I think I know what's up with the "data backups"

NuclearSilo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:11 pm

They wait until u get to cap 80 and get bored and about to quit sro, then they release it

. That's what happened when cap 70.

EwwBabel · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 716 **Location:**

i think its too early for 90 cap still...

OrdinarYmaN · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 2

sry for my english...They not working at new update..he is already done..because the only need to open the update not make .I said this because the map its complete : if u go on Karakoram at that ferry(with those birds) go near ship and set ur details at max...and u will see the a town .that town will be on update so.. they dont need to create them they already createad ^^ also with siege portal he will be open when new update will come .Only open not create again sry for my english

legitz · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 195

Roweena wrote:

desolator144 wrote:

those ugly goat monsters and birds and stuff.

I knew that the "goat monsters" r in the euro patch...

I'm confused... :oops:

The 73+ creatures from Western Asia, the mountain where Saytan spawns.

LuV3r8o1 · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 1194 **Location:**

desolator144 wrote:

it can't by default handle strings (more than one character in a row!)...

Yea, the string class is so hard to use. :roll:

desolator144 wrote:

...GUIs, or printing. I can print a file with one line in VB and it takes about a page to make sure it prints in C++. I can screenshot the screen and send it to a movie file with a tiny sub in VB and it would take like miles of code in C++

That's not what C++ was designed for. VB was designed to be visual and easy, not C++. You get easy GUI development from VB whereas you get the possibility of everything in C++. Yes, C++ takes longer to write in most cases than VB, but the trade-off is a faster app. Show me a programmer that develops on embedded systems in VB.
Bjarne Stroustrup himself said he wanted C++ to be used for embedded systems among other things. A language with such a need for low level communication has no room or need for native GUI support.

desolator144 wrote:

There's like 1000 more datatypes and way more objects...in fact, C++ alone can't handle objects veyr well.

1000 more datatypes, huh? What's your point? That there's more freedom? Yea, you're right, there's lots of data types, its not a "basic" language.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

[C++] can express a huge range of ideas directly and efficiently.

desolator144 wrote:

It's a retarded, slow, crappy language that just won't die.

How is it slow? C++ speeds compare to C speeds and nothing else can touch it (excluding low-level languages, of course). Please don't tell me you think VB is as fast as C++.

desolator144 wrote:

Did you know that almost all large companies still use AS400's for their entire infrastructure. Those are those huge computers with no mouse and a black screen with green text that haven't changed much since the 1980's. I can't stand those either. RPG is a joke! So yeah, companies that still use C++ are stuck in the stone age.

Umm...Although C++ can be used (which shows its flexibility and SPEED), it isn't the only language used for AS400 development. And RPG is a language of its own. I don't get what you're arguing here.
As for being stuck in the stone age - check out uTorrent, OpenOffice.org, and CrystalSpace (just to name only 3). Tell them they're stuck in the stone ages.

desolator144 wrote:

C# is okay cuz it's like C++ but without all the crap that always goes wrong. But on average, companies that make apps with VB get them done about 27x faster. Like I said, you have to be an old moron who won't update to still use it.

C# is more like JAVA than anything. And what crap goes wrong with C++? Like someone mentioned before...GIGO.
Sure, you can write a VB app 27x faster than C++, but it'll also be slower. Just use the tool that's right for the job. If you can take the performance hit, go ahead and use VB, but don't say that "crap goes wrong" just because you can't apply the right tool for the job.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

At a conference, a speaker asked for a show of hands and found that twice as many people claimed to hate C++ as had ever written even a single small C++ program. The only word for such behavior is bigotry. In dealing with C++ bashing, we should remember that bigotry is bred by ignorance and fear.

There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.

With all that said, I hate to see how you feel about C.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

LuV3r8o1 wrote:

desolator144 wrote:

it can't by default handle strings (more than one character in a row!)...

Yea, the string class is so hard to use. :roll:

desolator144 wrote:

...GUIs, or printing. I can print a file with one line in VB and it takes about a page to make sure it prints in C++. I can screenshot the screen and send it to a movie file with a tiny sub in VB and it would take like miles of code in C++

That's not what C++ was designed for. VB was designed to be visual and easy, not C++. You get easy GUI development from VB whereas you get the possibility of everything in C++. Yes, C++ takes longer to write in most cases than VB, but the trade-off is a faster app. Show me a programmer that develops on embedded systems in VB.
Bjarne Stroustrup himself said he wanted C++ to be used for embedded systems among other things. A language with such a need for low level communication has no room or need for native GUI support.

desolator144 wrote:

There's like 1000 more datatypes and way more objects...in fact, C++ alone can't handle objects veyr well.

