Jump to content

check inside bunch of objects package


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1177 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

Then I give good suggestion for Linden Lab, change this package with ZIP and then all becomes just fine.

Oh dear

Well...I tried, and I fear that's about as far as my patience on this subject can go, lol.

So..umm...good luck with that :D

Edited by Tari Landar
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here. A little list of a few things to get you started: HEALTHCARE CAT Scans Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) Infrared Ear Thermometers Artificial Limbs Foil blanket

Enough squabbling, kids. If you want to play the age card, I'm 71 and have been writing programs since the mid-1960s.  I would not be so bold as to call myself a professional -- just a physical chemis

Believe it, and move on.  SL's asset server system is not a ZIP archive.

Posted Images

14 hours ago, Ernesto Perez said:

But I still dont believe there is not tool for showing package content and rezzing only one object from package. Its sound exactly the same way as "you cant look inside ZIP archive and extract only one file"....its just weird.

 

10 hours ago, Ernesto Perez said:

Then I give good suggestion for Linden Lab, change this package with ZIP and then all becomes just fine.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time, and assume that you genuinely don't get this, rather than that you're being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to troll us.

You seem unable to grasp two basic concepts that people are trying to explain to you here:

  1. Linden Lab cannot just "change this package with ZIP" (or any other similar system) without rewriting a ridiculous amount of code architecture and probably breaking a great deal of legacy content.
  2. A ZIP file is a single container that holds many objects (eg: a single linkset that holds many prims - to use an older SL building term), whereas a Second Life coalesced object is a collection of many containers that hold many objects (eg: many linksets that hold many prims).

Try this thought experiment. In it, you are alone and have nobody else to help you with the task that you're set:

1. You are carrying one shoe box containing lots of small items. The shoe box is unlabelled. You have no idea what's in it. This is your ZIP file analogy, from which you can open and extract a single file. (I don't know which archiver you're using, by the way, but I most certainly can extract a single file from a ZIP.)

How do you find out what's in it?

Answer: You hold it in one hand and use the other hand to take off the lid.

Now this one:

2. You are carrying a stack of 15 shoe boxes, piled on top of each other. (Don't drop them!) Each shoe box contains lots of small items. The shoe boxes are unlabelled. You have no idea what's in any of them. This is the Second Life coalesced object: many containers (linksets) each holding many objects (prims).

See that shoe box fourth from the top of the pile, right up near the ceiling? How do you find out what's in it (without dropping the boxes all over the place)?

Answer: You can only find out what's in it by putting the boxes down (eg: rezzing everything) so you can find the one that you want to look inside and open it.

If you still don't understand why Linden Lab can't just "change with ZIP" their entire inventory architecture, then I don't know what else to say to you, and I'll have to assume that you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're just... well... O.o

Edited by Skell Dagger
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

Linden Lab cannot just "change this package with ZIP" 

Im old assembler programmer, for me dont exist "just cannot program". For me all is possible. Its bad programmer who say "its not possible"

Edited by Ernesto Perez
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

 

Linden Lab cannot just "change this package with ZIP" (or any other similar system) without rewriting a ridiculous amount of code architecture and probably breaking a great deal of legacy content.

Im old assembler programmer, for me dont exist "just cannot program". For me all is possible. Its bad programmer who say "its not possible". And when Linden reads this....then dont talk, but just do it. Its simple - no talk, just program (to show content).

Edited by Ernesto Perez
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skell Dagger said:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time, and assume that you genuinely don't get this, rather than that you're being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to troll us.

have al look here :  landforum, you might want to rethink about this line.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

For me all is possible. Its bad programmer who say "its not possible". 

Many people on the forums are programmers Ernesto. Maybe more than you could imagine. And we see how fraught with danger your proposal is. This is a 15 year old database structure over many terabytes, and it contains real money. People get angry, very angry, if their real money is lost.

 

Yes, anything is possible, but a bad programmer is one who doesn't plan their changes and just rushes in with dirty boots like a hobbyist.

 

The Lab have a list of changes planned for the next few years, things like EEP and Animesh, enhancements to the baking projects and more. Maybe one day they will do a system to peek inside a conglomeration, but it won't be for a very long time, and it would be done with a lot of planning, proper change control, and a lot of PIV.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you program things correctly, nothing becomes lost. Im old man now, but I see nr1 problem with young programmer - not imagination. Its because they use interpreted languages. They think something can lost, they can only choose between choices, they are not itself designers. And then things becomes lost also in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ernesto Perez said:

 Its because they use interpreted languages.

SL is written in C++

And you clearly have no more idea about it than a horse and carriage maker does about electric cars.

Edited by Callum Meriman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Callum Meriman said:

SL is written in C++

And you clearly have no more idea about it than a horse and carriage maker does about electric cars.

