×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

id Software's Original 'Softdisk' Games Open Sourced

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the free-as-in-antique-fun dept.

Classic Games (Games) 100

An anonymous reader writes "The original games developed by John Carmack, John Romero, and Adrian Carmack at Softdisk, where the legendary programmers originally met and went on to start id Software, have been open-sourced under the GPLv2. The games are now owned by Flat Rock Software and the open-source titles available are Catacomb, The Catacomb, Catacomb 3D, Catacomb Abyss, and Hovertank3D. The oldest of these games are written in Borland Turbo Pascal while the others are in Borland C++. The source-code can be downloaded from GitHub."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hehehe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186421)

Will John Romero make me his bitch for sucking this code down?

Re:hehehe (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186567)

Look, John Romero may be a jackass but that is no reason to downvote a guy.

Re:hehehe (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 6 months ago | (#47187093)

OP's wasn't that great a joke, but it was a fair reference to the infamous slogans [wikipedia.org] used in pre-release hype for the game Daikatana- "John Romero's about to make you his bitch" and "Suck it down".

Aside from how this would have come across at the time, it probably backfired even worse when the game was significantly delayed and turned out to be a damp squib when it did arrive, something that must have rendered the apparently arrogant hype- and by extension, Romero- laughable and hard to take seriously, even if it was tongue-in-cheek and Romero later expressed regret at (reluctantly) approving the slogans in the first place.

Re:hehehe (1)

crywalt (2426042) | about 6 months ago | (#47187437)

If I had mod points I'd upmod the original comment for being hilarious.

Re:hehehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187113)

If a scrawny, girlie-locked "man" like Romero can make you suck anything, then you're already a little bitch.

Re:hehehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187933)

And yet he still gets more tang than you.

Re:hehehe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188011)

Yeah right. That's why he's only had like three girlfriends and they've all been hideous.

I'm well over the 100 women mark and compared to the garbage he gets, I'm fucking supermodels.

Re:hehehe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188151)

I'm well over the 100 women mark and compared to the garbage he gets, I'm fucking supermodels.

The ones whose names end in ".JPG" don't count.

Re:hehehe (1)

antsbull (2648931) | about 6 months ago | (#47193549)

In real life, 100% of the time, the guys who boast about how many girls they've had or how great they are in bed, without fail, are those who don't get much at all, and have massive self esteem problems. You're a textbook example.

Awesome! (2)

DewDude (537374) | about 6 months ago | (#47186439)

Till now I've been limited to playing them in an Apple II emulator; which some of these were the reason I bought the old Softdisk collection in the first place. These are the true roots of id Software; and some of the games they'd make later clearly had their roots here. Dangerous Dave? I first encountered him on Softdisk! Glad id could acquire whatever rights they needed to.

Re:Awesome! (1)

jeepies (3654153) | about 6 months ago | (#47186471)

Apple II? These are all PC games from the early 90s.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#47186499)

Catacomb was an Apple II game that was ported to DOS. It was also from 1989.

Re:Awesome! (1)

DewDude (537374) | about 6 months ago | (#47186539)

Softdisk #114.

Re:Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187141)

Wrong, it was a PC game that was severely cut down for an Apple II port. Go back to bed, junior.

Re:Awesome! (3, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#47187407)

Can't tell if trolling. First, the Apple II version was released in 1989 while the DOS port was released in 1990. The in 1991 an Apple IIgs version was released. Also, the Apple II version had 15 levels while the DOS only had 10. I was not wrong about anything.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 6 months ago | (#47189419)

Can't tell if trolling. First, the Apple II version was released in 1989 while the DOS port was released in 1990. The in 1991 an Apple IIgs version was released. Also, the Apple II version had 15 levels while the DOS only had 10. I was not wrong about anything.

Actually you are a bit wrong.

The Apple II version did have 15 levels. But the PC version had 30 levels. The PC Demo version has 10 levels. And they were different, so technically the PC had 40 levels.

How do I know? You linked the wiki in your reply to yourself and it says so.

Catacomb consists of fifteen levels in the Apple II version, ten levels in the PC demo version playable online on sites such as RGB Classic Games, and thirty levels (with a different set of level designs) in the full PC version.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Third Paragraph.

So exactly, since you and the AC fucked up here, I guess you both are the junior fucktard.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#47191193)

My original post said nothing about number of levels.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47203565)

You're all fucktards of a sort for citing Wikipedia as a primary source, so you have that in common.

