LÖVE

what i would personally like to see to make LOVE 1.0.0 - is:

: export/support output for a proper android/iOS application. not where we load into a LOVE iOS/android that simply loads in our .love files
: web player - again . the other one has died on the layby and should be brought back. its a great way to share without needing LOVE installed
: more docs and updated one. you can never have too many docs
: possible scripts for exporting, obfuscating code etc. i know you can just find these, but normally with most frameworks etc you are given these right off the bat

i know that things like the iOS/android ones, plus the web one will need others to help, plus help from the community. but thats what were here for
just a few. but again, these are more personal wishes

lewislepton wrote: : export/support output for a proper android/iOS application. not where we load into a LOVE iOS/android that simply loads in our .love files

What's the benefit of that, versus how it works now?

well doesnt the current iOS version just make a portable version of LOVE2D? so we still really have to use it just like LOVE2D? its so we can make actual iOS/android games
if not then ill give it another look at and see

lewislepton wrote:well doesnt the current iOS version just make a portable version of LOVE2D? so we still really have to use it just like LOVE2D? its so we can make actual iOS/android games
if not then ill give it another look at and see

You can make "actual" IOS/Android games, see https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... luminosity for an example.

lewislepton wrote: : possible scripts for exporting, obfuscating code etc. i know you can just find these, but normally with most frameworks etc you are given these right off the bat

Please NO! That is pointless, makes debugging difficult (and most of the time the ones that debug are us the guys on the forum), can be easily reversed, makes performance worst in most cases, not in the scope of LÖVE, can easily be deofuscated or decompiled (again, pointless) doesnt make your code more closed source than a LICENSE.txt file (and we have already discussed that)

lewislepton wrote: : more docs and updated one. you can never have too many docs

What? This is really stupid... you know right?

If you mean tutorials and examples then yeah that will be nice, but the API docmentation in the Wiki is the best I've seen on frameworks and stuff.

lewislepton wrote: : export/support output for a proper android/iOS application. not where we load into a LOVE iOS/android that simply loads in our .love files

You have never compiled for Android right? (iOS is understandable because most of us dont have a Mac) but basically what you do to package a game as an .apk for Android is put your .love file in a folder, then compile the whole app (really simple and really well documented too) and then you have an .apk that can be installed and when opened plays your game instead of the No Game screen... so yeah, it is an .apk and as someone pointed out you can even put that in the Store. For iOS is almost the same

lewislepton wrote: : web player - again . the other one has died on the layby and should be brought back. its a great way to share without needing LOVE installed

Well this is the only point I consider VALID! but it is also really complex, LÖVE uses Lua which is not really a web language and is difficult to translate to, say, JavaScript (even if they are similar), Also LÖVE provides really lots of stuff, for example the physics module which is a full fledged Box2D, running that in JavaScript whithout native compilation will suck!, what about filesystem? How do you save files when running a game in a webpage, most games use the little filesystem access a webbrowser gives, but that is also temporary so you wouldnt be able to save your game for later. So yeah, it is not easy!

well... i really dont take to that tone POSITIVE7. rather than be a constructive person, its instead lambasting and name calling. please, darling, take a chill pill and take a hot bath
you obviously didnt read the fine print of 'these are my personal wishes'. therefore, if they dont happen, it doesnt matter. big whoop

so please, darling. next time you want to try and feel the high horse of power or whatever gets you off. just think about what you may say, then dont. keep it short but also nice. we only live once, and it shouldnt be at talking smack to people behind a keyboard.
and no, im not an android users. will i receive my lashes elsewhere?

and to the others. thanks for the help, ill have a look further on the matter

lewislepton wrote:well... i really dont take to that tone POSITIVE7. rather than be a constructive person, its instead lambasting and name calling. please, darling, take a chill pill and take a hot bath
you obviously didnt read the fine print of 'these are my personal wishes'. therefore, if they dont happen, it doesnt matter. big whoop

so please, darling. next time you want to try and feel the high horse of power or whatever gets you off. just think about what you may say, then dont. keep it short but also nice. we only live once, and it shouldnt be at talking smack to people behind a keyboard.
and no, im not an android users. will i receive my lashes elsewhere?

and to the others. thanks for the help, ill have a look further on the matter

Where's the name calling, darling? He didn't say you were stupid, he said one of the points you made is stupid. (and i agree. The documentation is definitely not lacking)

Positive07 wrote:Well this is the only point I consider VALID! but it is also really complex, LÖVE uses Lua which is not really a web language and is difficult to translate to, say, JavaScript (even if they are similar), Also LÖVE provides really lots of stuff, for example the physics module which is a full fledged Box2D, running that in JavaScript whithout native compilation will suck!

