It is also used in EmuDeck and yup, my emulation interface sure does look better now.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumBut alas, most people don't listen, "it won't affect me.".

That's just the default when you purchase EA games. Linux or not, they have a tendency to shut things down or break it long after you purchased something. Not even getting into their egregious MTX shenanigans.

"Don't buy games from EA" is a very valid stance in today's gaming world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: FaalagornVulkan and Wayland or OpenGL and Wayand? I have the trouble with the latter myself.

I'm not using Wayland, but I also have some troubles with it on my laptop.
It will display just fine in most games but not at all in others. No idea what the difference is between the games.

Might be Vulkan/OpenGL.
Might be some games using some kind of "launcher" (maybe just a .sh script to launch the game instead of directly launching the binary and Mangohud cannot deal with that).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pytrysGameplay seems to be the same boredom like the first game. I will pass.

Yup.

I'll happily watch a story-only walkthrough, though, because in contrast to the "gameplay", the story was fairly interesting if a wee bit pretentious (but that's just Kojima default).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So what... an artstyle can only be used in one game now before people scream "clone!"?

Want me to tell you about Doom "clones"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I mean, it is a bit of a no-brainer to use AI, especially for indies.

If money is tight and I want to have voiced lines of text, am I gonna spend a lot of money on a voice actor or drastically less money on AI voicing, which has significantly improved recently?
I think pretty much everyone would like to give money to fellow humans, but "would like" is a luxury if money is a limiting factor.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI once couldn't stop laughing when I made a string copy, it's like trying to thread a needle, but with both hands tied behind your back to make sure you won't accidentally poke yourself.

 
    let string1 = String::from("Hello, world!");
    let string2 = String::from(&string1);

    println!("Here they are: {} {}", string1, string2);
You can write spaghetti in any language, Rust enforces a couple of pretty basic rules and most times when you are actually having to thread code through unwraps and whatnot you are dealing with nullability.

Maybe I should have mentioned it was in an Option in a Result and also containing a Mutex (or another permutation of that situation, I worked with in a REST project back then, don't fully remember), it wasn't just the simplest possible case.
Working with only base types is fairly rare in Rust, at least in my experience, which is doing more high-level code and not so much low-level calculations (low-level is generally the most "pure" and easiest to read).
Usually, you have at least one additional layer around things, and that can quickly spiral, too, where you might end up with Lists of Options of Results of different types from several different libraries you are using in tandem but need to tie together somehow...

Quoting: SamsaiAnd sure, languages like C and C++ will let you just bulldoze your way through that, you'll probably just catch a segfault at the end. :)

Unless I'm working on something that must never fail or is highly concurrent, I'd rather have a segfault that I can quickly fix than always writing more code than I feel I should need to.
Besides, I had plenty of runtime crashing with Rust, too. Sometimes in our own code, sometimes in libraries we used. It's not like Rust code automatically has no runtime errors.
The "error safety" of Rust is somewhat overrated. It's certainly safer than C, but far from "safe" safe.
So you still have to do all of the testing routines you'd do in any other language, not really saving you much time there.

Again, I'm not saying Rust is bad.
It's pretty good. It has very clear advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the project, I wish I was working with it instead of what it is I'm forced to use.
I'm just somewhat annoyed by (some) Rust fanboys seeing only the good bits and brushing the downsides off as "you just don't know what you're doing", is all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AdutchmanThe sbippet you showed looks like you haven't really looked at how to write actual Rust and just tried to write C in Rust which doesn't work.

Not at all. I know Rust and been working with it on and off in projects. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I can work with it just fine.
Obviously I exaggerated in that example, but you'll find code akin to that in every single project, simply because of how Rust works. Rust's safety comes at a hefty cost.
There's just no denying that, at least not if you are being honest.

I am in the nice position that I work on many projects with many languages and many people of different levels of knowledge in the languages, so I have the advantage of not being too tunnel-visioned when it comes to a single language that I couldn't see its downsides anymore.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mattaraxiaHeh, I laughed surprisingly hard at that first part. I had really similar feelings while learning Rust, though after a while I wrote most of it off as just not-the-way-I'm-used-to-itis.

Of course you can get used to it and understand it.
Hell, you can get used to abominations like Objective-C. Which Rust thankfully isn't as bad as.

But there are just objectively much harder to parse languages (as in, read and understood even by uninitiated people). Due more complex structures in Rust code than you'd find in C-code.
C++ can get nightmarish to parse on its own, but more rarely so and in cases that can usually be auto'd away nowadays. And pure C code is just very simple to read as it "lacks" (I've grown to think it's a feature) all the bells and whistles of C++.

With Rust, you get a lot more special characters (&|*::<>?!..'+) throughout the entire code outside of calculations, more function calls per thing you want to do and once type specifiers and lifetimes come into play, all hope is lost to the uninitiated anyway ( what's this type do, why is there a ': "Box<Fn() + Send + 'static>" ).

It's not that it couldn't be understood, it's that it couldn't be understood quickly except by experts.
And if I have learned one thing in 15+ years of coding, it's that the most important attribute of code after "it works" is that it is easily readable to people new-ish to the project and/or the language.
Because code is hundreds to thousands of times more often read than written and lack of understanding leads to way more problems down the line.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Honestly not a big fan of Rust.

It makes writing code ridiculously complicated, everything needs awkwardly added function calls (want a variable? Here you go "variable.wrap().unwrap().rewrap().is_this_safe()?.unwrap_or_else(|..| yes_no?).expect('oh no!') ") and just leads to code that is practically unintelligible unless you understand everything about Rust.
I once couldn't stop laughing when I made a string copy, it's like trying to thread a needle, but with both hands tied behind your back to make sure you won't accidentally poke yourself.

However, its modularity and concurrency safety while maintaining C-like speed is indeed quite well suited to a project like that.
Can't say I blame them.

Oh, and the error messages in Rust are pure magic, very helpful compiler.

View this comment - View article - View full comments