Idiots.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#47187453)

And if you want citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

It was originally created for the Apple II, and later ported to the PC

http://abandoneddosgames.blogs... [blogspot.com]

John Carmack, the amazing programmer and lead in games such as Wolfenstein 3D, Quake, and many others, released this for the Apple II in 1989. Later on, it was ported to MS-DOS

http://www.mobygames.com/game/... [mobygames.com]

Apple II

Published by Softdisk Publishing
Country
  United States
Release Date
1989
Comments
Softdisk compilation #114

DOS

Published by Softdisk Publishing
Developed byPC Arcade
Ported byGamer's Edge
Country
  United States
Release Date
1990
Big Blue Disk #50
Published by Verbatim PC disk
Developed byPC Arcade
Ported byGamer's Edge
Country
  Australia
Release Date
1990

Sorry, junior but you're a fucktard.

Re:Awesome! (1)

antsbull (2648931) | about 6 months ago | (#47193553)

Dude, the first two catacomb games were not 3D. At least check wikipedia or something before trying to act like the boss.

Re:Awesome! (1)

DewDude (537374) | about 6 months ago | (#47186529)

Softdisk had a very long history of publishing their monthly Apple II "magazette". While the guys did work on the PC side of that; they also developed A LOT of stuff for the Apple II side. Even after they left, some of the properties kept getting used and credited to the original guys. I never had the PC edition of Softdisk. But some of these games did in fact start on Apple II, or were ported to the Apple II or PC later.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188157)

Apple II? These are all PC games from the early 90s.

No wonder they were running so slowly!

Re:Awesome! (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 6 months ago | (#47186697)

Do Android phones support Apple ][ floppies? Where is Woz when you need him!

Re:Awesome! (1)

DewDude (537374) | about 6 months ago | (#47186705)

Yes, they're just .dsk images. They make emulators for Android that will run on probably just about any smartphone out there.

Wow.. Pascal. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 6 months ago | (#47186441)

Haven't compiled any Pascal code since the mid-80s. Anyone know where you can even get a Pascal complier these days?

-jcr

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 months ago | (#47186449)

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47190433)

Do they still have the old versions anywhere on the site? they used to give them away.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186465)

That was more or less my question. It's great that the source has been released, but it will probably take some work in order to actually get the source compile. I'm not sure how well modern compilers handle Borland C++ either.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186495)

It's all C, there doesn't appear to be any C++. 16-bit DOS real-mode C. With bonus assembly.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

ledow (319597) | about 6 months ago | (#47186523)

The C code, a copy of Ralf Brown's Interrupt List (and associated DOS documentation), and a pulling back of "optimised" asm to boring old "slow" C code and you'd be up.

I'd give it a month before someone's made an SDL version without any asm left in it at all.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#47186469)

Maybe it will compile in fpc (http://www.freepascal.org/). But probably will be tied a lot to DOS to not being able to run outside DOSEmu, probably an old Turbo Pascal version to compile it should be the best choice. Or take out those ties and make it run in modern OSs.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187803)

Borland C++ runs in DosBox.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186555)

You will find the original Borland Pascal 7.01 lurking somewhere on the internet, on some "VINTAGE" something named url. Easily to be found via "google".

Yes, there is freepascal, yes there is delphi, ..

But Pascal really - and only - rocks on a rock bottom DOS-WFW3.11 machine with ISA slots, Creative Labs SB16 , I have one machine prepared and in operation.

And I do code in Pascal, Assembler(tasm) and interface with the real world[1] what do I need a raspberry Y for .. ;)

Ed Nisely was so kind to open source his book [2]

And actually there is really great literature out in the wilde like Buchanon's applied PC interfacing .. and Interfacing Sensors to the IBM PC (it's more like an excelent sensors handbook)

The ISA-Bus has some advantages over GPIO, with bus drivers you can do GPIO, however you can also DMA and PIO based data transfer.

Also to interface ISA-cards(Sound, NE2000) to other projects is mostly fairly simple when starting with port based i/o.

No big devellopment environment just Borland Pascal, TASM and Turbo C++

Be aware of the delay loop error on machines with more than ~200Mhz you need to apply a patch (also found on the internet try searching for xfdisk - which was written in borland pascal)

[1] http://linuxgazette.net/124/du... [linuxgazette.net]
[2] http://softsolder.com/2011/10/... [softsolder.com]

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#47186563)

Delphi (OO Pascal) is still going strong, and even targets Android now.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 6 months ago | (#47187209)

Who in their right mind would want to program in Pascal these days.

IIRC you had to declare every single variable at the beginning of the program.

That's nice if you are using a small code base, but anything larger and things get hairy really quickly.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 6 months ago | (#47187251)

At the beginning of a procedure/function. It also helps that Pascal supports nested functions.

If the functions are that long then there is something wrong with the said functions.

More modern dialects of Pascal are IMHO vastly superior to C.

