The thing I'm mostly worried about is the state the game will release in.

Paradox has a certain way of releasing games* in a state that will generally make you want to wait about half a year before playing...

*Games they develop themselves, that is. Not necessarily true for games where they "just" serve as publisher.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: StoneColdSpiderI always love the look of the Hearts of Iron games.... But I dont have a spare 87 years to learn how to play these games.....

Eh, it just took me about 10-20 hours to get the basics.

I mean... "just".
Definitely worth the time investment, though, as you can then get hundreds of hours more out of these games, especially with mods.

Honestly, it's not really more complex than something like Rimworld.
The difference is that all of the complexity is front-loaded, because you get all the systems to deal with from the get-go.
You also really don't need to understand everything.
For example, I have hundreds of hours in the game and still no clue how naval stuff really works. I just build two types of ships doing two types of things (minelayers and general purpose destroyers) and that seems to always do the trick. If I bother with navy at all to begin with.

My suggestion would be to NOT start with a large nation, but a small one that sits in relative safety.
That way, you can focus on only a few things to begin with (you won't have the resources for more, anyway).
Easier to learn, that way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Italy getting a real focus tree?
What?!

Definitely an out of season april fools joke.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShabbyXI'm only saying that "win32 is stable, so it must be good" is a terrible argument.

I don't think anyone is saying this.
Especially not in a place like this

But its stability over the years is most definitely a good aspect of it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShabbyXThere is a reason Linux is _fast_.

Linux was fast before DT_HASH got removed.
I very seriously doubt the improvement gained by that is even noticeable for most people.

I'm not saying you can be generally messy with memory, unaware of alignment, etc.
But this one change was not some incredible performance boost that would've made a breaking change "worthwhile".

Quoting: ShabbyXWith your approach, Linux would have been bloatware like the rest of them.

With my approach, Linux would be as fast as it is, while also much less prone to breaking and much more attractive to people not liking their stuff break every now and again.

I don't mind it so much myself, it's generally easy to fix, too.
But that's not the mindset of most people.

Quoting: ShabbyXIt's made exactly so that libraries *can* break ABI if they have to, without the world imploding. glibc made a breaking change, and no matter how small, they should have made an incompatible version change. Yes that would still be inconvenient, but at least it's detectable and fixable. Imagine if python3 did all it's backward incompatible things but still called itself python2.

You are right, but we talking about what glibc DID do, not what they SHOULD have done.
And this isn't the first time something like that happened, either, outside of major version changes.

Of course I am assuming that major versions break things, that's just normal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: minidouNothing got broken. A two decade of depcrecation function got removed, but nothing broken.

Really?
Well, then I guess this is all just a bunch of fake news.

Quoting: minidouOr do we just expect everything to be forever maintained ?

As long as people use it? Optimally, yes.
Ever heard of COBOL?

Quoting: minidouI don't expect anyone to check, I expect a CI or a quality gate to stop them from shipping.

Oh, you sweet little summer child...

Quoting: minidouI'll call it bad practice, or just not being up to 2022 standards.

Welcome to the real world.
Where libraries have to deal with not being used correctly without breaking the software that is using them incorrectly...
Where ages-old code has to be kept around or otherwise "bad things happen(tm)".

And where most people don't have the luxury of time to make everything work perfectly, and so mistakes happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: minidouSomething not discussed here is that the removal of DT_HASH allows a save of about 1% or 16kB of space per Glibc shared object. This is an improvement. There clearly is a good reason for finally removing this deprecated function. But we shouldn't profit from this improvement because of some devs bad practice ?

That's neat.
But irrelevant when compared to the importance of not breaking user space.

You could add a megabyte to each object and it would still pale in comparison to how important not breaking existing software is.

Memory is not an issue anymore nowadays outside of very specific environments. We've left the 90s a few decades ago.
And those specific environments can compile their own glibc with the flag enabling the optimization if they need it. In fact, optimizations like that are standard for low-spec environments.

Quoting: minidouThey did that, almost two decades ago.

And it seems there isn't that many users impacted. I can count the EAC lib and some lib used in shovel night. Compared to the millions of programs using glibc.

You are not thinking things through.

This is just one library.
Imagine if all libraries took this approach. A few pieces of software here using something deprecated from lib X, a few pieces of software there using something deprecated from lib Y...
And very, very soon you will have tons of stuff not working anymore (especially older software that isn't maintained, but still used by some or even many).

If MS followed that approach, Windows wouldn't have anywhere near the desktop share it has now.
They are clearly doing something very, very right with maintaining legacy code.

Also, so what if they did that 20 years ago?
Somehow, EAC and a bunch of others still ended up using that function. Probably looked something up online, copied the function, it worked and that's it. Or had auto-complete suggest something, or whatever.
You can't expect programmers to double-check every single function they use for possible deprecation, that's absurd.

Deprecation warnings in compilations get overlooked, too.
That's not good, you can call it bad practice or whatever makes you feel good about yourself, but in practice, it happens. A lot. And that's the reality that has to be dealt with, not some kind of utopia in which programmers have eradicated bad practice...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestThe blame is not really about removing the deprecated feature. Blame is for the failure to restore it after discovering that users for the feature still exist and the removal broke stuff.

Yes, a lot of developers (especially newer, younger ones that lack the experience) argue in favor of always using the very latest everything and always keeping everything updated.
I've seen that time and time again in several teams.

But that's not a position that can be maintained in reality.
You'd require armies just to maintain old stuff.

It's fine to remove a function if you can't see that anyone is using it. An understandable mistake.

But the moment you realize that there were indeed many still using it, it should clearly be restored (with a deprecation marker, but still).

The only exception here would be security vulnerabilities. Those breaking software is even desirable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: mtOnline Game Selling Store does improvements to Offline mode and Free Game Claiming in one swoop.
What's going on here?!? :P

It's as if they care about their customers :O

I wouldn't go THAT far.
After all, it took them several years to add this feature - and I kinda doubt it was hard to do...

Still faster than EGS adding new features, I guess

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Love the style!

View this comment - View article - View full comments