Thread: Wiki FAQ

By the way, it looks like the links listed on the wiki might have the user's session id appended to the query string. If this is the case, I suggest changing the appropriate setting to use cookies only. Otherwise, it is possible that a user copying and pasting a link from the wiki might accidentally give away his/her session id, thus allowing session hijacking.

Which links are those? When I log in to the Wiki, my URLs are the same as usual, for example, "http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/Void_main". It's not even https.

Now, I'll ask a question.
I want to know the opinions of which article about indentation is the better one:
http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/Indentation
or
http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/User:Elysia/Indentation
?

'Cause I'm wondering if we should use the current Indentation topic or my updated draft, once the formating is fixed.

zacs7: For some reason, all of the files on cpwiki are owned by you. Though they are owned by the cpwiki group, the permissions are rw-r--r--, so I can't create any files on the server. I uploaded the cpwiki logo to dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/cpwiki.png, but I'd appreciate it if you could upload it to cpwiki.sf.net as soon as possible. And maybe change those permissions as well . . . .

In short: cpwiki has a new logo. Like it?

It's not that bad. I don't think it fits 100% with the layout, however.
Still, it's better than nothing, so good work!

Does anyone actually read this http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/User_t...ia/Indentation?
The question still remains which article would be preferred to be used as indentation faq, and whether it's better to rename it coding style practices.

The question still remains which article would be preferred to be used as indentation faq, and whether it's better to rename it coding style practices.

We should pick the best of both and merge it into one entry, but that is easier said than done since "best" is subjective.

That said, Elysia, I noticed that you have been linking to your own private entry instead of the main entry. That defeats the purpose of a wiki, since now it is effectively your personal help page.

Originally Posted by laserlight

That said, Elysia, I noticed that you have been linking to your own private entry instead of the main entry. That defeats the purpose of a wiki, since now it is effectively your personal help page.

It's difficult to do this. I feel the "main" one is lacking and isn't updated very often, so I've been carefully linking to my draft. I especially want to find out if newbies find one or the other easier.
Once we have a clear answer and only one article, my "draft" will be removed.
It's testing, so to speak. Trying to figure out what needs to be in and how to word it. Shouldn't play around with testing and such in the main wiki entry.

When I log in to the Wiki, my URLs are the same as usual, for example, "http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/Void_main".

hmm... the problem seems to be fixed.

I feel the "main" one is lacking and isn't updated very often, so I've been carefully linking to my draft.

Why not attempt to merge your extra content with the main article? At most it will be edited.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Why not attempt to merge your extra content with the main article? At most it will be edited.

I'm not 100% sure I can do that. I feel mostly that my own wiki entry has all that is needed and that the "main" does not contribute anything to my own. This is mostly why I asked which one should be used. The only thing I'm not 100% happy with is the list of pros/cons with tabs/spaces. I don't know how to make a table and no one else has edited to add a table either.

I feel mostly that my own wiki entry has all that is needed and that the "main" does not contribute anything to my own. This is mostly why I asked which one should be used.

Actually, I think that the main thing missing from your draft entry is the important idea of reasonable consistency over rigid rules. This emphasis on consistency is how Sutter and Alexandrescu address the issue in C++ Coding Standards. Of course, they have a different target audience from us, so we need to do more hand holding by giving examples, listing pros and cons, etc, but I think that ultimately it is a reasonable consistency that matters most.

The only thing I'm not 100% happy with is the list of pros/cons with tabs/spaces. I don't know how to make a table and no one else has edited to add a table either.

Actually, the comparison is in a table that I added. Perhaps it needs to have visible borders to be more obviously a table. You can read Wikipedia's help page on tables to learn how to make your own tables.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Actually, I think that the main thing missing from your draft entry is the important idea of reasonable consistency over rigid rules. This emphasis on consistency is how Sutter and Alexandrescu address the issue in C++ Coding Standards. Of course, they have a different target audience from us, so we need to do more hand holding by giving examples, listing pros and cons, etc, but I think that ultimately it is a reasonable consistency that matters most.

