We should get all optimisations set first too.

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

I am going to use basic syntax thats going to be very simple (so we can finish a basic functional version first.)

Right now the process is low-level:

Source code -> Tokenize -> Bytecode -> Run

Later it will be high-level:

Source code -> Lexer (tokenize but more steps) -> Parser -> AST -> Constant Folding -> Constant propagation -> Bytecode -> Run

This is why I decided to make a low-level version first. High-level is very hard, especially AST and Constant Folding/Propagation.

Okay. Anyway, know the problem to the sorting? It’s 100% not a normal sorting issue (triangle average). It would cause bugs, but a very minimal amount of them. Triangles overlapping from the back should be impossible, but it’s possible from the side.

extremely_random_guy wrote:

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

I am going to use basic syntax thats going to be very simple (so we can finish a basic functional version first.)

Right now the process is low-level:

Source code -> Tokenize -> Bytecode -> Run

Later it will be high-level:

Source code -> Lexer (tokenize but more steps) -> Parser -> AST -> Constant Folding -> Constant propagation -> Bytecode -> Run

This is why I decided to make a low-level version first. High-level is very hard, especially AST and Constant Folding/Propagation.

Okay. Anyway, know the problem to the sorting? It’s 100% not a normal sorting issue (triangle average). It would cause bugs, but a very minimal amount of them. Triangles overlapping from the back should be impossible, but it’s possible from the side.

alr, you should try debugging.

extremely_random_guy wrote:

Tsarjosh wrote:

YOU DONT GET IT (cries)

get what?

I am positive that it is faster but can't convince anyone

Tsarjosh wrote:

extremely_random_guy wrote:

Tsarjosh wrote:

YOU DONT GET IT (cries)

get what?

I am positive that it is faster but can't convince anyone

I don’t really care all that much.

Tsarjosh wrote:

extremely_random_guy wrote:

Tsarjosh wrote:

YOU DONT GET IT (cries)

get what?

I am positive that it is faster but can't convince anyone

You should do some research; in your example, you have to check and return a value from a variable twice. In the other one you have to do it once. What's so hard to understand? I have optimised many engines, and this is a very basic optimisation.

omg, this 3d stuff is stumping me….

PSIstudios wrote:

omg, this 3d stuff is stumping me….

might be complicated.

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

PSIstudios wrote:

omg, this 3d stuff is stumping me….

might be complicated.

Should I just take on all the 3D by myself? I feel bad, because I’m essentially taking on 70% of everything.

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

I’m probably multiple years younger than you are, actually. I just studied a few years ahead in maths, physics and 3D.

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

And plus, I know how embarrassing it can feel. But, being at the start only means you’ve got a longer, and more fun journey than everyone else, so just take it slow and enjoy it.

I am going to wait for the editor to be complete, like after fixing bugs, so I can integrate a script editor. I unironically have multiple programming languages, but I have to choose one.

I have changed my mind.

“STORE HELLO 5
MUL HELLO HELLO 3
STORE A HELLO
PRINT A”

is not that cool.

I am making a programming language that does:

var hello = 5
var hello = hello * 3
var a = hello
print(a)

kinda like python.

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

If you want to learn 3D in Scratch, then just try creating one. Try one of @mathmathmath's or @CodingBio's tutorials. Then, try creating one without a tutorial. You will get used to it.

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

If you want to learn 3D in Scratch, then just try creating one. Try one of @mathmathmath's or @CodingBio's tutorials. Then, try creating one without a tutorial. You will get used to it.

Yes, that’s the best method. It’s where I started out, too.

extremely_random_guy wrote:

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

If you want to learn 3D in Scratch, then just try creating one. Try one of @mathmathmath's or @CodingBio's tutorials. Then, try creating one without a tutorial. You will get used to it.

Yes, that’s the best method. It’s where I started out, too.

Same though I am not as good as you in 3D.

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

extremely_random_guy wrote:

THEIMPORTANT wrote:

PSIstudios wrote:

i need to learn 3D more, I'm in high school and still dont know how to do 3D well, its embarassing.

If you want to learn 3D in Scratch, then just try creating one. Try one of @mathmathmath's or @CodingBio's tutorials. Then, try creating one without a tutorial. You will get used to it.

Yes, that’s the best method. It’s where I started out, too.

Same though I am not as good as you in 3D.

Just along the way, you’ll probably feel like it’s too hard and eventually feel like giving up, but just push through. Kind of like how when you learn an instrument, you feel like it’s impossible and end up giving up. Just try to learn more about 3D, and eventually, many concepts will seem simple to you. You can use other peoples algorithms if you want, like how I always use @-Rex-Test- ‘s Quicksort and @KryptoAlt ‘s Azex filler. I spent roughly 1.5 years trying to learn about 3D, almost giving up; well I actually did give up for a bit, and then continued, but just don’t.
Must feel really correct when words of wisdom come from some kid who just happens to be good at 3D, huh?
Yeah no, your mentality is probably way stronger than mine.