Next Generation Emulation banner
101 - 120 of 158 Posts
It wasn't for a very recent system so not that it got a lot of attention.

But it took quite a while still... to iron out all of the bugs, and I managed to find some undocumented stuffs, but likely no one looked into it as rigorously as I did anyway.

It was fun anyhow, and definitely much better than rewriting what someone else wrote. And it runs fast enough on a 300MHz Intel CPU, too, so I guess that was passable... but I'd try to improve performance even more if I have the time, and I know I can improve performance more. The main drawback of Java or any language depending on a virtual machine (I know Java and ActionScript) for emulation, from what I can see, is that they don't cope well with outputting single pixels... and you really need to output pixel by pixel for some systems.
 
People that write code in C# and java should be slapped hard ^^.


I just can't believe this...
This is a new low.
Port ps2 emu to c#, omg jesus wtf...

The java is one thing, but c#...

Lol, anyways to each there there own.
c# is totally the worse lang ever invented though.

Java used to be cool back in win95 when it worked.
 
I reg'ed to get the plugin pack a while back.
Besides I saw the thread on the main page of ngemu.

I don't need to say anything, your choice programming says it all.
You're not helping the community at all with c#.
Why don't you do the emulation community a favor and learn a suitable language?
 
You're not helping the community at all with c#.
mmm why do i created the @ruanViewer then???
in case you don´t know that was a petition of many users here and i did it for the comunity....

why do i created the PS2 P-nach tool????

again not for the comunity???

why i´ve been very active this year with my projects???? not for the comunity????

c´mon don´t make me laugh please.

Why don't you do the emulation community a favor and learn a suitable language?
a suitable language???? ok, then tell me... what´s that misterious language i should learn??
 
C/++, ASM.
Either of those are ok lang's.

C - GCC is the most universal compiler, anyone can get it.
ASM - FASM or NASMX are the best compilers for that.

If you make something in VC++ then in order for someone to compile it they either need the demo or the latest and greatest ver that you spend $ on.
However it usually runs without extra runtimes.
And in those cases were it needs an runtime pack, it's really not that bad, it's something that was needed anyways.


If you make something in .net, then everyone needs to dl 1-3 packs of 200+ megs each just to run it.
Just for runtimes ^^, hence why I take so much offence to it.

I can't even install .net on my system after it's allready been set up.
Same with java, it plain fails to work on my system.

If it were VB, then it only needs a handful of runtime files are the most, which is just fine.

I gotta get man, need to look up crap for my mom, laters I guess.
 
C/++, ASM.
Either of those are ok lang's.
So... the misterious language is C/C++ right??? mmm that means i should drop the 16 years now that i´ve been writing C/C++ code and learn those languages again??? mmm sorry but my "sense-o-meter" is showing its peak(you know the way i mean that :p) so i don´t think its a good idea... btw how in God´s sake do you think i can port the PCSX2 code to C# without knowing how to code in C/C++??? does that make sense to you??? in any case it seems like you didn´t bothered to look my signature... am i right???

look as a new guy here i want to say "Welcome to ngemu" :thumb: sadly our first conversation wasn´t that great anyways the problems of this thread are settled now(at least for me) and it was just the result of a big misunderstanding(as usual) and as far as i know everything is clear so just let it be. in case you didn´t knew am a old C/C++ coder myself and the reason am doing the port its just for my own pleasure and as a person i think am more than free to do whatever i like as am not a slave of this or any other comunity ;)

the reason why i choose now C# to develope my tools/apps/whatever is quite obvious... as a ex-C#/.net hater i once hated those tools myself badly(i saw them with my C/C++ eyes so to say) until i got the chance to see what they really got and finally realized how wrong i was... therefore i´ve been learning C# for over 2 years now and i love it!. my actual goal is to master that language and reach its peaks one day simple as that ;).

about VB... am a Visual Basic coder myself and i pretty much master that language too... as for ASM... that´s the only one i need to refresh my knowledges in :p (am actually doing that now)

as for the .net requirement... you´re totally right there and i blame MS for not allowing us to compile the sources we probably need and just run it on the target OS and over. but i think that´s something i can´t change(not that it bothers me at all tho).


i hope my point its now clear to you so lets back on topic ;)
 
If you make something in .net, then everyone needs to dl 1-3 packs of 200+ megs each just to run it.
Just for runtimes ^^, hence why I take so much offence to it.

