I already go and check out files.wowace.com quite often, ordering the list by revision number, to see what has changed recently. This has two flaws: a) I do not see what has recently come over from the branches, and b) I cannot see if it was "just" a localization update without checking the release notes.
A simple thing, like a direct link to the addon's release notes in that list, would be worth a lot to me already. So, I'd jump on an Ace3 tag, too, but only because it makes searching easier. I'd miss out on great stuff like Chinchilla, tho, so something like a "new"-tag would be even better. I love to check out new stuff when I am bored. :D
Edit: Thanks for the advertisements in this thread, tho. I never tried out Damnation, because the name sounded like it was made for warlocks. ^^
I been trying to be good about posting in threads like this. I just cant help myself. I have a few questions though.
1. Why make ace3 if there is no significant improvement over ace2?
2. I am probably going to answer #1 with this question, wasnt there some severe problems with some of the libraries in ace2 that could not be fixed without rewriting most of the code? ie memory leak?
I find it hard to believe if there is not any benefit over ace2 libraries with ace3 libraries that some of the best addon authors, ie most of the ones who post addons in here, would have spent months rewriting the code. I use a ton of addons that are not "aced" so. dont pass me off as a fan-gal. I still and will continue to use ace2 addons without complaining :P. I hate the drop down menues in ace2 and prefer the config menues in ace3, that alone is worth the switch to ace3 for me.......
Nakawe we are not saying that there is no benefit, there definitely is. We are just trying to avoid making some of the same mistakes we made with Ace2, in Ace3. i.e. tagging addons, creating sections. Anything that could cause 'fanboism'
Nakawe we are not saying that there is no benefit, there definitely is. We are just trying to avoid making some of the same mistakes we made with Ace2, in Ace3. i.e. tagging addons, creating sections. Anything that could cause 'fanboism'
Yes, I remember all the fiasco about ace2. I was probably one of them before I was educated by people like yourself. The problem is you guys, developers of ace3, have such a good reputation of creating decent solid addons, that your always going to get fanbois. Is this really a bad thing? I look at it as double edged sword at times. If you guys-n-gals wasnt so damn good this problem wouldnt exist. I know when I see funkydude, ck, tekkub, ammo, rabbit, cladhaire, xihium (however you spell his damn name, author of daportraits) and several others names on an addon, I know damn well the addon is going to work and work well in most cases. The other side is, if ace of any level, 1,2,or 3 sucked you wouldnt get this hysteria.
My advice is take your due credit and accept the fact you guys are damn good and promote the hell out of ace3. It doesnt take long after loading an ace3 mod that the user like myself realizes that the fuctionality of it far surpasses any prior ace library to date.
speaking of rabbit, he seems uptight lately, few stiff drinks and some strange sex might be the ticket for him. :P (joke, not meant to derail thread)
My advice is take your due credit and accept the fact you guys are damn good and promote the hell out of ace3. It doesnt take long after loading an ace3 mod that the user like myself realizes that the fuctionality of it far surpasses any prior ace library to date.
Wasn't Tekkub explaining something about how the initialization process of Ace3 as a whole shoots a lot of processing into creating tables which end up not being needed by many of the addons?
Well I suppose Ace3 is good. After changing Cartographer-Trackingstuff to GatherMate I noticed a DKP gain, so (I got a huge database) it must have been a noticable difference.
However, there's a ton of very small addons for which I hate even seeing slashhandlers, they don't need such stuff. And they certainly wouldn't need a large framework behind them to do something as trivial as adding an item to the trade window on alt-click.
One thing I miss about Ace3: Dewdrop. It eats those GUI-screens for configuration. :S
Gimme right-click menus any day. It has some large upsides, just compare how easy it is to switch the watched faction with FuXPFu compared to using Xparky (for which you have to use the Rep-screen from Blizzard).
And then they tell me GUI4tehwin. I don't see where. Actually I'd take DeuceCommander > RockConfigurator or /ace3, too. It's just "faster" to use.
Sure, for the initial "complex" set-up, it takes longer. You need to change a buttload of settings.
That's what Niagara was for. Load it up, do all the initial settings.
Then later you only need to change single settings when fiddling with details while playing. And for that right-click menu is way faster than loading up a GUI-screen, which also happens to block most of the view of the gameworld.
*shrug*
Dunno.
I think I just never got what's so "hot" about those Rock/Ace3 GUIs. They seem awkward and needlessly "huge" in my eyes. :X
The co-existance of Dewdrop and Waterfall seemed better there even though IIRC it meant programming the options twice? Or did Niagara build the screens from the Dewdrop informations?
You forget something, Ace3 doesn't provide any functionality for the end user, it provides authors a means of building their add ons but nothing it does is something authors couldn't do. If you like an authors addon, you'd like it just as much as if it wasn't using Ace3 because the author is the one providing the add ons features, not the library.
Ace2 became a horrible monster of library dependencies, tacked in code and hackery, the sooner it's dead the better.
Well I suppose that is true. At least from my user-perspective the amount of MBs of code used for libraries, out of which 10 addons use code but each only a few lines, is amazing.