You don't have to do that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187341)

I'm not SURE what companies' compiler you used, but in Object Pascal you don't have to do that (& though it's been AGES since I used TP 7.0/Borland Pascal 7.1 wihich oddly enough I am looking @ the box as I write you since it sits on my compiler boxes shelf here).

I don't recall having to do THAT which you speak of either, & yes, as far back as Turbo Pascal 4 which iirc, was the 1st one I used in Academia in fact right up to 7 around 1992 iirc?)!

HOWEVER- you can globally IF you like & as you describe , but inside each function or procedure you can do locally scoped variables (just so you know)... & WHO would still use Pascal? I do, for one (of many out there). Here's a tiny example of what you can produce with it (around 50k lines of code) in even 64-bit targetting code:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

Another replier to you notes a COOL FEATURE of Pascal imo - being able to "nest" functions inside procs OR functions (I do it quite a lot, for scope control basically & for easily hunting down where the function is more quickly too).

APK

P.S.=> For its very "latest/greatest" compiler & its complete featuresets, take a peek here -> http://www.embarcadero.com/pro... [embarcadero.com] which shows them all since the entire "XE" series of them!

(Extollings the targets you can compile in 32-bit OR 64-bit for, & it ranges from EVERYTHING pretty much from PC's & Servers + smartphones etc. - et al)

... apk

Re:You don't have to do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187897)

You would have to be nuts to use Delphi these days. Embaracadero has a terrible reputation and the product continues to limp along as a buggy and undersupported product that has no hope of gaining further market share. No hope at all.

Delphi apps always stand out a mile when you use them (due to the UI characteristics libraries, I guess) and they are always horrible to use. The Australian Tax Office tax return software is a classic example of a piece of software you immediately get that "Delphi heartsink" as soon as you launch it and realise what it is written it, and it only gets worse from there. I'd rather they hadn't bothered with a Mac version than they used Delphi to create it, frankly.

Re:You don't have to do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188275)

Sounds more like you ran into a badly designed program than a bad programming language. I'd also like to see some proof of your statements from a respected valid source on how bad Embarcadero is. Otherwise I think you're nothing but a competitor trying to badmouth a superior product.

Your NEVER going to get that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47189795)

From these unidentifiable /. trolls. They're easy to handle though, witness this http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] along with my other posts here... says it all!

APK

P.S.=> I did however like the FACT you demand facts from them... it is what runs them off easily, every single time - just as I did in that link above, with ease & yes, concrete undeniable verifiable FACTS... lol!!

... apk

You're NEVER going to get that (amended) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47189823)

From these unidentifiable /. trolls. They're easy to handle though, witness this hhttp://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5253991&cid=47189737 along with my other posts here... says it all!

* SORRY FOR POSTING TWICE - in my initial reply to you, since I am in a bit of hurry this a.m., I posted the link to the troll harassing me by unidentifiable ac posts as usual (they have no balls or skills period is why, & I have destroyed them before SO MANY TIMES in tech debates here it's not even funny anymore) by accident in my 1st reply to you here -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=>Thus, amending my post with the CORRECT LINK above to MY post where I shut that ac troll down AGAIN easily, using facts & their own cowardice against them, easily, in my link in this post (which was MY reply to his utter b.s.).

It's unreal how WILLING to post "FUD" & lies these Open SORES worms are... they don't even REALIZE how stupid they are, telling us Object Pascal HAS TO HAVE ALL GLOBAL VARIABLES declared only... lol! They talk out their ass and it gets them, every time.

Another one? The YEARS of /. b.s. from them of "Linux = Secure, Windows != Secure" crap... well, like I said above?

It's come back to haunt them now, & they have the egg on their faces for it... how? Witness ANDROID (yes, a Linux) being torn to shreds daily for years now since Linux FINALLY is most used... & when you're MOST USED, YOU ARE MOST ATTACKED ("channel your inner criminal" to understand the mindset of malware makers/botnet herders, you see why - they attack the LARGEST CROWD of potential victims they can from a single codebase... how to do THAT? Go after the most used OS on that particular hardware platform... on PC's & Servers combined??? It's Windows... on smartphones, it's ANDROID (a Linux, that uses JAVA/Dalvik, & we ALL KNOW HOW "secure' THAT IS... it's not, & proofs in the results I speak of above - fact!). OpenSSL/GnuTLS = another recently!

... apk

LMAO - Sorry, amending link again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47189847)

Yup, I am "having one of those days" (correct link = http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] ) in regards to my last post I am replying to in reply to yours -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Like yourself, I long ago realized how to outright destroy & embarass these /. trolls: Use FACTS... works like a charm, every single time... apk

Re:You don't have to do that (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | about 6 months ago | (#47188707)

I still support some Delphi 7.0 applications I built decade ago. Yeah, a decade ago, Delphi 7.0 was *already* "obsolete". They still work today, they still produce actual meaningful results. Try using a VB6 application (or a C++ application) from the same period on a modern windows system. You'd be surprised how well designed Delphi is. And Embarcadero really did everything they could to make sure the product would die.

