LÖVE

bartbes wrote:Did you give up because of that one comment?

Not at all. I know that reason is on my side and even have years of standing against internet "trolls" if needed (hey, not saying that Lap is one). But his words made rethink that even doing this for fun I should focus instead time in another "fun" thing. Reasons? Because I know that neither I will do my roguelike in LOVE (just because I can't compile it for hide code/hide spoilers) neither I saw anyone really interested in do with LOVE a roguelike or neither I saw anyone interested in contribute/add code to the project (but I thank again to those that helped when I need it). So I thought was wise to put an end here.

I just uploaded a final 0.051 version with clear/improved code so if anyone wants to use it or improve it.

arquivista wrote:

bartbes wrote:Did you give up because of that one comment?

Not at all. I know that reason is on my side and even have years of standing against internet "trolls" if needed (hey, not saying that Lap is one). But his words made rethink that even doing this for fun I should focus instead time in another "fun" thing. Reasons? Because I know that neither I will do my roguelike in LOVE (just because I can't compile it for hide code/hide spoilers) neither I saw anyone really interested in do with LOVE a roguelike or neither I saw anyone interested in contribute/add code to the project (but I thank again to those that helped when I need it). So I thought was wise to put an end here.

Hide spoilers? Um, I hate to break it to you, but Nethack has been open source for quite some time, and yet it is still quite easy to play without spoiling yourself.

And... you can't compile it? Well, uh, again:

The Lua Compiler

Lua also comes with a command line compiler called Lua. Typing ‘luac’ in the command prompt will display the program's usage info. In order to compile a script you need to type luac <FILENAME> which you should get used to. Lua doesn't require a compiler in order to use Lua since Lua can load your script directly and compile it on-the-fly, saving you time. Uncompiled form will have three disadvantages: That your script will load slower than the compiled scripts. Another one is that you won’t be able to get compile time error information. The final reason, and maybe the most important, is that your script code won't be "available" to those hackers. In other words, you don’t need to use the Lua compiler but you should!. The choice is yours.

That's from a fairly bad description covering luac, the compiler.

Not trying to be mean, but even just some casual research will reveal these things...

Xkeeper wrote: Hide spoilers? Um, I hate to break it to you, but Nethack has been open source for quite some time, and yet it is still quite easy to play without spoiling yourself.

Sorry to break it to you but the roguelike project I want to do isn't really a repetitive hack and slash even if have an roguelike engine. The player will need to sweat and learn how to play. With an open/unveilled source will be almost pointless since the purpose of the game is get the knowledge. But hey, that's fortunly my choice, not yours. Also, Nethack could be open-source at will and people know a lot "spoilers" because gameplay is sometimes (well alltimes) so random, imprevisible, unreal and ridiculous that even "knowing" things don't help much or help at all.

Xkeeper wrote: And... you can't compile it? Well, uh, again:

The Lua Compiler

Lua also comes with a command line compiler called Lua. Typing ‘luac’ in the command prompt will display the program's usage info. In order to compile a script you need to type luac <FILENAME> which you should get used to. Lua doesn't require a compiler in order to use Lua since Lua can load your script directly and compile it on-the-fly, saving you time. Uncompiled form will have three disadvantages: That your script will load slower than the compiled scripts. Another one is that you won’t be able to get compile time error information. The final reason, and maybe the most important, is that your script code won't be "available" to those hackers. In other words, you don’t need to use the Lua compiler but you should!. The choice is yours.

That's from a fairly bad description covering luac, the compiler.

Not trying to be mean, but even just some casual research will reveal these things...

Not trying to be mean also, but we are talking about LOVE and not anymore pure LUA. And for what I understand LOVE devs are not inclined to make compilation a feature itself. If there is an easy way to compile LOVE, I don't know it, neither official LOVE wiki want to tell the way. At least I never saw till now a custom compiled closed LOVE program. It's amazing how a casual research to you didn't also find too an easy way to compile in LOVE and not in Lua. Also I don't even intend to use the traditional geek command to make compilations. I'm an amateur coder and like a lot of other people want an easy way out of terminals. If I was and advanced geek coder I would not have trouble of making the roguelike with C++ and use the countless roguelike libraries already made.

