Re:Accurate CRT Simulation
by maxerickson on Monday March 28, 2016 @12:29PM
(#11375239)
I think it makes more sense to make NuSaver
Yes, this is what I meant. How big a justification does he need to refuse code when such a thing is possible?
It's not worth it. Most ppl screenblank so savers are mostly for nostalgia these days.
Re:Accurate CRT Simulation
by maxerickson on Monday March 28, 2016 @01:32PM
(#11375745)
Sure, I assumed as much.
But my point is that maybe he has reasons other than being a jerk. If it isn't worth it to you to do it otherwise, why does the discussion start with it being worth it to him?
I suggest learning the full history of the thing which is jwz to understand why jwz is a jerk. He's amazingly smart, but extremely impatient and outright hostile to nearly every software engineer he encounters.
He's often right (see CADT) but in a way that is jerkish, and that's really limited the adoption of jwz code.
I was able to port many of my screensavers to other platforms easily; in most cases, the savers just have two functions: setup() and draw(), the first of which does any one-time initialization, the second which does all per-frame rendering. One can write a simple wrapper for any platform that initializes the GL contexts and handles user input, as well as any locking/unlocking code.
However, I don't think that would achieve much. Most of the savers were written in very terse, nasty form to achieve the various constraints the authors worked under.
I think it makes more sense to make NuSaver: the design I described (a scene graph, a physics engine, and a bytecode VM, then rewrite the good savers in the VM). In this case, I would probably just adopt an existing C++ scene graph (Qt has one built-in), a physics engine (I adapted Box2D to Qt, but you need a 3D engine), and a VM (I would use javascript).