Re:You don't have to do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188821)

I run 20 year old VB6 apps just fine in Windows 7. What is supposed fo be the issue?

Well, tell you what with proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188885)

The link to my app (that I wager YOU downmodded since I corrected your erroneous b.s. about only having globalized variables in modern Pascal/Delphi) I wrote up that's in my post you downmodded?

It's SO WELL WRITTEN, & yes, in Delphi/Object Pascal, that it does MORE, & BETTER + far more efficiently than a competitor of it in AdBlock (almost all ads blocked crippled by default like it is souled out to Google no less is why)!

How can I say that? Simple & I can even forward you the email IF you like when Wladimir Palant of AdBlock wrote me 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution", & I responded asking him to show myself OR ANYONE that "almost all ads blocked" can do more for end users & more efficiently... guess what?

HE RAN LIKE A SCARED RABBIT!

So... that tell you anything?? Does me! It told me WORLDS in fact...

APK

P.S.=> The BIGGEST thing it told me is that despite all those "Open SORES" eyes working his codebase produced a MEMORY & CPU HOGGING INEFFICIENT WRECK https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] that doesn't do NEARLY as much in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (as well as efficiency in design & resource usage) that runs on ANYTHING with a std. BSD derived IP stack (pretty much everything online) where AdBlock doesn't, & does far mess where I do MORE with FAR less & better... + that all those "Open SORES" fans couldn't out-THINK or outprogram "lil' ole' me" using what you're putting down... Delphi/Object Pascal!

... apk

Re:Well, tell you what with proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47189351)

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is APK, and let us see the code?

I wager I can find a dozen embarrassingly stupid things you've done as soon as you do (hey look, I answered my own question).

I'm under no obligation to do so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47189737)

"Why don't you put your money where your mouth is APK, and let us see the code?" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2014 @04:56AM (#47189351)

The security community's seen it (malwarebytes' hpHosts) & recommands it as "best of breed" http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... [hosts-file.net] @ the top of that page, & tested it as 100% SAFE + CLEAN of threats of ANY kind (along with Norton/Symantec, Comodo, ClamAV, ArcaVir, etc. - et al from the JOTTI + VirusTotal online tests (00 of them).

Who are YOU by way of comparison??? Nobody, & certainly nobody I anything to for sure...

You also HAVE NO INTEGRITY, since you post "pure ac" making yourself unidentifiable, which speaks WORLDS about you, right there (you truly ARE a coward, & yes, a weasel)... period/fact!

---

"I wager I can find a dozen embarrassingly stupid things you've done as soon as you do" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2014 @04:56AM (#47189351)

The MOST embarassing thing for the "Open SORES" people here is despite all your talk & 'eyes on the code' (whicih most of you can't code period incidentally) couldn't Out-THINK or outprogram me... Proof? See my 'p.s.' below... lol, since IT IS FACT also!

APK

P.S.=> .Wladimir Palant of AdBlock, whom I challenged to show me HE could prove his "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" could do MORE for users in added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity, AFTER he wrote me 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"?

HE RAN LIKE A SCARED RABBIT!

LMAO! Another fact - should I foward the email your way as PROOF of that too? I can you know... of course, you're hiding behind PURE AC posts which only tells me I have utterly THRASHED YOU before in tech debates here...

(AdBlock = crippled by default & only does a FRACTION of what custom hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity AND IT FAILS IN EFFICIENCY BIGTIME chewing up 4++gb of RAM & tons of CPU cycles too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

ALL EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS

... apk

Re:I'm under no obligation to do so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47192865)

hpHosts == security community? Mmmhmm. The people who provide inadequate and broken instructions to change the hosts file on a Mac? I don't think I'd trust them, even if I did believe they had seen the code (which your link does not prove at all).

As for me, I post anonymously because I've seen the way you stalk people who disagree with you, and I don't need my account added to your endless bullshit copy/paste list. Until you post the code, I consider you a coward and a troll, and therefore there's no point replying to anything else you have to say.

Yes, they work with MalwareBytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47192949)

Thus ARE part of the security community & yes, they've seen my code & have a copy of it for me as a backup, thank goodness (as, you never know)!

So - thus, I just wrote Mr. Steven Burn in regards to your "critique" (from a ball-less TROLL like yourself that has no code of his own, yet "talks" like he does, lol... show us it then (as was said by others here to you, "It's not")). Perhaps you're right, & he can make a correction, since that's all it is IF it's like you say. I could care less - Macs are not for me.

