Or the 4k remake of Chaos Theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFAIaclLrKE. Elevated is a classic and a complete aesthetic package, but it's still a one-effect intro. Chaos Theory 4k is more varied but unfortunately it has a shitty synth.
The PC demoscene started out on DOS and Watcom C++, and switched almost exclusively to Windows and Visual C++ around 1999. It was a natural choice at the time, as Linux wasn't ready for primetime and MSVC really was the best compiler around.
The choice of platform had to take the majority into account: most people didn't want to write demos that ordinary people couldn't watch. The opinion of programmers was not the most important factor anyway, simple because most people in the demoscene were not programmers -- there were musicians, graphics artists and all sorts of non-productive members besides.
Really, the demo scene, which started out in the 80's, was using Watcom C++? Watch the behind scenes video of Second Reality (1993). They're coding Pascal and (duh) assembly.
The demoscene was really born out of cracks/intros/loaders which means its origins are C64/Apple/Atari etc and assembly language.
I'm not arguing the existence of Watcom C++ 9.5/386 :) But let's be clear the first version of Watcom C++ was released in 1993. To suggest the demoscene started there is ludicrous.
yeps. almost correct. scene started with c64. pc scene / first demo came out from future crew : second reality. also in 1996, smash designs created second reality 100% same fx via C64 (:
There wasn't ever really a clean break afaik, and the association (some groups more than others) continued through at least the 1990s. Fairlight were active in both scenes for over a decade, for example, though from what I can tell the group did slowly internally divide in terms of who was focusing on warez v. demos. More to the point, though, I think the association with reverse-engineering culture had a significant impact on the technical culture and choice of tools/platforms. Unix culture had more of a C ethos, and less of a patch-asm-into-a-running-program type ethos.
in fact, razor 1911 is still releasing both demos and warez. I don't know that they have any in the running for the scene awards, but they are getting ranked.
Linux is still not ready for prime time as far as graphics is concerned. Window is still the strongest platform for graphically intense applications that push the GPU due to the quality of Windows drivers being better than Linux and Mac OS.
Demoscene started on the 8bit world and as the PC world started focusing on MS-DOS, so did the coders.
As one of the goals of the demoscene was to see which groups were able to push the machine to the limits while minimizing the amount of code, the used algorithms were worth gold and thus kept secret.
So open source was a foreign word in the demoscene universe and everyone was happily coding the latest demo, instead of getting alternative OS to run on their PCs.
VC++ nearly exclusively. Some GCC'ers, but that's it, really. There's some more recent demos written in, say, Python, Java and C#, but they're pretty exceptional.
Demoscene is also nearly entirely Windows-only. It's a good platform for games, and thus for demos. Plus, culturally, demos are about as closed-source as you can get, so there's this natural repellent force between the hardcore Linux zealots and the hardcore demoscene geeks.
If people hate semi-colons with such a passion, why not simply use coffeescript and be done with it instead of depending on butterflies flapping their wings...
However, She is a very odd cookie - and appears to have said some strange things (including engaging trolls) in the past. So I would believe Kickstarter if they said there was more "engagement" than Rachel lets on.
You got it reverse. Most permissive licenses need attribution (in form of leaving the original header comment etc) which lets the whole world know that you are using the component. A commercial license gives you complete anonymity (most let you completely change the source code) except for the charge on your credit card bill.
And I don't think its greed. Not many applications on any platform gets written completely from scratch without using other libraries.
Most permissive licenses need attribution (in form of leaving the
original header comment etc) which lets the whole world know
If the code is being used for commercial and propriety purposes then the code is never seen, never attributed. Attribution in the form of source code comments is really only valuable in other open source projects.
Considering the fact that only legitimate way to get an app on the device is through app store, its more like your ISP demanding a cut from developers based on different features in web applications. ISPs are reduced to dumb pipes. It's time app stores go the same route.
In the days before the consumer internet, there were online services like Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL. They did demand a cut from developers based on different features they provided.
They were driven out of business through competition from the open internet.
If the current situation is analogous, then over time we can expect open app stores to drive the closed ones out of business. No need to involve the government.
Let's suppose that one of those online services had been owned by an unrestrained, pre-breakup AT&T (as would have been the case without the government intervention see as unnecessary).
Who here thinks that the open Internet would still have obviously and inevitably won?
