From:	Asbjørn <lordcrc AT hotmail DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Quake vs. Demos
Date:	Sun, 01 Jun 1997 03:19:25 +0200
Organization:	Cyber Science Technologies
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<3390CE1D.4160@hotmail.com>
References:	<199705302154 DOT QAA24261 AT sendit DOT sendit DOT NoDak DOT edu>
Reply-To:	lordcrc AT hotmail DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host:	nm25-12.ppp.sn.no
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Adam W Lee wrote:
> Now, just because he doesn't have pretty code doesn't mean he's not a good
> programmer...  In fact, I hate pretty code.  C++ is the embodiment of
> pretty code, and it sucks.

Ehrm, why is it that most scene coders i've spoken with use it? Of coz
in combo
with asm.
 
> And to defend myself on the 3D of Quake...  Sure, it's some decent 3D, and
> sure, Carmack does know what he's doing, but plain and simple, I've seen
> Demo coders do more stuff than him, faster than him, and make it look
> better than him.  demo (itsdemo.exe or .zip I believe), LOOK at it.

Anyone care to explain why the Quake engine is so much better than the
Descent
engine? I can't see it...

-- 
- Asbjørn / Lord Crc

http://home.sn.no/~bheid/
lordcrc AT hotmail DOT com

- Raw text -