What I know, for sure, is that the result produced from my code is perfect, which is the bottom-line & all that realy matters & it works one HELL of a lot better for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity + FAR MORE EFFICIENTLY than that RAM & CPU hogging WRECK "Almost All Ads Blocked" -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]

By the way: You are "stalking" me hypocrite... & by "pure ac" unidentifaible posts - which undoubtedly means I have utterly SMOKED YOU, so badly, in a tech debate before your butthurt PSYCHO brain can't handle it, lol!

(I don't stalk anyone - I mrerely confront them & challenge them to back up their b.s. like yours... not a single ONE ever has, so it's FUN to watch them "eat their words" too - which I am SURE I've done to you before, judging by your actions, "Count Stalkula"...).

APK

P.S.=> You can spout your b.s. all DAY, but it only makes me laugh (LMAO - especially YOUR BLUNDER on Pascal variable declarations you had to DOWNMOD when I corrected you on it -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] )... apk

You BLEW IT AGAIN ac troll (lol) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47193033)

Direct quote from hpHosts site on Hosts & Macs "Note: For detailed information on installing the HOSTS file on MAC's, please refer to: http://macmerc.com/sections.ph... [macmerc.com] "

* SO - HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW?

More than usual, since your 1st BLUNDER is cited again, below... just to "rub it in" to a slimy worm of a troll like you...

APK

P.S.=> You are TRULY ridiculously easy to "get the better of" but what REALLY "took the cake" was your STUPID BLUNDER on Pascal Variables I corrected you on here http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

( & out of shame @ your OWN STUPIDITY, lmao, you had to "downmod it", lol, to *try* to "hide it")

Guess what/New NEWS/NewsFlash/Clue:

Most folks here browse WELL below the default 1 moderation threshold & see your doltish blunder anyhow!

(Which again explains WHY you stalk me by AC posts, making me laugh AND LOOK GOOD each time you do it, since I utterly THRASH you, every single time you do it... lol!)

... apk

You blew it AGAIN troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47193385)

Direct quote from hpHosts site on Hosts & Macs "Note: For detailed information on installing the HOSTS file on MAC's, please refer to: http://www.mactip.net/how-to-e... [mactip.net]

* SO - HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW?

More than usual, since your 1st BLUNDER is cited again, below... just to "rub it in" to a slimy worm of a troll like you...

APK

P.S.=> You are TRULY ridiculously easy to "get the better of" but what REALLY "took the cake" was your STUPID BLUNDER on Pascal Variables I corrected you on here http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

( & out of shame @ your OWN STUPIDITY, lmao, you had to "downmod it", lol, to *try* to "hide it")

Guess what/New NEWS/NewsFlash/Clue:

Most folks here browse WELL below the default 1 moderation threshold & see your doltish blunder anyhow!

(Which again explains WHY you stalk me by AC posts, making me laugh AND LOOK GOOD each time you do it, since I utterly THRASH you, every single time you do it... lol!)

... apk

Re:Well, tell you what with proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47191907)

Put your money where your mouth is. Where's your code? It isn't.

Re:Well, tell you what with proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47193173)

apk found an embarassingly stupid thing from you that you said dumbass http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (5, Interesting)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 6 months ago | (#47187607)

Wow, really?

It is called analyzing your project and mapping the thing out before you write a single line of code. Programming is a discipline as well as an art and a science.

I was once talking to a guy and he as complaining the compiler kept erroring out on "symbol table is full". I asked to look at his code and OMG he was declaring variables by the butt load, but the thing of it was they were all subtle variations of the same thing, and lots and lots of structs. So I should him how to make a linked list of a single of structs with variants. I explained that with little effort these would be declared on the heap and that running out of space in the symbol table would be a thing of the past. Also he was no longer limited by the stack and that he had all the memory the machine could muster for variables.

These days troubleshooting code has become such a chore simply because languages these days let you declare variables anywhere so you have to track down where things declared just to figure out what is happening and dynamically typed languages are the absolute worst thing to come along simply because they only add to the confusion since the compiler or intepreter has to try and determine intent and they all pretty much suck at doing it.

I have written pascal programs in excess of 100K lines broken up into many modules and I actually find them easier to debug than other so called modern languages simple because the discipline of declaration forces you to really think things through, rather than just popping things in here and there in an ad-hoc manner.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 6 months ago | (#47188839)

Interesting. Why was the symbol table implemented in such a way that it could be full? Is it not dynamically allocated?

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (2)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 6 months ago | (#47189115)

Remember the old days of 64K code and data AND segment offset, and LIM sepc?

