Blade.dk2 Vexorian AND PitzerMike "lied" to me. And as I said, locations are faster if you DON'T take cleanup in consideration.
I never spoke about cleanup. I spoke about location creation. but since you want me to talk about it too , so be it. so in a general matter we use 0.04 timers , right ? so we got 25 calls per second. So,with locations you do : Create them , use them and remove them,omgwtf! and why shouldn't we take the cleanup into consideration? why? does the game ignore it for you blade ? it is something that makes locs<reals
Blade.dk2 Why? Because you only have to pass one single pointer to the function instead of two reals.
and who said parameters make the function slow ? ??? who ??? you give the function a pointer which contains 2 reals,where you could have given the reals directly. this is to me like a bj func.
Blade.dk2 And that location-taking functions call other function with the real value of the locations, doesn't make locations slower, only affects the funciton.
so ? if you use locations you will use functions that take locations and therefore make your locations behave slower. internally they might be not.but in fact they do are since when you use a function that takes location , the function you called calls the original function which takes the reals,so we got 1 extra worthless call to the original function. + 2 extremely worthless calls for using GetLocationX/Y means 3 calls. and you still call locations faster.
Blade.dk2 Here is your proof and tell me who lied to you?.
no one lied me. i work for more than a year with pc programming and i have enough knowledge to know a few things by myself. and not trying to copy what the others say.
Blade.dk2 And stop that offensive attitude, thank you.
Ok,thank you too,but your attidute is way more offensive than mine.
....
oh and btw you use reals by yourself instead of locations,doesn't that mean anything ?
Blade.dk2 Vexorian AND PitzerMike "lied" to me. And as I said, locations are faster if you DON'T take cleanup in consideration.
I never spoke about cleanup. I spoke about location creation. but since you want me to talk about it too , so be it. so in a general matter we use 0.04 timers , right ? so we got 25 calls per second. So,with locations you do : Create them , use them and remove them,omgwtf! and why shouldn't we take the cleanup into consideration? why? does the game ignore it for you blade ? it is something that makes locs<reals
Blade.dk2 Why? Because you only have to pass one single pointer to the function instead of two reals.
and who said parameters make the function slow ? ??? who ??? you give the function a pointer which contains 2 reals,where you could have given the reals directly. this is to me like a bj func.
Blade.dk2 And that location-taking functions call other function with the real value of the locations, doesn't make locations slower, only affects the funciton.
so ? if you use locations you will use functions that take locations and therefore make your locations behave slower. internally they might be not.but in fact they do are since when you use a function that takes location , the function you called calls the original function which takes the reals,so we got 1 extra worthless call to the original function. + 2 extremely worthless calls for using GetLocationX/Y means 3 calls. and you still call locations faster.
Blade.dk2 Here is your proof and tell me who lied to you?.
no one lied me. i work for more than a year with pc programming and i have enough knowledge to know a few things by myself. and not trying to copy what the others say.
Blade.dk2 And stop that offensive attitude, thank you.
Ok,thank you too,but your attidute is way more offensive than mine.
....
oh and btw you use reals by yourself instead of locations,doesn't that mean anything ?
Good morning Nantuko,
You appereantly did NOT read what I said in my first, what was it, three posts, or in case you read it, you just did not understand it - the same about the topic PitzerMike and Vexorian posted in.
Well, I'll waste my time and explain it yet another time.
From the beginning, as stated in my posts, locations are faster in case you don't take clean up and creation in consideration. Why shouldn't you take that in consideration? Basically because clean up is not needed for all scripts.
There are places in map scripts where you want to use the same point during the whole map.
I have programming knowledge as well, I thought you knew that already, but it doesn't really matter.
Everybody knows that both Vexorian and PitzerMike are way better and more experienced programmers than you and me together, so it isn't really about "copying what other people says".
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
You can compare it to if I said "humans needs water to survive". Well, that's the truth.
But you must have serious psychical problems, if you can't share other people's opinion, even though it's right? No, you want to have your own. And while you're speaking of my lack of originality, you have a spellbreaker in your avatar? Wauw, that's original.
Childish.
And again, not all location taking functions are calling real functions, some functions do, but I don't use these functions so it does not really matter, and if I did, it would not matter either cause, again, it's the function's fault, not the location's.
And yes, I use reals myself to spare the cleanup time. But that still does not change the fact that locations are faster when you don't take cleanup in consideration.
And again, act in a civilized manner, people loses respect for you when you can't post without putting an "omgwtf!" or "???who???" in your posts. You won't come long in life with that.
well you are the one who doesnt want to understand. you are the one who has psychical problems! I told something and you directly attacked me.This is how you do respect other people's opinion.
That ??? who ??? was pointed to you blade,to tell me a name on who told you that passing 1 memory pointer is better than passing 2 reals ? ---
stop acting like that , and tell me right here , right now what is FASTER ------------------------------------- local location l = Location(0,0)
call SetUnitPositionLoc ( u , l )
call RemoveLocation ( l ) set l = null ------------------------------------
or
---------------------------------------- local real x = 0 local real y = 0
call SetUnitPosition ( u , x , y )
----------------------------
awaiting for you...
edit:btw if you use locations you will be forced to use functions that take locations,unless you want to use the ones that take reals and use GetLocationX/Y which will mke it even more dumb for you.why? useless calls.
so... still waiting your answer on which variation is faster.
Nantuko_Huskwell you are the one who doesnt want to understand. you are the one who has psychical problems! I told something and you directly attacked me.This is how you do respect other people's opinion.8
I defended myself against your not-so-kind post. Read what you type before clicking that little submit button.
That ??? who ??? was pointed to you blade,to tell me a name on who told you that passing 1 memory pointer is better than passing 2 reals ?
Do I have to say it a third time? PitzerMike did it in this post, Vexorian did it in this post. Learn to read, I've posted this and the link several times before now.
---
stop acting like that , and tell me right here , right now what is FASTER ------------------------------------- local location l = Location(0,0)
call SetUnitPositionLoc ( u , l )
call RemoveLocation ( l ) set l = null ------------------------------------
or
---------------------------------------- local real x = 0 local real y = 0
call SetUnitPosition ( u , x , y )
----------------------------
awaiting for you...
I answered this already, check my above post and stop being a troll.
BUt, well, I'll say it a third time again, when used in this case it is faster to use reals but that's only because you have clean up and creation. In some functions you don't need that, which means that it will be slower. So it depends on the function.
edit:btw if you use locations you will be forced to use functions that take locations,unless you want to use the ones that take reals and use GetLocationX/Y which will mke it even more dumb for you.why? useless calls.
so... still waiting your answer on which variation is faster.
Some natives forces you to use locations, ever heard of GetSpellTargetLoc and GetLocationZ? No real equivilants exists for those.