I can't even install .net on my system after it's allready been set up.
Same with java, it plain fails to work on my system.
.NET Framework 3.0 is included on vista, .NET Framework 2.0 redistr is 22.4MB and most computers have it. That's no even close to 1-3 packs of 200MB.

Can't install .NET and Java? Really? That just seems a trolling argument.
 
I think he's just trolling, honestly, but if not, I'll have a go at it. C++ has its uses, as does C# and Java. Some people prefer C# and Java because in my opinion, you can develop certain apps in them faster than you could with a more traditional language. As for why you would want to develop an emulator in C# or Java, well there could be multiple reasons. Benchmarking the language, testing your skill, seeing how capable the language is, etc..Anyhow, that's my 2 cents.

If you make something in .net, then everyone needs to dl 1-3 packs of 200+ megs each just to run it.
Just for runtimes ^^, hence why I take so much offence to it.
The .NET framework is 22MB, not 600.

I can't even install .net on my system after it's allready been set up.
Same with java, it plain fails to work on my system.
Then you need to ask for support if you wish to use them, because they work fine for me, and many others.
 
The java is one thing, but c#...

Lol, anyways to each there there own.
c# is totally the worse lang ever invented though.

Java used to be cool back in win95 when it worked.
c# is better than java for most stuff.
its got better features and nicer to code with than java.

java doesn't even support passing primitive params by reference (you have to do some workarounds), nor does it support unsigned variables, which are handy for emulation coding.

generally c# is like the 'improved' java.

i like c++ better, but c# has its uses.

If you make something in .net, then everyone needs to dl 1-3 packs of 200+ megs each just to run it.
Just for runtimes ^^, hence why I take so much offence to it.

I can't even install .net on my system after it's allready been set up.
Same with java, it plain fails to work on my system.

If it were VB, then it only needs a handful of runtime files are the most, which is just fine.
well yeh you need the .net redistributables to run a c# program.
but the same applies if you work with vb.net

if you're talking about older vb, like vb6 then you still need runtime files; but most people already have them installed by now; the package is alot smaller than .net though xD

people with newer Windows OSes already will have the .net framework; people with win xp that havn't updated will need to install it if they want to run c# apps.
 
Sorry about earlier, I had to go order a hd then I past out.


.NET v2.0 SP2 x86, 23.8mb
.NET v3.5 SP1 x86, 231mb

.NET v2.0 SP2 x64, 43.6mb
.NET v3.5 SP1 x64, Doesn't Exists ^^

x64 .NET is'nt supported very well.


.NET is easy enough to get working for the few min's that you need it.
Install and use one program for a few mins and then trash it sorta thing.
All for api's that you allready had essentually.
That's about 250megs compressed ^^.


Java, It's just not my system that can't use it.
Excluding my system, I've seen 6 systems that can install it but it doesn't work on.
All windows xp baised systems.
Java is 16-17megs now.
It used to be under a meg before v2, when it actually worked for everyone (ms build).

Java isn't really important, there arent' any decent apps for it.
Lol, if you're thinking azureus, that app screws up torrents pretty badly, people are starting to ban those users as soon as they pop up.



Anyways I did the same thing pretty much, after c instead of c# I went to asm.
However, I might of went to c# if I had access to the vs dvd at the time instead of my old @ss vs6 dev-ed cd that was completely useless.
Err, the old school msdn was useful though...

I started on vc++ but because I needed a ton of updates and just the fact that it bogged up my registry and took a bunch of hd space, I stoped using it.
I moved on to gcc, which I actually like.
It was a pain to keep it up to date without breaking things though.
Then there's the apps that have broken src code that won't compile anyways :\.

That stuff alogn with all the lib crap turned me off, it's harder to get a grasp on what's happening in c in my personal opinion, but that's just me, alot of poeple use c...


If they wanted a new programming lang why didn't they just use macro's to translate from the new lang to the old c lang ?
Whatevers...


I'm not asking for any help lol, wtf...
I was trolling ;), just to say c# and java blow monkey balls.
With my random nick, lol, what I pick out of my @ss sometimes just to dl stuff..., ohwell.


Newer windows having .net included...
XP has v1, so does 2k3.
It's crap.
Doesn't run anything.