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47190507)

As a non-coder but interested observer ... I've noted that Pascal programs never, ever take down the system when they abend. Now I'm wondering how much of that is a result of enforced upfront planning.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 6 months ago | (#47191205)

Hmm you user the term ABEND

Were you ever a Novell CNE? The term of course means, Abnormal End, but it is rare to see the usage outside of the Netware ecosystem.

As to Pascal Programs failing gracefully and not taking the entire system with it... I think that might have been the advent of actual protected mode operation -v- declaration and discipline. In my early days of my programming career first learning how to use pointers effectively I would routinely crash my machine by running a pointer into the OS space ( MS-DOS 2.x and 3.x ) on 8088 machines and corrupting all sorts of data and code structures.

Having programming now fr more years that I care to admit to at times I have seen the proliferation of the mind set that simply ignores things like structure and massive abuse of the OOP model. These days you start looking through code and see variables created on an ad-hoc basis for no other reason than laziness when 20 minutes of code refactoring would have solved the problem and the system would have made far more sense and in the end would ave performed faster and been more logically cohesive.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47191577)

Nope, not a CNE, tho a good friend is a Netware 3/4.x maven, and I followed Novell (went to all their presentations when I lived near Los Angeles) up thru Netware 6 when IMO they went off the rails. So a little exposure down the years. But I probably picked up abend from reading programming conferences on the BBS, back when I was still using the 286 for everyday (I still have a DOS setup... on a P4...!!) Great, now I feel an urge to mow the lawn. :D

Since rebooting is against my religion, and I'm hypersensitive to performance, I have a foul opinion of unstable or inefficient programs, and yeah, I've seen the "It compiles? Ship it!" mentality... so I applaud your principles. And I've read Abrash on false efficiency (which I strongly suspect affects Mozilla from top to bottom) -- that was an eye-opener... ah, here it is, http://www.jagregory.com/abras... [jagregory.com] -- (I have the book... and a whole collection of old compilers, I think the newest is the last version of Watcom).

I have the Pascal source for a very old (1991) specialty database that I still use (and have not yet found anything to replace it)... there's not a comment in it, but I've read through it and (being so familiar with running it) can pretty much puzzle out what stuff does, because the author took care to make sense.

You don't have to DO that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47193947)

I'm not SURE what companies' compiler you used, but in Object Pascal you don't have to do that (& though it's been AGES since I used TP 7.0/Borland Pascal 7.1 wihich oddly enough I am looking @ the box as I write you since it sits on my compiler boxes shelf here).

I don't recall having to do THAT which you speak of either, & yes, as far back as Turbo Pascal 4 which iirc, was the 1st one I used in Academia in fact right up to 7 around 1992 iirc?)!

HOWEVER- you can globally IF you like & as you describe , but inside each function or procedure you can do locally scoped variables (just so you know)... & WHO would still use Pascal? I do, for one (of many out there). Here's a tiny example of what you can produce with it (around 50k lines of code) in even 64-bit targetting code:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

Another replier to you notes a COOL FEATURE of Pascal imo - being able to "nest" functions inside procs OR functions (I do it quite a lot, for scope control basically & for easily hunting down where the function is more quickly too).

I saw a report, in of ALL places, "Visual Basic Programmer's Journal" Sept./Oct. 1997 issue titled "Inside the VB 5 Compiler" a competing trade rag no less, that showed DELPHI (Object Pascal 7.1 engine) absolutely "knocking the chocolate" out of BOTH MSVC++ &/or VB by HUGE MARGINS in performance (doubling or tripling even MSVC++ in Math & String work tests, & face it - EVERY PROGRAM DOES THOSE essentially).

They tried to "downplay it" but the graphs told the REAL story... numbers don't lie, & competing trade language magazine or not, they had to tell it how it is.

APK

P.S.=> For its very "latest/greatest" compiler & its complete featuresets, take a peek here -> http://www.embarcadero.com/pro... [embarcadero.com] which shows them all since the entire "XE" series of them!

(Extollings the targets you can compile in 32-bit OR 64-bit for, & it ranges from EVERYTHING pretty much from PC's & Servers + smartphones etc. - et al)

... apk

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

cwsumner (1303261) | about 6 months ago | (#47197093)

If you don't declare your variables explicitly, then you are building a "Bug Farm".
Never use undeclared variables, you will regret it...

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (2)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 6 months ago | (#47186687)

If that's your thing, you can try GNU Pascal. Quoting wikipedia:

GNU Pascal (GPC) is a Pascal compiler composed of a frontend to GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), similar to the way Fortran and other languages were added to GCC. GNU Pascal is ISO 7185 compatible, and it implements "most" of the ISO 10206 Extended Pascal standard.

