|
|
Re: lite-C bug
[Re: AndrewAMD]
#467861
09/04/17 18:51
09/04/17 18:51
|
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 58
pascalx
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 58
|
Welcome to Lite C!!!  The disadvantage of a script is obviously that you have to learn the script language. Most products using strategy scripts require that you dive deeply into programming. No so with Zorro: lite-C is arguably the world's easiest serious programming language. It 'hides' almost all the programming stuff and allows you to concentrate on plain strategy. You can learn the lite-C essentials in about one day. I think the emphasis here is on "arguably" I don't understand how offering a limited subset of features is better than offering the whole package. I rather take the whole thing even if I don't need all of it. But it's ok. The upcoming Zorro DLL will solve a lot of headache.
Last edited by pascalx; 09/04/17 18:55.
|
|
|
Re: lite-C bug
[Re: pascalx]
#467863
09/04/17 19:33
09/04/17 19:33
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,751
Canada
WretchedSid
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,751
Canada
|
Because a broken subset of C is much easier to implement as a compiler. Why not use a LLVM/Clang as a compiler backend? Because they didn't exist back in 1423 when Lite-C was invented. But really, it's because with LLVM/Clang we would have never had the drama of the Chinese freelancer that bailed halfway through implementing the compiler leaving JCL with a bunch of Chinese comments and a voodoo black magic compiler.
Shitlord by trade and passion. Graphics programmer at Laminar Research. I write blog posts at feresignum.com
|
|
|
Re: lite-C bug
[Re: WretchedSid]
#467864
09/04/17 19:57
09/04/17 19:57
|
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 58
pascalx
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 58
|
|
|
|
Re: lite-C bug
[Re: pascalx]
#468746
10/15/17 15:35
10/15/17 15:35
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,082
Germany
Ch40zzC0d3r
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,082
Germany
|
They probably have all constants in the data section, therefore this is possible on this compiler lol.
Take a look at the generated assembly.
Last edited by Ch40zzC0d3r; 10/15/17 15:36.
|
|
|
Re: lite-C bug
[Re: Ch40zzC0d3r]
#468747
10/15/17 16:00
10/15/17 16:00
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,568
Germany, BW, Stuttgart
MasterQ32
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,568
Germany, BW, Stuttgart
|
you can also write any statements outside of function definitions:
#include <acknex.h>
int i, j, k;
i = 10;
j = 20;
k = i + j;
printf("i=%d", i);
function main()
{
}
Nothing will happen, the compiler won't even emit a warning Fun Fact: You can implement generic functions with the behaviour that you can take the address of a constant:
void _list_add(void * list, void * obj, int size);
#define list_add(list, obj) _list_add(list, &obj, sizeof(obj))
...
list_add(myList, 10);
list_add(myList, 20);
|
|
|
|