Vista is ok'ish, but 2008 is crap anyways.
Win7 is decent, but buggy, I dn what ver of .net it has, didn't check before I trashed it.
Besides, I'de need a specific ver of it when I goto use it anyways so what's the point in having an older ver that doesn't cut it.


.NET doesn't belong on a clean system.
I allways remove it.
If I need it for a certain app that I NEED for a few mins I install it, use the app and then trash it.

Same goes for gtaiv, I need it for that game, to install it anyways.
Afterwards you can trash the extra crap that needed it.
Which is great, otherwise I would of returned the game if I couldn't.


Requiring .net is just not cool.


Anyways I have a quad core amd, 2tb of hd space, etc.
And I still think .net is a huge waste of freaking space and cpu time.
Screw that crap, you got a ton of api's allready in the kernal, why would add a sh!t load more of the same?

Kinda reminds me of winx64.
Why would you program for it when it vm's your program and can't even parse some of the simplest of opcodes.
Just another messed up microsoft thing.


Edit:
As for unsigned var's...
There's a way to translate intergers to float.
I can't remember off the top of my head though, only takes a byte or 2 more and you don't even have to touch the fpu or worry about it.
 
Edit:
As for unsigned var's...
There's a way to translate intergers to float.
I can't remember off the top of my head though, only takes a byte or 2 more and you don't even have to touch the fpu or worry about it.
:???:

the way to emulate the behavior of unsigned integers is to use a integers of size greater than the original.
like int64 to represent 32bit unsigned int.
then you just AND with 0xffffffff (obviously this is bad because you're taking double the space, its slower, and less convenient).


anyways not natively supporting unsigned integers is also inconvenient because there's certain optimizations/tricks you can do with unsigned integers; a quick example is you can just use '-1' to set the unsigned integer to its max value.

java supports unsigned shifts however, so technically you can still do a lot of the tricks.
 
C# also has pointers and structs, unlike Java. (The only stuff you can pass by value in Java is the primitives they give you.) Another advantage is that the .NET Framework provides more sophisticated mechanisms for generating MSIL at runtime than Java has for generating its own bytecode at runtime. I've been curious for a while as to how a bytecode dynarec in C# or Java might perform.

And if you don't like Microsoft's .NET implementation, there's always Mono.
 
C# also has pointers and structs, unlike Java. (The only stuff you can pass by value in Java is the primitives they give you.)
All parameters are pass by value in Java. Assignment and allocation semantics for objects just happen to fit those of pointers. I would hesitate to even say Java has a real notion of references at all, much less pass by reference.

Another advantage is that the .NET Framework provides more sophisticated mechanisms for generating MSIL at runtime than Java has for generating its own bytecode at runtime. I've been curious for a while as to how a bytecode dynarec in C# or Java might perform.
See JPSX and JPC. I don't think performance comparisons have been made for JPSX and other PS1 emulators beyond basic anecdotal indications of performance, ie "can emulate 3 PS1s at fullspeed at the same time" or something like that. I don't think JPC is especially competitive with DOSBox or qemu, performance-wise.

I'm not aware of anything complete for MSIL.
 
All parameters are pass by value in Java. Assignment and allocation semantics for objects just happen to fit those of pointers. I would hesitate to even say Java has a real notion of references at all, much less pass by reference.
Yes I was referring to a different type of references. ;) What I meant is that you'll be passing a reference/pointer in Java any time that you pass something other than a byte/short/int/long/float/double. Java doesn't allow for passing custom types on the stack.

So, for example if I created a very small class in Java (say, 32-bits in size) I would still have to allocate all objects of that class on the heap and pass around references to them. In C#, I could create a struct instead, whose objects can be created/passed on the stack.
 
Yes I was referring to a different type of references. ;) What I meant is that you'll be passing a reference/pointer in Java any time that you pass something other than a byte/short/int/long/float/double. Java doesn't allow for passing custom types on the stack.

So, for example if I created a very small class in Java (say, 32-bits in size) I would still have to allocate all objects of that class on the heap and pass around references to them. In C#, I could create a struct instead, whose objects can be created/passed on the stack.
Yeah, I know what you meant, I was just being pedantic ;D I agree, the lack of stack allocation except for primitives is a performance detriment in Java, although in theory heap allocation doesn't have to be slower. It does still have the overhead of needing the pointer itself though.

So is struct (as opposed to class) actually related to allocation in C#?
 
101 - 120 of 158 Posts