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47190487)

How does it differ from FreePascal? (Use small words; I'm not a coder, just an interested bystander.)

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 6 months ago | (#47190547)

FreePascal is a "complete" compiler that was ported on different systems.
GNU Pascal is a frontend to gcc: it takes the pascal input, translate it in some intermediate language that gcc can understand, and let him finish.
This mean that FreePascal have to be designed to produce outputs for all platforms, while GNU Pascal only have to follow gcc evolutions, and is instantly able to build on all supported gcc targets.
To summarize, they are different software for roughly the same purpose. I believe that more details will make it technical :-)

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47190583)

Ah. So GNU Pascal is essentially a translator?

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47191469)

GNU Pascal is dead. Free Pascal is in active development and was even voted Sourceforge Project of the Month for April 2014:

http://sourceforge.net/blog/april-2014-project-of-the-month-free-pascal/

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47187065)

the internet

If you haven't used Delphi in all that time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187271)

You don't know what you're missing per this post from phantomfive http://games.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] & I also used it to make this program I post here quite a bit (in response to others using inferior methods for security or speed online in browser addons:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )

I was PRIMARILY a C/C++ user, OR Visual Basic user too, circa 1994-1997, until I saw a report, in of ALL places, "Visual Basic Programmer's Journal" Sept./Oct. 1997 issue titled "Inside the VB 5 Compiler" a competing trade rag no less, that showed DELPHI (Object Pascal 7.1 engine) absolutely "knocking the chocolate" out of BOTH MSVC++ &/or VB by HUGE MARGINS in performance (doubling or tripling even MSVC++ in Math & String work tests, & face it - EVERY PROGRAM DOES THOSE essentially).

They tried to "downplay it" but the graphs told the REAL story... numbers don't lie, & competing trade language magazine or not, they had to tell it how it is.

(The issue was about when VB got a "stand-alone" exe compiler based off a watered-down MSVC++ one (which still uses interpreted code on forms via runtimes iirc anyhow)).

Anyways/Anyhow:

It "took me away" from BOTH Microsoft Visual C++ or Visual Basic pretty much (unless they were being used on the job, & usually they were or still are for me) for personal projects like my "APK Hosts File Engine" shown in the 2nd link above (+ even workplace projects since I started hunting down jobs using it more since I really liked it).

APK

P.S.=> It's really good stuff - I've always found or rather felt that to me? Doing Object Pascal is SORT OF a combination of doing VB and C++ (ends in semis, & uses begin - end vs. curly braces - more C++ like actually) but you build it on a form template basis like VB does/did ... Borland initially touted it/codenamed it "The VB Killer" & it really was, for myself @ least... apk

Wow.. Google.` (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47187343)

Ever hear of it?

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188729)

Are you fucking serious? First of all, there are several good, free Pascal compilers out there. Secondly, these are all C++ genius.

Wow.. Pascal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47188893)

https://github.com/FlatRockSoft/Catacomb says "The source code is designed for Borland Turbo Pascal 5.5". Borland (well, their successors) give that compiler/IDE (for DOS) away for free (as in beer): http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/20803

Re:Wow.. Pascal. (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 6 months ago | (#47189399)

Haven't compiled any Pascal code since the mid-80s. Anyone know where you can even get a Pascal complier these days?

-jcr

http://turbo51.com/turbo-pasca... [turbo51.com]

It jumps to the embarcadero.com website, but unlike the other one that goes to delphi, these actually give you the older versions that will work.

Need to sign up to download though.

https://thepiratebay.se/torren... [thepiratebay.se]

Dos version there also.

Fuck Slashdot Beta! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186443)

Duck my sick, Dice, and damn you to hell for the abomination known as Slashdot Beta.

Re: Fuck Slashdot Beta! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186549)

You're a beta faggot. I'm an alpha, bitch.

Re:Fuck Slashdot Beta! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186595)

Your mouth was made to duck my sick

Play them in my browser (1)

randomErr (172078) | about 6 months ago | (#47186457)

I can't wait until someone ports them over to Google Native Client so I can play them in my browser.

Re:Play them in my browser (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186633)

I can't wait until you choke on a bucket of dicks.

Re:Play them in my browser (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186693)

We'll have to chase your mother down to get them back...

Re:Play them in my browser (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186919)

She died of AIDS due to being a whore.

Re:Play them in my browser (1)

Mark J Tilford (186) | about 6 months ago | (#47186717)

Surely dosbox has been ported.

Re:Play them in my browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186971)

I can't wait until someone gives me a winning lottery ticket... I wonder if that will ever happen?

Re:Play them in my browser (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47187229)

I can't wait until someone ports them over to Google Native Client so I can play them in my browser.