That simply isn't true. Lua does run in the web. Box2D does run in the web. This is done with emscripten. All of the current attempts have been ports of LOVE to the web not actually compiling the code with emscripten. I don't know how easy it would be but it is doable.

Also you say that "running without native compilation would suck" emscripten is (sort of) native compilation. By native compilation you are likely referring to the awesome optimizations the c/c++ compiler makes. Emscripten bytecode (known as LLVM bytecode) can have most of these optimizations. Emscripten uses a subset of javascript called asm.js to achieve near native speed. So I also would love it if LOVE (pun intended here ) would add support for the web. As you said filesystem stuff pretty much won't work but why does that matter? Just have the ability to detect in the lua code if this is the web or not. I am sure a lot of other people would also like support as well. Unfortunately, if it were easy if would probably be already done. I have no experience with it but I have seen, for example, Urho3D add the platform as well and it wasn't too much effort for them. Granted, this is a different engine so it is obviously written differently but this engine seems to use all of the libraries LOVE uses plus more.

I agree with you that the LOVE documentation is outstanding. The only way it could be better was if tutorials on how to make some simple games were made (that way one can get accustomed to LOVE's workflow).

@lewislepton I think you are taking what positive007 said way too personally. He doesn't seem to be attacking you personally to me. He simply was trying to correct some misinformation such as the part about android and iOS. There has been a lot of talk about obfuscating code. So much that many people here are very sick of it. In a nutshell, that isn't LOVE's philosophy. Many games actually sell very well even though the source can be obtained. Think about Minecraft. One of the most popular games and it is pretty simple to decompile (in fact, if I understand correctly you have to decompile it if you want to create mods for it). The only tone that is unacceptable here is your own.

As I often say to people in my life away from the keyboard: "The only frustration and anger you will find is that which you bring yourself." I work hard to live by this principle myself but often it can be difficult.

lewislepton wrote:- snip -

You just did what you said I did yet I didnt do what you said I did... so yeah... I was just saying that your points are not really emm important in my opinion (because I can state my opinion right?) sorry if you fell offended or insulted (was not the intention)... Also I'm not your darling and you were really aggressive with your words (hiding behind your keyboard) try to low it down next time, and also dont take stuff too personal, it is a bad habit.

I~=Spam wrote: The only tone that is unacceptable here is your own.

I fell that way yeah, Thanks I~=Spam I think you really understood what I wanted to say.

About emscripten yeah I have looked into it, I can guarantee it is WAY slower than native, and you can "compile" LÖVE with it, yet the game is run in interpreted mode, basically the Lua files are read and compiled to Lua bytecode then runs and Lua calls the LOVE function that call the compiled emscripten code (so that is an extra layer compared to how it was done before), so yeah performance would really drop.

I would prefere a way to compile the Lua code into JavaScript code, and implement all the graphics stuff in JavaScript so that the compiled Lua code can interact with it, that would make this way better (compiling Box2D with emscripten would surely help with this yeah).

Even then the issue with the filesystem access is still present.

I dont really think Web is a platform that LÖVE is really meant for (Yet that may be my own opinion), I'm not against ports yet I consider than an official one is not needed for LÖVE to be 1.0.0

Even then I would love to see some serious work done here, and if I dont see a good alternative I may even consider implementing one myself (I hate javascript, I use it yet I hate it, but I'll give it a try anyway... yet dont take my word here, it may be ages before I try it hahaha)

If we could all be civil...

Positive07 wrote: I would prefere a way to compile the Lua code into JavaScript code, and implement all the graphics stuff in JavaScript so that the compiled Lua code can interact with it, that would make this way better (compiling Box2D with emscripten would surely help with this yeah).

Which is exactly the road taken before, but one of the major problems with this is that you're splitting the codebase. I have no intention of supporting a javascript framework as well, and, as has been the case in the past, if someone does end up maintaining it, it's a bunch of annoying, boring work I can't fault anyone for that wants to drop it as soon as possible .

The "best" thing about the android and iOS ports is that they are the same source code as love proper, and it means very little time has to be spent keeping the ports in line with the desktop version. Now emscriptem is obviously a solution for that, if you can get it to work, and as it is fully compatible with GLES2, which the love codebase will support for 0.10.0 (right, slime?), it should be easier to get it going. Maybe then someone could look at getting it running?