|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Intrest in a Java port? (Read 2330 times)
|
WarlockD
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 1
|
Not sure where to ask but I was looking at the general itnrest of a Java port of this game. I was just kind of messing with it right now (Creating a class to access the uqm files, finished making a global flag class, etc) and wondering if there is a good need for it?
I mean if anything it will make the code smaller and easyer to manage and be easyer to port on other platforms. Just like to hear some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
I fail to see how JavaScript is an obvious choice...
But yeah, I don't think there'd be much interest in this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
I fail to see how JavaScript is an obvious choice... Well, it would be for me. I prefer to avoid proprietary plugins. You'd need HTML 5 features though, so it may not work on every browser, but that will only get better over time.
Personally, I would most like to see a version of UQM for web browsers. JavaScript or Flash would be the obvious choices for that, but a Java applet would be another option. Flash port using Adobe Alchemy might actually be doable. People have already ported Doom and at least parts of SDL with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Spurk
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 115
|
I'd want to do it in Javascript also, just for the universality of js. Of course, these days I use GWT for big js projects since it's so much more convenient. And GWT allows you to write Java code that gets compiled into Javascript, which brings us back to interest in a Java port. 
But I agree that you're basically starting over. You could keep some of the logical structures intact, but a well-designed Java app would have a different organization than the code currently has. For example, a lot of the global game state would be better placed in other places. Conversation stacks would go to its particular conversation class, and for the most part they don't need to be public.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
Java is no less universal than JavaScript, and probably more flexible.
Using Java forces you to place all functions inside a class. I'd say that in order to port to Java, it may be easier to convert the code to C++ first (since that allows you to move the functions into classes a few at a time).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Naw, just define a 'misc' class and make all the functions static members of it. Move them to proper homes as you figure them out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
...Well, sure, that could work too...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
In the (admittedly unlikely) event that I decided to take up the code, I'd probably convert it to C++ and try to generalize it so that mods can be created more easily. (I just prefer C++ to C, and I also like it better than Java.)
But yeah, I doubt I'll ever do that. Certainly not in the next five or ten years. Mainly because it is, as you say, pretty much finished and feature complete. Plus I'm involved in a different open source project for a game that the creator decided to release, which is barely getting started. And I'm in school, so time is hard to find.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