Gah! Of all the possible environments, you want to play them in a web browser.

Commander Keen (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 6 months ago | (#47186679)

I've love to see them re-release the Commander Keen series, as open source. I miss those games. :-)

Re:Commander Keen (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 6 months ago | (#47186703)

Unless the opensource part is an actual requirement for you, you can get them on steam (sadly windows only) for a very reasonable price.
Commander Keen Complete Pack [steampowered.com]

Ports (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 6 months ago | (#47186829)

The point of having the source would be to easily port the game with SDL to any other platform.

Re:Ports (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47186853)

but DOSBox is ported to many, many, platforms- So I mean, having the original source won't make it any more portable.

If you want to run Commander Keen on whatever OS you just port DOSBox to it.

DOSBox (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 6 months ago | (#47197251)

The problem with DOS Box, it that's a full blown emulator. You're emulating a complete clone of a PC (which take some performance hit, specially if you consider playing the game on a handheld device, where DOSBox still has a significant impact on battery life).
Whereas 2D game engines of the era aren't extremely complex and could be ported to modern hardware without excessive work.

Re:Ports (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 6 months ago | (#47186891)

"easily" is a relative word. If it's full of assembly and dependency on low-level system calls, it's still gonna take some time.
Anyway, for reference, although not technically like the original, there are open-source projects that might be of interest:
  • http://clonekeen.sourceforge.net/ (GPLv3)
  • http://clonekeenplus.sourceforge.net/ (GPLv2)

I tested the second one, and it handle the original game files (available through steam) pretty well. The first one might, too, but I'm way too lazy to build it right now.

Re:Ports (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187239)

The point of having the source would be to easily port the game with SDL to any other platform.

Are you willing to do all the hard work? We shall see how "easy" it will be.

Game engines (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 6 months ago | (#47197245)

2D platformer of that era don't have extremely complicated engines.
more or less, the only assembler parts and low-lever system calls you're going to see would be the graphics (mostly: gfx-mod init, drawing sprites, drawing tiles. so mostly a bit of bliting) and sound (playing the music. here it's pretty much low level, with music specifically written for hardware, like fm synthesis).
compare this to 3D engines (where big bunch of assembler handle drawing a whole 3D scene so tons of code, but music is using some 3rd party middle ware for midi playing).

Rewriting the graphics routine using SDL isn't that much complicated. It boils down to rewriting the 2-3 tiles & sprite blitting routine with modern SDL (compare to a 3D engine, where the best course is to scrape it and rewrite a different engine using opengl).
Music might be harder (probably the best course is to use an adlib emulation library).

I happen to have the necessary skill set (it's been a hobby of mine, both back then and now, both writing mine and hacking others') but I won't necessarily have the time :-(

Re:Commander Keen (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47187289)

I've love to see them re-release the Commander Keen series, as open source. I miss those games. :-)

I think there was some talk about the possibility of releasing the Keen sources. The code may still be around. One might want to poke Carmack/Romero to get this going.

ID's NeXT hard drive images? (1)

linebackn (131821) | about 6 months ago | (#47186781)

It is great to see more of ID's early work opened up.

A while back there was even some talk about releasing the hard drive images from some of their NeXT computers used to create DOOM. http://serverfault.com/questio... [serverfault.com]

I wonder if anything will come of that? It would be doubly awesome right about now because the NeXT emulator "Previous" has gotten far along enough where it can actually boot to a 68K NeXTSTEP desktop!

Re:ID's NeXT hard drive images? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187263)

Interesting, although it seems to be a bit strange to go on releasing the disk images if John Carmack specifically wanted him to wipe the drives.

Re:ID's NeXT hard drive images? (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#47190459)

Somewhere among my antique disks I have another old shareware game by Carmack & Co -- a really early attempt at visual 3D (walls, not just lines), that looked and played rather like the old BBS game "Wizard War"... looked a bit like Catacomb 3D but the walls were just flat colors. Maybe it became one of these lately released, but none of the names sounds familiar, and damned if I can remember what it was called. :(

Back in The Day ... (1)

Toad-san (64810) | about 6 months ago | (#47186803)

I'd have KILLED for some of that source! But today? Naaaah ...

Sofdisk - my first sale (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#47187243)

I sold my first work to them. Od course, they went on to bigger and better ...

Nice Info (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47187629)

Thank you for the information
May be useful for everyone
I hope to read more info
www.berantakan.com
www.berantakan.net
www.wpentertain.us

The game data were not released open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47191869)

The game data were not released open source. Are there any alternative game data, or specifications for the same, so that people without the original game data can still adapt the code to modern systems and debug it? There do seem to be free scenarios for Doom, for example.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?