My post was mainly about the configuration, anyways :x
I <3'ed dewdrop back then, then everyone went hot on GUI screens and I never got why ;_;
"does" makes no sense, so I'm going to assume you meant "is".
Unless you specifically know the code well enough, you cannot say the person who does it in 500 KB is worst then the one who does it in 400 KB, static memory as a metric is a bad stat to go off of unless it's the absurd "This addon is using 100 MB of memory, why".
"does" makes no sense, so I'm going to assume you meant "is".
Unless you specifically know the code well enough, you cannot say the person who does it in 500 KB is worst then the one who does it in 400 KB, static memory as a metric is a bad stat to go off of unless it's the absurd "This addon is using 100 MB of memory, why".
"doesn't mean it's worse" + "it does" = "does mean it's worse".
As I said, if all other aspects are the same, then the more optimized lib would be preferred, at least for me. That means if the reduced memory usage is due to a trade-off for CPU, it may or may not be worth it, but if nothing is sacrificed for the reduced memory, there's no reason *not* to use the lighter one.
Static memory should never be the primary stat to judge code by, but it does actually matter for those of us who don't have a bazillion GB of RAM. In a few cases (such as my system) it can actually be worth using some extra CPU time to reduce static memory usage.
I'm going to use the word 'resources' here since it covers a broader aspect of what actually matters such as CPU.
I think the idea is if X addon uses ~500 resources but Y addon uses ~600 resources and does -the exact same functionality- you could claim X is more efficient as it has been coded better.
If nothing is sacrificed, then the author is doing something odd most likely. But given you're usually sacrificing static memory for CPU, so it's not as simple as "Lower memory one is better, k"
And, TBC recommended specs are 1GB if you're not at that, then you're going to loose functionality or you have to run less programs in the background, same with how it works if you weren't using a recommended graphics card you turn the settings down. Not going to develop add ons or base an argument on people who aren't running at the recommended specs. Or else I'd have to point out every single little fringe case and it'd be 5 posts of stupid counter arguments with myself.
Wasn't Tekkub explaining something about how the initialization process of Ace3 as a whole shoots a lot of processing into creating tables which end up not being needed by many of the addons?
You mean addons creating big table structures for AceConfig on load instead of when the config window is first shown or the slash command is first used? If so, then yes that was what I was bitching about.
Static memory doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it does cost to allocate initially, and if you can avoid that cost until a user-generated event, why wouldn't you? This is something that those of you that keep repeating the "Static memory is irrelevant" mantra are ignoring.
And this isn't Ace3-specific, the whole config table thing has been around since Ace1.
Yes, I remember all the fiasco about ace2. I was probably one of them before I was educated by people like yourself. The problem is you guys, developers of ace3, have such a good reputation of creating decent solid addons, that your always going to get fanbois. Is this really a bad thing? I look at it as double edged sword at times. If you guys-n-gals wasnt so damn good this problem wouldnt exist. I know when I see funkydude, ck, tekkub, ammo, rabbit, cladhaire, xihium (however you spell his damn name, author of daportraits) and several others names on an addon, I know damn well the addon is going to work and work well in most cases. The other side is, if ace of any level, 1,2,or 3 sucked you wouldnt get this hysteria.
My advice is take your due credit and accept the fact you guys are damn good and promote the hell out of ace3. It doesnt take long after loading an ace3 mod that the user like myself realizes that the fuctionality of it far surpasses any prior ace library to date.
Hey hey hey - read back through your post. You know that those *authors* write good addons. PitBull doesn't use Ace, so why do you think it's a good addon? Because ck wrote it. Clique doesn't use Ace, so why do you think it's a good addon? Because clad wrote it.
What framework it's on means diddly squat. That's the whole point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A simple thing, like a direct link to the addon's release notes in that list, would be worth a lot to me already. So, I'd jump on an Ace3 tag, too, but only because it makes searching easier. I'd miss out on great stuff like Chinchilla, tho, so something like a "new"-tag would be even better. I love to check out new stuff when I am bored. :D
Edit: Thanks for the advertisements in this thread, tho. I never tried out Damnation, because the name sounded like it was made for warlocks. ^^
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAnd I still haven't found anything that which would make me decide to Ace3/Rock/Jostle/Dongle my add-on. Maybe use all 4 somehow? :P
Using all would be wicked, Inc. ace & ace2 and write you use the best out off all ^^
What framework are you using now? Oh... just RockinAce with a little Dongle-Jostle.
PS: Jostle isn't a framework, it's just a library.
1. Why make ace3 if there is no significant improvement over ace2?
2. I am probably going to answer #1 with this question, wasnt there some severe problems with some of the libraries in ace2 that could not be fixed without rewriting most of the code? ie memory leak?
I find it hard to believe if there is not any benefit over ace2 libraries with ace3 libraries that some of the best addon authors, ie most of the ones who post addons in here, would have spent months rewriting the code. I use a ton of addons that are not "aced" so. dont pass me off as a fan-gal. I still and will continue to use ace2 addons without complaining :P. I hate the drop down menues in ace2 and prefer the config menues in ace3, that alone is worth the switch to ace3 for me.......