Its not my job, I dont need to know this, its Linden job and its not interest me. Me interest only rezzers and now I think I plan in future further develop my rezzer, to next version, but not soon. Or maybe I start writing ORB instead. Because I like ORB-s.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I nearly always prefer to give benefit of the doubt, even when the vast majority of evidence suggests I ought to do otherwise.

But this is most definitely where my oh dear, surely applies. 

Your trolling skills, they are a pity

2b560be62fe980c8c5ab47e2be082cfb.png.711b40863913e97575211b0be002f222.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read some of Ernesto's posts in this thread, and I read some from the 'land' thread that was linked to, and I've arrived at some things that I suspect about him. He said that he's quite old, that he can programme in Assembly language, and he also he indicated that he thinks people programme in interpreted languages, so here's what I suspect about that...

He is quite old now, and he wrote small programmes in BASIC and Assembly - back in the 1980s! BASIC was the most popular General Purpose language at that time, and it was an interpreted language, but it became a compiled language in the 1990s. Since that change, I doubt that anyone has written in an interpreted language, but Ernesto thinks that such languages are still used, which leads me to suspect that he was just a kid, who played with programming on a home computer back in the 1980s, that he hasn't done any programming since then, and that his claims to be a programmer really mean that he wrote some small stuff a very long time ago - just like millions of other kids did at that time - both BASIC and Assembly. I ought to point out that the cleverer ones wrote in machine code at that time :)

I don't fault his thinking that good (RL) money can be made in SL. I imagine that most people would think that if they hadn't come across it, because SL does not give the impression of being a serious money-maker. But, through the years, some people have made some very good money here. I used to make between US$4000 and US$5000 every month, and others have made, and are making, much more than that. Mostly, though, like Ernesto, nobody would suspect that it's even possible.

My last suspicion about Ernesto is that he loves to argue, just for the sake of it :D

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

I dont know Basic. I know only TASM, MASM, Borland C and Borland C++ and thats all. Ok, now also LSL and all. And I wasnt programmed, except LSL, since year 2000 no any line. 

Now you can be computer scientist, in Second Life game!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it was just C and Assembly. Then why did you even mention interpreted languages? C was never an interpreted one. Perhaps you were never all that into programming and didn't realise that interpreted languages went out with the ark. Still, going only from what you've written, my suspicions were quite good, don't you think? I was very proud of them. I thought they were on a par with Sherlock himself :D

 

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet I can beat you on the age thing, Love :)

I didn't start programming until the mid 80s when home computers came out, and I was far from being a spring chicken then lol. I haven't stopped programming since then. Over the years, it's always been my main hobby, and sometimes it's been my livelihood too.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

So it was just C and Assembly. The why did you even mention interpreted languages? :D

 

 

Because interpreted languages are crap (they produce crap software) and for using them longer damages also your logical thinking and imagination. Its 100% sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

I bet I can beat you on the age thing, Love :)

I didn't start programming until the mid 80s, and I was no spring chicken then lol. I haven't stopped programming since then.

I started keying in programs on the HP at my dad’s office in the late 70’s, but I was in my early teens then. You beat me at the old game!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

Because interpreted languages are crap (they produce crap software) and for using them longer damages also your logical thinking and imagination. Its 100% sure.

But nobody has used them since BASIC became compiled, and yet you posted that people still use them. You're only almost 30 years of date, so you either didn't know through never really being into programming, or you intentionally chose to be objectionable.

Incidentally, interpreted languages were never crap and never produced crap programmes. They ran more slowly, that's all. You really don't know anything about it, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

Normal programming is in OOP (object oriented programming) with inline assembly.

OOP is good. So what's your point? For all the world itI looks like you're looking stuff up on the web and posting what you find as though you know stuff. That's my latest suspicion about you.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ernesto Perez said:

Normal programming is in OOP (object oriented programming) with inline assembly.

Incidentally, in the 90s I wrote some very major hybrid programmes in 'compiled' BASIC with both what you call 'inline assembly', except mine was inline machine code, and called major chunks of machine code. You're not scoring any points here. You know that don't you? Especially since you don't seem to know anything much about it all.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

But nobody has used them since BASIC became compiled, and yet you posted that people still use them. You're only almost 30 years of date, so you either didn't know through never really being into programming, or you intentionally chose to be objectionable.

Incidentally, interpreted languages were never crap and never produced crap programmes. They ran more slowly, that's all. You really don't know anything about it, do you?

Believe me, they are crap and when you use them, also you becomes crap. Just believe me, I dont lie. Interpreted languages lost programming dynamic. They just stuck in place.......But about LSL. Its no problem. Because its just game, entertainment. Its not work. LSL is fine when you dont work anymore and want something that only remembers you programming, just for nostalgya. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1177 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...