[development considerations]lövely features of 0.5.0

Questions about the LÖVE API, installing LÖVE and other support related questions go here.
Forum rules
Before you make a thread asking for help, read this.
Post Reply
User avatar
rhezalouis
Party member
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Indonesia
Contact:

[development considerations]lövely features of 0.5.0

Post by rhezalouis »

i'd like to compile a list of features that are nice in our past saltednuts, i hope it could be considered in the development of jigglyjuice.
it begins with:
people at #loveclub@irc.freenode.net wrote:
  • <rhezalouis> sorry, may i ask sth; i wonder if there is a possibility to develop more build from the 0.5.0 framework. i prefer some of its feature than the 0.6.0."
and it comes to:
people at #loveclub@irc.freenode.net wrote:
  • <anjo> 'fraid not, we're moving on, ever forwards. what exactly do you prefer about 0.5.0?
  • <rhezalouis> of course i do want to move forward, :smile:. i don't deny the nice changes accomplished by jigglyjuice 0.6.0 [i especially love the image-audio raw access, that's awesome! :hehe:]. i am not a software eng, so my preference might only based to my established comfort at coding the LÖVE 0.5.0; and please note that i am still learning the jigglyjuice so my interpretation maybe not complete. here you are:
    • the simplification between graphic and string data @love.graphics.draw: this feature quite surprise me at my first sight at LÖVE. this single handler to print datatype to screen is really nice. i think the affection between string and image shouldn't be separated. =)
    • less module: though quite mixed up, the short list of the module really encourage me to start learning LÖVE.
    • i am still trying to understand the callbacks. they are not as straightforward as the salted nuts: load() then draw() and update(); interrupted on keypressed() and his friends.
    aaa, my learning curve really needs improvement.
  • <anjo> well: the reason there are separate functions for text vs. other drawables is because there are various things you can only do to one of them, and separating them allows you to add that functionality in for example, wrapping a string to a specified width wouldn't be much good for drawing an image as to the number of modules, I don't see that as a problem: I like having a sizable list of modules, because a) it shows that there are more things in specific areas LÖVE can do and b) that that functionality is split up into logical sections, instead of all lumped together in one monolithic set of functions and objects.
    The only real monolithic module left is love.graphics, and that's partly because there's a LOT of stuff to do with regard to making things show up on the screen the way you want.
    And, the callbacks haven't changed from 0.5.0. The only difference is that they're now inside the love table, to make the engine semantically self-contained; other than that, the names are the same. well, that and in love.keypressed, there's now an optional second argument which passes the numerical representation of the letter the player actually sent (accounting for capitalization or other modifiers), as opposed to the physical key"
and the chat goes on:
people at #loveclub@irc.freenode.net wrote:
  • <TechnoCat> 0.6.0 splits drawing imaging and text to draw and print but 0.6.0 adds new modules, while removing the system module. There are extra collide callbacks too which are very welcome additions
  • <anjo> oh, cool. I've mostly stayed away from love.physics, save one experiment in 0.5.0 for a while until I realized box2d wasn't a good fit and rolled my own.
  • <TechnoCat> yeah, box2d defiinitely has a feel to it
  • <anjo> I think if I wrote a game that needed that sort of physics, I would almost certainly opt to use love.physics - the problem with the experiment was that it was taking place underwater, which meant that I basically had to beat up box2d until it did what I want, and eventually decided it was just too much effort :P
  • <TechnoCat> yeah, it feels confining when using it
  • <anjo> it's really useful for a very specific kind of game, and beyond that, it takes an increasing amount of effort for diminishing returns in terms of making it function the desired way. that goes for pretty much all 2d physics libraries, though, I don't recall Bullet or Chipmunk being any different
  • <rhezalouis> hahaha, i tried to avoid physics, too. that module seems to be a complex system with lots of new concept. btw, thank you for your response. may i post this conversation to the forum? it's quite helpful to novices like me; and i'd like to see if there are features of saltednuts that may be proposed to be recreated at jigglyjuice.
  • <anjo> but you'll never hear an objection from me for posting something interesting and LÖVE-related to the forums :P
  • <TechnoCat> i was irritated by the removal of animations at first, but then I met quads. And fell in love.
  • <Roybie> box2d is awesome though :(
  • <TechnoCat> i find making a retro platformer w ith box2d very difficult
  • <anjo> Yeah, quads > the old animation system any day
  • <Roybie> it's not ideal for that I agree, but it's doable
  • <rhezalouis> haha, thanks anjo. :smile:. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, and that animation removal! extension modules are quite complicated for me, such as bartbes' LÜBE. i still unable to slip out any single character from a local port... ."
in the end, i guess what we need exactly now is not feature development, but a nice documentation with lots of explanations and examples like the one released with the salted nuts so that learning is viable to the outer member. [please note that i have no intention to complain. i'm willing to help the documentation as soon as i understand what means what in the new framework. :megagrin:]
Aargh, I am wasting my posts! My citizenshiiiip... :o
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests