.NET Core 1.0 released today
-
-
@masonwheeler womm. But then I also installed the opentk core package.
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@Magus said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
I did a thing!
Undeclared identifier: 'GameWindow'
I misread this as, "I did a thing! I made this error message appear!"
Which was more funny than what actually happened here.
-
@Magus said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler womm. But then I also installed the opentk core package.
But with no
using
statements at the top of your code, how is anyone reading it to know that?
-
@Magus said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
So, since OpenTK works with .Net Core, I tried messing around with porting an old thing I did right out of uni to it and...
It worked. Perfectly.
However, apparently the entire way everyone interacted with OpenGL was deprecated in version 3.1, so I should probably learn the new version...
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@Magus said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler womm. But then I also installed the opentk core package.
But with no
using
statements at the top of your code, how is anyone reading it to know that?Most likely the above.
-
-
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
at least he didn't accuse me of liking Windows ME
I will openly admit to liking Windows Me. This was a case where nearly all the problems actually were vendor crapware.
-
@FrostCat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Follow the idiots and you will win!
What will I win?
EVERYTHING!
-
@FrostCat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
I will openly admit to liking Windows Me. This was a case where nearly all the problems actually were vendor crapware.
All Windows problems can be blamed on vendor crapware or Linux hardware
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
that is not what quads are used for?
Quads are for displaying flat squares and rectangles.Huh? There are a lot of 3D models in the real world that contain only quads. If you have an arbitrary 3D shape made up of quads, a lot of them are going to be non-flat. People even consider using only quads to be a desireable feature — better smoothing, easier to UV map. Maybe by the time OpenGL sees them (I'm not that familiar with OpenGL), they've been decomposed into triangles, but in general quads are very much used for non-flat surfaces.
-
@HardwareGeek said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
that is not what quads are used for?
Quads are for displaying flat squares and rectangles.Huh? There are a lot of 3D models in the real world that contain only quads. If you have an arbitrary 3D shape made up of quads, a lot of them are going to be non-flat. People even consider using only quads to be a desireable feature — better smoothing, easier to UV map. Maybe by the time OpenGL sees them (I'm not that familiar with OpenGL), they've been decomposed into triangles, but in general quads are very much used for non-flat surfaces.
If something's not flat, how do you represent it unambiguously with only 4 vertices?
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
If something's not flat, how do you represent it unambiguously with only 4 vertices?
You don't. But you can decompose into triangles via various algorithms.
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@HardwareGeek said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
that is not what quads are used for?
Quads are for displaying flat squares and rectangles.Huh? There are a lot of 3D models in the real world that contain only quads. If you have an arbitrary 3D shape made up of quads, a lot of them are going to be non-flat. People even consider using only quads to be a desireable feature — better smoothing, easier to UV map. Maybe by the time OpenGL sees them (I'm not that familiar with OpenGL), they've been decomposed into triangles, but in general quads are very much used for non-flat surfaces.
If something's not flat, how do you represent it unambiguously with only 4 vertices?
:head_asplode:
-
@error said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
If something's not flat, how do you represent it unambiguously with only 4 vertices?
:head_asplode:
Exactly.
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@error said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
If something's not flat, how do you represent it unambiguously with only 4 vertices?
:head_asplode:
Exactly.
obviously it encodes both of those vertex meshes, creating a four sided polyhedron from 4 vertices, each vertex participating in 3 different facets.
tuh!
-
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
obviously it encodes both of those vertex meshes, creating a four sided polyhedron from 4 vertices, each vertex participating in 3 different facets.
You could always use an interpolation algorithm to recreate a splined surface between the limit points. That would then be converted to a mesh of triangles, but that's a later processing step.
-
How about we just use triangles and forget about quads?
Filed under: Drink until you can't remember the quads., Quads, check 'em.
-
@blakeyrat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@fbmac Why does a "hello world" console app need to "restore package dependencies", this release is horseshit. What possible "package dependencies" could it have?
They're basically going full left-pad here, which is good news for us, because NuGet has some unique logic for dependency resolution. It goes does something like this: "if you specify version 6, then request version 7. if version 7 is returned, then request version 8 and 9. Then request version 6. If version 6 is returned, request version 6. Then request 6 again. Then install version 6."
Add that up to the 50 packages required for a hello world app, and a NuGet package restore is a DoS on your own network. Fortunately you can load balance your private repository!
-
@apapadimoulis said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
They're basically going full left-pad here, which is good news for us, because NuGet has some unique logic for dependency resolution. It goes does something like this: "if you specify version 6, then request version 7. if version 7 is returned, then request version 8 and 9. Then request version 6. If version 6 is returned, request version 6. Then request 6 again. Then install version 6."
Citation?
-
@apapadimoulis I'm not sure how deeply leftpad they're going, since most of the BCL and LINQ and such are all in the core. Probably large features like ASP.NET? I don't know, maybe they're smaller than I've observed thus far, and/or broken into even smaller pieces.
-
@masonwheeler said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Citation?
Well it's all open source (though the code is obfuscated)... but just attach Fiddler and watch the magic happen.
@Magus said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
I'm not sure how deeply leftpad they're going, since most of the BCL and LINQ and such are all in the core. Probably large features like ASP.NET?
I'm not sure I'd consider integers, Booleans, and strings to be a "large feature", though thankfully they've bundled those primitive types into just a single library (System.Runtime) for now. Though I guess now you can now have your .NET application use a less "opinionated" string.
-
@apapadimoulis said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Though I guess now you can now have your .NET application use a less "opinionated" string.
That'll never fly around here.