatever, even with hardware upgrades.

     

  10. Yeah, MS-DOS BATCH can use variables for its goto statement, unfortunately, my brain shuts

    down whenever I get to making a batch with variables with "% %" around them. I always thought

    the BASIC $tring variable was pretty lame tho.

     

    I might also offer up for argument the fact that: For-Next Should Have Been Considered Dangerous...

    as its used to replace goto loops a lot.

     

    Back in the day when things like (QBasic's) gosub and for-next and do while loops were being introduced to

    the "general public" through their new home computers (early 1980s), people were taught to use

    FOR-NEXT loops as time delays.

     

    The idea was that (due to the speed of the processor), counting so many times using FOR-NEXT

    would equal so many seconds. The problem was that as processors got faster, the length of time the

    programmer's FOR-NEXT loop took grew to nothing, and thus parts of their programs became no longer

    functional without a CPU emulation program.

     

    Oh well, I guess I'll never get to play that "Hong Kong Hustle" type-in game...

  11. The classic answer is that GOTO has no WHEREFROM

    Yeah, that would be a good one to add to Goto.

     

    Also, how about GOTO <variable>...

    as in:

    A = X:\User\Program\Pallete Engine\RGB Engine LINE-041

    B = ?

     

    GOTO A?

     

     

    ....ahhhhh, that's it for me on this topic bros. looks like you guys win again. true pain here.  :bmw:  :lightning:  :scanner:  :foaf:  :user-silhouette:  :currency-dollar-usd:

  12. Yeah, personally I wish goto was stronger and could include going to a separate text file

    and position in that file.

     if (g=100) {goto code-base01.txt line-021;}

    ...probably needs some other upgrades too.

     

    I hate having to put all code in one document, that's WAY too old-school for me. Here's

    the Kevin Flynn way:

    if (g=100) {goto LINE-35013}

     

    :game:...that's some funny stuff... :game:

      :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

       :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

          :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

            :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

              :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

                :game: :game: :game: :game: :game:

                  :game: :game: :game: :game:

                     :game: :game: :game: #

                     :game: :game:    #

                       :game:      #

                                 #

                                 :demon:

  13. Hey!

     

    I'm busy learning C# and it's pretty cool. I've programmed plugins in XLISP, so learning C# hasn't been too bad. I just learn as I go.

     

    Anyway, why all the hate on using Goto to make loops?

     

    I mean, wasn't Dijkstra really saying that the programmers in the 1960s were so awful that they needed to use FOR-NEXT loops or they'd mess it all up?

     

    I mean, I'm definitely for assemblers that won't make (or test) code that will lock up a machine, but I don't think forcing people to not use Goto to make their own loops and code jumps is the answer.

     

    What's your opinion?

     

    http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/36899/Why-goto-Still-Exists-in-C

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6545720/does-anyone-still-use-goto-in-c-sharp-and-if-so-why

  14. Thanks for the helpful reply!

     

    I wish UI's could be more like real electronics, tho I haven't been too happy with the audio program VST

    "realism" look in particular...but it's probably mostly how the controls behave to mouse control. Turning VST knobs

    is difficult with a mouse.

     

    I was thinking about it today and (I think) a drop-down list is supposed to be like a knob control. You know,

    the knob is "inside" the device and each "turn" reveals an option.

     

    Judging from the example code, I suppose multi-radio buttons can only have one choice...You know, IF 1 & 2 are selected...

    then do something.

     

    So I'll probably go with three check boxes (which I think is supposed to be like switches) for my plugin.

     

    Thanks again.

  15. Hey, what's some good drawing books to get? What's your favorite (past and current) books?

    Just wondering...

     

    My favorite of all time (so far) is:

     Drawing Scenery: Landscapes and Seascapes (1988) by Jack Hamm

     review: great stuff, really took my tiny trees to new levels of completeness.

     

    Honorable Mentions:

    01. How to Draw 101 Monsters (2004) by Dan Green

          -Some good stuff, tho not much learned and only a few cool examples.

    02. Draw 50 Monsters (2012) by Lee J. Ames

          -Very few cool examples, but some conceptualization ideas were present.

     

     

     

  16. Yeah, there would have to be a standardization of graphics cards and monitors so that (at least without monitor/card adjustment) all colors in a distributed palette appear the same on all devices. This would ensure that the artists' conceptualization is delivered in the way intended by the artist, and not changed by the electronics.

     

    Somewhat off topic:

    Wouldn't it be funny if you had to purchase color for paint.net? So, if you messed up on something (just like real life), you'd have to purchase more color to continue your project? Just being silly on that one.

    :noes:

  17. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.  Despite the name, Paint.NET doesn't actually use any paint.  :-)  It's actually working with light, so for it to be as accurate as it can be, it needs to work with the light color model.

     

    Also, that's the standard for all graphics editing programs (except those that deal with print primarily).  It would be weird to give PdN something different from the industry standard.

     

    Yeah, it is all true and I really doubt paint.net (nor any other digital graphics program) would be able to change from a light color model to a plant/pigment-based color model.

     

    Yet, as someone who has always wanted to be better at mixing paint, it sure would be cool and I look forward to a new computing system and programs.

     

    Also, if done right, I think it would really increase graphics creativity AND help people to be better artists in the real world...for example: these new buildings that are going up everywhere will all need custom artwork (you know), and so will everyone's house(s).

     

  18. Thanks so much!

     

    Is it okay to use CodeLab to build the dll?

     

    From the looks of your code, I'm guessing that

       dst.CopySurface(src,rect.Location,rect);
    ...forces it to be single-threaded? Or is it closing the StreamWriter after all pixels are processed? Just wondering.

     

    My C# knowledge isn't very great (and I just want to use it for paint.net plugins anyway), so stuff like "string OutputFile = @..." is awesome.

     

    Thanks Again,

    P.

  19. I know this topic is old, but I used it for making my own plugin as I'm not too handy with c# and wasn't aware that codelab  could use this code. Thanks!

     

    Oh yeah, I think codelab's debugger runs the code constantly (like a spreadsheet), so maybe that was the access error? Works fine with an IF statement tho.

           int CPR = CPIX.R;
           if (CPR == 100)              { //START: CPR IF
             System.IO.StreamWriter SW;
             SW = System.IO.File.AppendText("C:\\Users\\CTCPublic\\Desktop\\geb\\CoolEdit.txt");
             SW.WriteLine("R:" + CPR + "," + "G:" + CPG + "," + "B:" + CPB + " |" +
                          "H:" + CPH + "," + "S:" + CPS + "," + "V:" + CPV + " |" + 
                          "coords=" + "V:" + V + "H:" + H);
            SW.Close();
                                        } //END: CPR IF
    
×
×
  • Create New...