Really stupid things that people have said about Modded MC(Off topicness makes moderators tired)

[Celestialphoenix]

I actually use the vanilla launcher. I find it really easy to use but then that's because I know how to use the old File Manager (aka Windows Explorer) which is a skill lacking in many people in this more technological society.
Too many things have wizards or auto-configure, giving people zero incentive to actually learn what their magical box of tricks does and how it works.

Its not it installation- as that was perfectly easy on the old launcher;
its setting up profiles (for some reason theres 2 of the things) and renaming all the crap in the .JSON [or whatever the hell you need to do now].

The profile function is useful, but it would of been perfectly feasible to do that whilst keep the [almost] plug and play nature of installing mods back then.
--back then I maintained multiple profiles by having many different .minecraft files which I'll manually switch out. Each was kept in its own folder telling me what it is.

 

[Golrith]

Its not it installation- as that was perfectly easy on the old launcher;
its setting up profiles (for some reason theres 2 of the things) and renaming all the crap in the .JSON [or whatever the hell you need to do now].

The profile function is useful, but it would of been perfectly feasible to do that whilst keep the [almost] plug and play nature of installing mods back then.
--back then I maintained multiple profiles by having many different .minecraft files which I'll manually switch out. Each was kept in its own folder telling me what it is.

2 profiles?
JSONS?

I've never touched a json file with the vanilla launcher.
I make a new instance, which is always a clone of an existing one for basic settings. Confirm the new settings, launch, close, then dump in all the mods, relaunch, play (at most basic level ofc).

 

[Celestialphoenix]

I assume you're running a Forge instance. (Forge installer does all the grunt work for you)

 

[Omegatron]

It's always better to apply the files with tweezers, a needle and your BARE HANDS

Real programmers use butterflies.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Command-line interfaces...ewewewewew! We developed effing GUIs for a reason. This isn't the Windows 3.1 days, when all we had was, like...20MB of RAM, and every single byte was precious, precious space.

Sorry, pointless CLIs are one of my pet peeves. Just use a real IDE, and developing a GUI takes very little effort.

 

[Reika]

Command-line interfaces...ewewewewew! We developed effing GUIs for a reason. This isn't the Windows 3.1 days, when all we had was, like...20MB of RAM, and every single byte was precious, precious space.

Though some programmers, including some mod devs, act like it still is ("OMG you used a long!?!?!").

 

[ljfa]

Though some programmers, including some mod devs, act like it still is ("OMG you used a long!?!?!").

It adds up...would you rather use long[10000000] when you can just as well use byte[10000000] ?

 

[CoolSquid]

It adds up...would you rather use long[10000000] when you can just as well use byte[10000000] ?

Byte only goes to 127...

 

[ljfa]

Byte only goes to 127...

I said "when you can just as well use"

I should say:
Would you rather use int[10000000] when you can just as well use byte[10000000], just because int is the standard type for numbers?

 

[CoolSquid]

I said "when you can just as well use"

I should say:
Would you rather use int[10000000] when you can just as well use byte[10000000], just because int is the standard type for numbers?

Possibly... Sometimes it's required for config options, as the thing you want to do requires an int.

 

[ljfa]

Possibly... Sometimes it's required for config options, as the thing you want to do requires an int.

Well these probably don't have ten million values

 

[RavynousHunter]

Though some programmers, including some mod devs, act like it still is ("OMG you used a long!?!?!").

I'm an adherent of the "right type for the job" ideology. If I need only a small number of possibilities in a numeric data type, I use a short. If I want more, I use an int, and if I want even more, I use a long. If I'm reading from an unknown file type (one that doesn't have a ready-made interface already built), then an array (or, preferably, a list) of bytes is my choice. It bugs the crap outta me when people treat a language like C# or Java as having only, like...a boolean, int, and string as data types. Right tool for the job, always.

 

[ljfa]

Well nowadays processors are optimized for working with 32bit or 64bit values. If you have a byte as field of a class the compiler will probably add padding bytes so that the CPU can read a whole word at once.

Sure, a byte array makes sense when dealing with files. However a list is not a good choice if you want random access.

 

[PierceSG]

*Ijfa says something in a language you do not understand.*
*RavynousHuntersays something in a language you do not understand.*

 

[Reika]

It adds up...would you rather use long[10000000] when you can just as well use byte[10000000] ?

In my case, it was a true story, and the long in question was the "power" field of RC machines.

 

[ljfa]

In my case, it was a true story, and the long in question was the "power" field of RC machines.

Well that one definitely needs a long.

But it does not make sense to always use short or byte when possible.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Well nowadays processors are optimized for working with 32bit or 64bit values. If you have a byte as field of a class the compiler will probably add padding bytes so that the CPU can read a whole word at once.

Sure, a byte array makes sense when dealing with files. However a list is not a good choice if you want random access.

In Java, perhaps. In C#, lists are basically more flexible arrays, and can even be addressed as such (using operator[]), which I don't believe Java ArrayLists (the closest comparable class to C#'s List<T>) allow you to do for...whatever reason. This, of course, goes back to my whole reticence in using raw arrays.

 

[ljfa]

In Java, perhaps. In C#, lists are basically more flexible arrays, and can even be addressed as such (using operator[]), which I don't believe Java ArrayLists (the closest comparable class to C#'s List<T>) allow you to do for...whatever reason. This, of course, goes back to my whole reticence in using raw arrays.

I thought you were referring to linked lists when mentioning lists. I just see that C# has List and LinkedList classes.

And yes you can access Lists by index in Java. List is an interface which can stand for any sequential container, so a List can be an ArrayList or a LinkedList. You obviously don't want to access linked lists by index.

 

[Reika]

But it does not make sense to always use short or byte when possible.

Especially when the resulting workaround is a tradeoff for something like CPU time.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Command-line interfaces...ewewewewew! We developed effing GUIs for a reason. This isn't the Windows 3.1 days, when all we had was, like...20MB of RAM, and every single byte was precious, precious space.

Sorry, pointless CLIs are one of my pet peeves. Just use a real IDE, and developing a GUI takes very little effort.

Meh when I do stuff like a bot I don't make a whole GUI for it