pouët.net

*** 100 ***

Pretty impressive, this thread managed to grow to about 60 posts before totally going down the drain. But looks like it is too late now.

fear my cock stelthz!!!

IMHO, Werkkzeung is really a programming language. If you use a program like Photo Shop, you are editing pixels directly. That's painting. If you use a program like Werkkzeung, you are telling the computer how to edit the pixels. That's programming.

The graphician of the future is really a coder. They don't know it, though, because "demo tool" sounds more friendly than "programming language."

Coders will live forever, although their language may change.

RIGHT.

piece of shit you yes. you.

poor little insecure lator wants to protect his cookie

well, I almost agrees with stefan.. ;-) Calling Werkzeug a programming language just because you tell the computer how to do something is a little bit far fetched, don't you think?? In Aardbei's texture tool you are also telling the computer how it should edit pixels and I wouldn't call that a language either. ;-D
Perhaps we all have different definitions for the same things.

Now is something like http://vvvv.meso.net a language or not? Why would *programming* languages be only eligible if they are composed of ascii characters and come originally from Aarhus?

programming languages get compiled.
werkkzeug is scripting and is interpreted.

Gargaj: oh really? Python is not a programming language? And C interpreter Cint? And there are programming languages in which you can code graphically - see Smalltalk. And being interpreted or not simply does not matter to the language definition.

I say 2 things and you all shut up. (1) WERKZEUG IS NOT TURING COMPLETE. (unless someone can prove otherwise which i doubt) (2) WERKZEUG DOES NOT HAVE FACILITIES TO CREATE NEW LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION.

Which doesn't mean that it cannot be seen as a programing language, it just cannot rule out turing complete languages with abstraction capabilities.

A programming language or computer language is a standardized communication technique for expressing instructions to a computer. It is a set of syntactic and semantic rules used to define computer programs. A language enables a programmer to precisely specify what data a computer will act upon, how these data will be stored/transmitted, and precisely what actions to take under various circumstances.

So if you consider the graphical output instead of "the computer" then maybe.

how can the "new coders" create new kick ass tools with that "new programming language"?

i don't like to use tools, made by other - very talented people! -, to make demos.

Although, werkkzeug and a.d.d.i.c.t. are a great work.

you're all ant fuckers. this is so much like the "is dos an operating system" crap we had earlier and we all know the answer: it doesn't matter.

Exactly. People could argue forever about definitions and never agree. I don't fucking care if Werkkzeung is a programming language or not. Nobody else should either. All I want to do here is point out another way of looking at it.

although it is not at all important or even interesting, but:

(1) WERKZEUG IS NOT TURING COMPLETE

- some cellular automata ("lifegame") _are_ turing complete (even in 1d, b&w)
- hopefully you can make that in werkkzeug
- stfu

is that supposed to suggest it _is_ turing complete?

Being able to emulate a Turing complete machine is one of the defintions of Turing completeness. I haven't used werkzeug myself, but if it is possible to implement the game of life algorithmically (not just by running a precomputed scenario) in it, then it is indeed turing complete.

It might be that the whole demo can perform arbitrary calculations when left running for an infinite time, but the same might not apply for generating a single frame. Subjecting the latter to a halting problem isn't terribly desirable feature from the gui pov.

if coding made you happy, like in my case, coders will never die. and mostly coders know how to use their effects to make a fast demo. i don't like demos which are very good in design but in code its qbasic style. please make good demos, which means fast and nice.

and asm is still alive. try to do effective use of mmx, sse1 and sse2 or 3dnow! in e.g. pure c++. yes you can do it but normally you can code with out these extentions and have the same speed.

last words:
make good demo in demotools AND brilliant demos by writting code

blala: no, not really. unless it was specially implemented as a part of werkzeug (iirc it wasn't), but then it's just one domain, e.g. texture generation. If loops, arrays, and mutability (one good possibility for Turing completeness) would be possible on all objects, now THEN i think it would be complete. Like, it's not impossible to do a useful, general and powerful, graphical programming language, but it's just simply not the purpose.

stfu

argh, branching as well

we need teh edit button

gargaj: nit picking, programming languages doesn't get compiled, source code get compiled. source code may be written in a specific programming language :-)

eye: well i don't know if it is possible to make a lifegame demo in werkkzeug; but if it is (say, using shaders or whatever), then the starting image contains the "code", and it is indeed turing complete. the branches and all other stuff are encoded in a jpg or something similar (you may prefer lossless compression :)
of course, werkkzeug won't handle images of any size but i don't consider that a serious flaw

makes me wonder if one can code game of life in shaders... hm :)

Eh? Frogger was done in pixel shaders 2.0. And frogger is at least game-complete. www.beyond3d.com/articles/shadercomp/results/