i can translate the english Onlink to german language
to point 4 Yeah own chip making
^^ but i dont think this will be the suprise
| Ferrous Moon http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/ |
|
| Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 18 Feb - PM) http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1460 |
Page 8 of 18 |
| Author: | TaO92 [Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
i can translate the english Onlink to german language to point 4 Yeah own chip making ^^ but i dont think this will be the suprise |
|
| Author: | Vaius [Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
Quote: Great. No I can't wait for 0.4 anymore.
There is a form of programming for non-coders (GUI Based) in the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne World Editor. The coding is called "Triggers," and there is a large list of preset codes with pieces that can be modified, such as "If [a] = , then do action [c]" where a and b are variables and c can be a variety of actions such as "Set unit [x] health to [y] percent of total health. And then there's a command "Custom Script" which allows people to code more into the triggers. Done for coding software in onlink, and we could end up with some seriously awesome programs.
Well done Miah *grrrr*  to 3.): I can imagine. It could knot your brain. Develop programming for non-coders ... tssssss. Something like a LEGO-system of programming for dummies. Transfer it to the real world and it would be worth a nobelprize, if there would be one for infromatics So from there the jump to a reall hacking tool running behind the game as a reall hacking interface for dummies is only just a small step further *g* Nice, nice, nice. Nice in deed. Well done... or well doing, as I should say. |
|
| Author: | FinalWarrior [Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
Quote: O(n) to O(log n).
Y'know, I don't actually get how algorithms equate to big-O equations. I mean, I get that O(n) is hellass slower than O(log n), but I don't get how one set of code can be said to be O(n), or a different set to be O(log n). (My teacher explained, briefly, as she was in the midst of teaching Programming 2 [I'm in 3... one of four who are, sadly], what O(n) meant, so I sorta get that.)-- Griffinhart |
|
| Author: | Miah [Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
It's really quite easy. n refers to the number of elements in your data structure. O is the worst case scenario for how many keys you'll need to go through in order to get the one you want (round up to the nearest integer) Also note that log is not log. It is log-base-2, since it is a binary tree. Therefore, [O(log2 n) | n = 2000] ≈ 10.9657843 (round up to 11). Therefore, it is said that with 2000 elements in the red black tree, the most steps it's going to ever make in the tree before it finds the desired node is 11. Isn't that easy? :3 |
|
| Author: | FinalWarrior [Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
You know what? That was easy. Thanks, Miah! /me stores this away for AP exam time Only, I still don't get how to determine the actual big-O of a given segment of code. -- Griffinhart |
|
| Author: | Soldier of Light [Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
The easiest way is to count the # of loops. Each for loop multiplies the O notation by n (provided it goes to n of course). I still don't know how to determine the O notation for things that end up being log. I know that binary searches are log, and certain sorts are nlog, but I don't really know how to calculate those. |
|
| Author: | SiN [Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
I realize this isn't a greetings topic, and that I'm new to the forum, but to elaborate...is there at least a month to aim the 0.2.0 release for? I am NOT asking for a release day. ...just a month. |
|
| Author: | Rickton [Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
If there was, it would have been said.
|
|
| Author: | rookie10276 [Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
Imo, I'd shoot for the calculated release date. Because I know Miah is probably very busy, or burnt out from the daily grind, or even just in need of positive encouragement (which is never a bad thing). : ) |
|
| Author: | UNATCOPres [Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
And what about a release year? Hope this one |
|
| Author: | Vaius [Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
The release year is between 2009 and <Insert End-Of-World Year> |
|
| Author: | Calid [Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
Guys, how's it goin? I heard Miah had a problem, and after solving it there is should be downhill riding. |
|
| Author: | TaO92 [Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
maybe he doesn't solved it yet |
|
| Author: | Frostysbite [Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
Hey its been a while since we have had any info on the project, could we possibly get an update? That way the Analysts among us can work up another "prospective" release date  
|
|
| Author: | UNATCOPres [Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Onlink Progress (blog?) (Last updated 7 Nov) |
I'll better call it another "too-soon" release date. It's only a joke. C'mon Miah, keep up the good work. You know that we give you all the moral help we can. |
|
| Page 8 of 18 | All times are UTC-05:00 |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|