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum ModeratorYes, I remember all the fiasco about ace2. I was probably one of them before I was educated by people like yourself. The problem is you guys, developers of ace3, have such a good reputation of creating decent solid addons, that your always going to get fanbois. Is this really a bad thing? I look at it as double edged sword at times. If you guys-n-gals wasnt so damn good this problem wouldnt exist. I know when I see funkydude, ck, tekkub, ammo, rabbit, cladhaire, xihium (however you spell his damn name, author of daportraits) and several others names on an addon, I know damn well the addon is going to work and work well in most cases. The other side is, if ace of any level, 1,2,or 3 sucked you wouldnt get this hysteria.
My advice is take your due credit and accept the fact you guys are damn good and promote the hell out of ace3. It doesnt take long after loading an ace3 mod that the user like myself realizes that the fuctionality of it far surpasses any prior ace library to date.
speaking of rabbit, he seems uptight lately, few stiff drinks and some strange sex might be the ticket for him. :P (joke, not meant to derail thread)
Wasn't Tekkub explaining something about how the initialization process of Ace3 as a whole shoots a lot of processing into creating tables which end up not being needed by many of the addons?
Well I suppose Ace3 is good. After changing Cartographer-Trackingstuff to GatherMate I noticed a DKP gain, so (I got a huge database) it must have been a noticable difference.
However, there's a ton of very small addons for which I hate even seeing slashhandlers, they don't need such stuff. And they certainly wouldn't need a large framework behind them to do something as trivial as adding an item to the trade window on alt-click.
One thing I miss about Ace3: Dewdrop. It eats those GUI-screens for configuration. :S
Gimme right-click menus any day. It has some large upsides, just compare how easy it is to switch the watched faction with FuXPFu compared to using Xparky (for which you have to use the Rep-screen from Blizzard).
And then they tell me GUI4tehwin. I don't see where. Actually I'd take DeuceCommander > RockConfigurator or /ace3, too. It's just "faster" to use.
Sure, for the initial "complex" set-up, it takes longer. You need to change a buttload of settings.
That's what Niagara was for. Load it up, do all the initial settings.
Then later you only need to change single settings when fiddling with details while playing. And for that right-click menu is way faster than loading up a GUI-screen, which also happens to block most of the view of the gameworld.
*shrug*
Dunno.
I think I just never got what's so "hot" about those Rock/Ace3 GUIs. They seem awkward and needlessly "huge" in my eyes. :X
The co-existance of Dewdrop and Waterfall seemed better there even though IIRC it meant programming the options twice? Or did Niagara build the screens from the Dewdrop informations?
Ace2 became a horrible monster of library dependencies, tacked in code and hackery, the sooner it's dead the better.
My post was mainly about the configuration, anyways :x
I <3'ed dewdrop back then, then everyone went hot on GUI screens and I never got why ;_;
If they are otherwise exactly the same, I would say it does.
Unless you specifically know the code well enough, you cannot say the person who does it in 500 KB is worst then the one who does it in 400 KB, static memory as a metric is a bad stat to go off of unless it's the absurd "This addon is using 100 MB of memory, why".
"doesn't mean it's worse" + "it does" = "does mean it's worse".
As I said, if all other aspects are the same, then the more optimized lib would be preferred, at least for me. That means if the reduced memory usage is due to a trade-off for CPU, it may or may not be worth it, but if nothing is sacrificed for the reduced memory, there's no reason *not* to use the lighter one.
Static memory should never be the primary stat to judge code by, but it does actually matter for those of us who don't have a bazillion GB of RAM. In a few cases (such as my system) it can actually be worth using some extra CPU time to reduce static memory usage.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum ModeratorI think the idea is if X addon uses ~500 resources but Y addon uses ~600 resources and does -the exact same functionality- you could claim X is more efficient as it has been coded better.
And, TBC recommended specs are 1GB if you're not at that, then you're going to loose functionality or you have to run less programs in the background, same with how it works if you weren't using a recommended graphics card you turn the settings down. Not going to develop add ons or base an argument on people who aren't running at the recommended specs. Or else I'd have to point out every single little fringe case and it'd be 5 posts of stupid counter arguments with myself.
You mean addons creating big table structures for AceConfig on load instead of when the config window is first shown or the slash command is first used? If so, then yes that was what I was bitching about.
Static memory doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it does cost to allocate initially, and if you can avoid that cost until a user-generated event, why wouldn't you? This is something that those of you that keep repeating the "Static memory is irrelevant" mantra are ignoring.
And this isn't Ace3-specific, the whole config table thing has been around since Ace1.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMy bad :P
I think for a period of time I was using both Ace2 and Rock for ARL. :D
Hmmm, maybe I could change the ToC to be: ARL -Ace2- -Rock-
;)
*hides*
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHey hey hey - read back through your post. You know that those *authors* write good addons. PitBull doesn't use Ace, so why do you think it's a good addon? Because ck wrote it. Clique doesn't use Ace, so why do you think it's a good addon? Because clad wrote it.
What framework it's on means diddly squat. That's the whole point.