I feel obligated to point out once more that Lua bytecode is mainly intended for internal use in the Lua VM. It is not a good way to distribute whatever program.

arquivista wrote:

Xkeeper wrote: Hide spoilers? Um, I hate to break it to you, but Nethack has been open source for quite some time, and yet it is still quite easy to play without spoiling yourself.

Sorry to break it to you but the roguelike project I want to do isn't really a repetitive hack and slash even if have an roguelike engine. The player will need to sweat and learn how to play. With an open/unveilled source will be almost pointless since the purpose of the game is get the knowledge. But hey, that's fortunly my choice, not yours. Also, Nethack could be open-source at will and people know a lot "spoilers" because gameplay is sometimes (well alltimes) so random, imprevisible, unreal and ridiculous that even "knowing" things don't help much or help at all.

Xkeeper wrote: And... you can't compile it? Well, uh, again:

The Lua Compiler

Lua also comes with a command line compiler called Lua. Typing ‘luac’ in the command prompt will display the program's usage info. In order to compile a script you need to type luac <FILENAME> which you should get used to. Lua doesn't require a compiler in order to use Lua since Lua can load your script directly and compile it on-the-fly, saving you time. Uncompiled form will have three disadvantages: That your script will load slower than the compiled scripts. Another one is that you won’t be able to get compile time error information. The final reason, and maybe the most important, is that your script code won't be "available" to those hackers. In other words, you don’t need to use the Lua compiler but you should!. The choice is yours.

That's from a fairly bad description covering luac, the compiler.

Not trying to be mean, but even just some casual research will reveal these things...

Not trying to be mean also, but we are talking about LOVE and not anymore pure LUA. And for what I understand LOVE devs are not inclined to make compilation a feature itself. If there is an easy way to compile LOVE, I don't know it, neither official LOVE wiki want to tell the way. At least I never saw till now a custom compiled closed LOVE program. It's amazing how a casual research to you didn't also find too an easy way to compile in LOVE and not in Lua. Also I don't even intend to use the traditional geek command to make compilations. I'm an amateur coder and like a lot of other people want an easy way out of terminals. If I was and advanced geek coder I would not have trouble of making the roguelike with C++ and use the countless roguelike libraries already made.

Uh.. I forgot the command, and it's late... But:

cat love mygame.love > mygame

Something like that.

Robin wrote:I feel obligated to point out once more that Lua bytecode is mainly intended for internal use in the Lua VM. It is not a good way to distribute whatever program.

Robin, I already know about your compiling objections and that the team don't want LOVE in future native compile. Well, I don't blame you for that. LOVE is a great language for games, but only for this particular roguelike will it will not be suitable because otherwise I'd love it do it in LOVE.

Anyway, it's Xkeeper that need afterall know better about LOVE and compiling, not me.

zac352 wrote: cat love mygame.love > mygame

yeah yeah... my cat loves me too!

Well, in principle you can use luac to compile your *.lua files, like so (for every source file):
luac -o source.lc source.lua
This will create a bunch of *.lc files, which you can rename to *.lua and then pack into a .love-file.

E.g. if you have three source files: main.lua, player.lua and level.lua, you would do this:
luac -o main.lc main.lua
luac -o player.lc player.lua
luac -o level.lc level.lua
Now you have the files: main.lc, player.lc, level.lc. Rename these to main.lua, player.lua and level.lua (but do not overwrite the originals), and pack them into game.love.

Love will still run this, but maybe only on your computer. As mentioned countless times before, you will loose portability, maybe even between two windows machines. And if a new Lua version (or even just a patch) comes out, your game might stop working.

Damn vrld, you make me feel that is easier to rob, rape and kill than compile LUA or LOVE. Keep away terminal, keep away command line.
Portability is desired and easiness to compile too. So that's why I will prefer to do the roguelike project in BlitzMax since have major OS portability, one-click compile button and of course can close code. Also the language seems strong enough to do the thing. But I like LOVE and will do probably other stuff in LOVE.

Thank you very much! This was useful! I am adding onto this to create my game. I loved how I was just able to change the tile size and everything still worked. I think someone once described this to me as having "no magic numbers". Very easily changeable.

I won't rely on it too heftily... soon it will be something of it's own.