He said something happened and fonts got messed up so the client uses whatever font it can find or something.Quote:
The hell is with your text on that client o.O
CO++ Project
05/12/2012 09:25
Kiyono#16
05/12/2012 23:14
Nullable#17
A few comments,
It would be much more efficient/elegant if you'd rely on a scalable, robust solution such as boost::asio. It'd be much better than select()ing on sockets one at a time, which is pretty inefficient, select() doesn't scale well as it is anyway...
Also, this is definitely not ISO-C++. It looks like "C with classes" style to me, ISO-C++ is pretty damn elegant.
While you're at cleaning it up, and since you seem to be aiming at portability, why don't you start the C++11 movement around here? I mean the memory model is finally standardized and you won't have much trouble with multi-threaded code, so it would be really awesome if you would do the transition.
Oh and, nothing is wrong with C++ iostreams, really. Shaving up a few cpu cycles through early optimizations isn't going to help in the long run, especially when you're sacrificing both readability and safety for those cycles which are probably going to be wasted somewhere else anyway.
That's just my opinion, though.
It would be much more efficient/elegant if you'd rely on a scalable, robust solution such as boost::asio. It'd be much better than select()ing on sockets one at a time, which is pretty inefficient, select() doesn't scale well as it is anyway...
Also, this is definitely not ISO-C++. It looks like "C with classes" style to me, ISO-C++ is pretty damn elegant.
While you're at cleaning it up, and since you seem to be aiming at portability, why don't you start the C++11 movement around here? I mean the memory model is finally standardized and you won't have much trouble with multi-threaded code, so it would be really awesome if you would do the transition.
Oh and, nothing is wrong with C++ iostreams, really. Shaving up a few cpu cycles through early optimizations isn't going to help in the long run, especially when you're sacrificing both readability and safety for those cycles which are probably going to be wasted somewhere else anyway.
That's just my opinion, though.
05/12/2012 23:39
bone-you#18
I'll check it out, but I like to avoid boost like the plague. While it is cross platform, stable, and powerful, it is a giant pain in the ass to get functional on systems from my past experiences many years ago. Might have improved since, but it left a bad taste in my mouth lol. I'll look into it though. As for C++11, I'd have to look into the changes as I stopped keeping up with it a while ago.Quote:
It would be much more efficient/elegant if you'd rely on a scalable, robust solution such as boost::asio. It'd be much better than select()ing on sockets one at a time, which is pretty inefficient, select() doesn't scale well as it is anyway...
Also, this is definitely not ISO-C++. It looks like "C with classes" style to me, ISO-C++ is pretty damn elegant.
While you're at cleaning it up, and since you seem to be aiming at portability, why don't you start the C++11 movement around here? I mean the memory model is finally standardized and you won't have much trouble with multi-threaded code, so it would be really awesome if you would do the transition.
Oh and, nothing is wrong with C++ iostreams, really. Shaving up a few cpu cycles through early optimizations isn't going to help in the long run, especially when you're sacrificing both readability and safety for those cycles which are probably going to be wasted somewhere else anyway.
That's just my opinion, though.