dukenukem3d
.NET Runtime
Our great sponsors
dukenukem3d | .NET Runtime | |
---|---|---|
3 | 608 | |
151 | 14,091 | |
- | 2.5% | |
10.0 | 10.0 | |
over 10 years ago | 5 days ago | |
C++ | C# | |
- | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
dukenukem3d
-
Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed
A while ago most people thought QuakeWorld was the first game to do client-side prediction. Carmack has a .plan from 1996 talking about it so there's a clear reference.
But one day I went to the wiki page for client-side prediction and it said Duke Nukem 3D was first which I thought was curious, so I checked the reference on it and it was a recent interview with Ken Silverman - creator of the Build engine that DN3D ran on - which clearly stated DN3D was first:
> "People may point out that Quake’s networking code was better due to its drop-in networking support, [but] it did not support client side prediction in the beginning,” he explains. “That’s something I had come up with first and implemented in the January 1996 release of Duke 3D shareware."
Pretty unfair for Ken, I thought, that everyone’s got the wrong idea that it’s QuakeWorld. Since the source is available, with the help of Hacker News we even found the code for it in game.c[0].
To be a good citizen I went back over to the Wikipedia page and added a link to the source code to help solidify the claim. But while I was there I went back and read the interview again, and noticed a part I’d skimmed the first time:
> "It kind of pisses me off that the Wikipedia page article on ‘client side prediction’ gives credit to Quakeworld due to a lack of credible citations about Duke 3D."
I wondered if and when it had been changed from saying Duke 3D to QuakeWorld in the past (before eventually being changed back again sometime after the interview), so I went and had a look through the page history. It had been changed a few years ago. And the person who had removed it due to lack of any citations... was me.
[0] https://github.com/videogamepreservation/dukenukem3d/blob/ef...
-
The project with a single 11,000-line code file
Duke Nukem 3D had BUILD.C (6500 lines), ENGINE.C (8800 lines), and GAME.C (6000 lines).
-
What is the cleanest, most well written, best structured, open source C project you've seen?
I second the Quake games as well. Despite their age, the OG releases are still pretty timeless (especially compared to some of their contemporaries). You can read more about them on Fabien Sanglard's blog. He's done code reviews of Quake 1-3, Doom 1-3, Duke3D, and more.
.NET Runtime
-
Airline keeps mistaking 101-year-old woman for baby
It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.
It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).
Or they could use 4-digit years.
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148
-
The software industry rapidly convergng on 3 languages: Go, Rust, and JavaScript
These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.
Reference:
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...
- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...
- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)
-
The Performance Impact of C++'s `final` Keyword
Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].
Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.
* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity
[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)
-
Java 23: The New Features Are Officially Announced
If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...
CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.
-
Locally test and validate your Renovate configuration files
DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }
-
Chrome Feature: ZSTD Content-Encoding
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591
Support zstd Content-Encoding:
- Writing x86 SIMD using x86inc.asm (2017)
-
Why choose async/await over threads?
We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.
There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.
Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620
-
Redis License Changed
https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.
-
Garnet – A new remote cache-store from Microsoft Research
Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.
Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.
To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)
[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...
What are some alternatives?
EVE-IPH - Code for the EVE Isk per Hour program
Ryujinx - Experimental Nintendo Switch Emulator written in C#
xbps - The X Binary Package System (XBPS)
ASP.NET Core - ASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.
oletools - oletools - python tools to analyze MS OLE2 files (Structured Storage, Compound File Binary Format) and MS Office documents, for malware analysis, forensics and debugging.
actix-web - Actix Web is a powerful, pragmatic, and extremely fast web framework for Rust.
Asterisk - The official Asterisk Project repository.
WASI - WebAssembly System Interface
CoreCLR - CoreCLR is the runtime for .NET Core. It includes the garbage collector, JIT compiler, primitive data types and low-level classes.
vgpu_unlock - Unlock vGPU functionality for consumer grade GPUs.
runtimelab - This repo is for experimentation and exploring new ideas that may or may not make it into the main dotnet/runtime repo.
dotnet-wasi-sdk - Packages for building .NET projects as standalone WASI-compliant modules