Thanks for the suggestion.
Though I'm not sure on how you want the layout changed.
A note that consistency is very important? Keep all the examples consistent?
I love feedback and suggestions and work very hard to incorporate them.

Actually, the comparison is in a table that I added. Perhaps it needs to have visible borders to be more obviously a table. You can read Wikipedia's help page on tables to learn how to make your own tables.

Thanks for the link. I'll look into it and see if I can make some tables.

There are many, many, graphics libraries to choose from. One of the more popular 2D ones is the SDL. The SDL is a "multimedia toolkit" with support for audio, video, cdrom, mouse, joystick, and timer support. Another is Allegro.

Most people reading this page don't need to know about a 3D graphics library, but anyhow. The most popular 3D graphics libraries are OpenGL and DirectX. 3D graphics is many, many times more difficult than 2D graphics

This is a completely biased statement. First off it's impossible to say that SDL is the 'most popular' 2D library out there when there are about 2 books I even know of about SDL and hundreds and hundreds for using 2D in 3D with OGL or D3D. I would even say that Allegro beats SDL in popularity.

Second DirectX is NOT for graphics. DirectX represents the sum total of sound (until Vista and DX 12/2007), input, and graphics. Direct3D is a component of DirectX and can be used for either 2D graphics or 3D graphics but as a whole Direct3D has absolutely 100% nothing to do with the rest of DirectX. Several popular multimedia apps use the DirectSound component of DirectX and/or the DirectMusic component of DirectX, but not Direct3D and yet they still are DirectX applications. Since Microsoft's Component Object Model is all about components that make up the whole saying that DirectX is just for graphics is a misnomer. Some may think it's not important enought to quibble about but I assure you it is.

To say that 3D graphics is many many many more times harder than 2D is a rather biased statement as well. Because you have to work against the hardware now to even do 2D graphics it would be my suggestion to recommend people start with a book and learn 3D. Once they have mastered the fundamental concepts of D3D and/or OGL then I would recommend tackling 2D. This may sound backwards and it is, but 3D is so simple because every piece of hardware and every API out there can do it in a snap. 2D is not so simple and often you have to really understand the hardware to achieve the 2D effect you want. I highly doubt this would be for beginners.
You can't just 'blit' and use color keys anymore so doing 2D in 3D is a lot more complicated than one might think.

On modern hardware 2D is actually harder than 3D. 3D amounts to loading up a mesh, loading the texture, rendering and you are done. For 2D you have to either use FVF legacy's in D3D or you have to find a way to create a projection matrix that always resolves to the 4th quadrant. This means you will have a non-standard projection matrix and several other popular algorithms as they are will completely fail with this derived projection matrix.

2D is NOT easier than 3D given the current hardware and APIs. From a mathematical standpoint it is far easier now to find articles on just about every question you may have in 3D. I'm finding that 2D articles are harder and harder to find.

This paragraph does not represent what I would say the general consensus is on the game forum here, on gamedev, or in the hobby game programming world. In my paragraph OpenGL and Direct3D would be at the top with maybe of mention of SDL and Allegro near the end.

Bubba:
This is the kind of things that definitely need to go on the article's talk page. As for your points, for the most part, I agree - I've been looking at that article wanting a rewrite for a couple days. To be fair, the article said "more popular", and not "most". I've given the article a complete rewrite - let's post addition comments there, and whip it into a better article than it was.

I'll take you up on the issue of 2D being harder than 3D - 3D is many times moreover harder. However, this is a POV statement (it's my opinion, obviously) and probably shouldn't be in the wiki. But: 3D has much more math, harder content creation (textures and models, etc), harder collision/physics, etc. There is nowhere near the plethora of tools for 3D content creation as there is for 2D. Additionally, mathwise, 2D is downright simple, and most of it boils down to loading a few images and blitting them to the appropriate location. Libraries such as SDL (never touched DirectX) make 2D fairly simple stuff. Allegro even more so.