1000 more datatypes, huh? What's your point? That there's more freedom? Yea, you're right, there's lots of data types, its not a "basic" language.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

[C++] can express a huge range of ideas directly and efficiently.

desolator144 wrote:

It's a retarded, slow, crappy language that just won't die.

How is it slow? C++ speeds compare to C speeds and nothing else can touch it (excluding low-level languages, of course). Please don't tell me you think VB is as fast as C++.

desolator144 wrote:

Did you know that almost all large companies still use AS400's for their entire infrastructure. Those are those huge computers with no mouse and a black screen with green text that haven't changed much since the 1980's. I can't stand those either. RPG is a joke! So yeah, companies that still use C++ are stuck in the stone age.

Umm...Although C++ can be used (which shows its flexibility and SPEED), it isn't the only language used for AS400 development. And RPG is a language of its own. I don't get what you're arguing here.
As for being stuck in the stone age - check out uTorrent, OpenOffice.org, and CrystalSpace (just to name only 3). Tell them they're stuck in the stone ages.

desolator144 wrote:

C# is okay cuz it's like C++ but without all the crap that always goes wrong. But on average, companies that make apps with VB get them done about 27x faster. Like I said, you have to be an old moron who won't update to still use it.

C# is more like JAVA than anything. And what crap goes wrong with C++? Like someone mentioned before...GIGO.
Sure, you can write a VB app 27x faster than C++, but it'll also be slower. Just use the tool that's right for the job. If you can take the performance hit, go ahead and use VB, but don't say that "crap goes wrong" just because you can't apply the right tool for the job.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

At a conference, a speaker asked for a show of hands and found that twice as many people claimed to hate C++ as had ever written even a single small C++ program. The only word for such behavior is bigotry. In dealing with C++ bashing, we should remember that bigotry is bred by ignorance and fear.

There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.

With all that said, I hate to see how you feel about C.

well, i think VB is faster. it has much more strings but on the other hand, C++ has the two +'s in the end wich means it is FAAST.

so basically, both are the same.

Intruder · **Joined:** Apr 2007 **Posts:** 18

W3GAN wrote:

LuV3r8o1 wrote:

desolator144 wrote:

it can't by default handle strings (more than one character in a row!)...

Yea, the string class is so hard to use. :roll:

desolator144 wrote:

...GUIs, or printing. I can print a file with one line in VB and it takes about a page to make sure it prints in C++. I can screenshot the screen and send it to a movie file with a tiny sub in VB and it would take like miles of code in C++

That's not what C++ was designed for. VB was designed to be visual and easy, not C++. You get easy GUI development from VB whereas you get the possibility of everything in C++. Yes, C++ takes longer to write in most cases than VB, but the trade-off is a faster app. Show me a programmer that develops on embedded systems in VB.
Bjarne Stroustrup himself said he wanted C++ to be used for embedded systems among other things. A language with such a need for low level communication has no room or need for native GUI support.

desolator144 wrote:

There's like 1000 more datatypes and way more objects...in fact, C++ alone can't handle objects veyr well.

1000 more datatypes, huh? What's your point? That there's more freedom? Yea, you're right, there's lots of data types, its not a "basic" language.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

[C++] can express a huge range of ideas directly and efficiently.

desolator144 wrote:

It's a retarded, slow, crappy language that just won't die.

How is it slow? C++ speeds compare to C speeds and nothing else can touch it (excluding low-level languages, of course). Please don't tell me you think VB is as fast as C++.

desolator144 wrote:

Did you know that almost all large companies still use AS400's for their entire infrastructure. Those are those huge computers with no mouse and a black screen with green text that haven't changed much since the 1980's. I can't stand those either. RPG is a joke! So yeah, companies that still use C++ are stuck in the stone age.

Umm...Although C++ can be used (which shows its flexibility and SPEED), it isn't the only language used for AS400 development. And RPG is a language of its own. I don't get what you're arguing here.
As for being stuck in the stone age - check out uTorrent, OpenOffice.org, and CrystalSpace (just to name only 3). Tell them they're stuck in the stone ages.

desolator144 wrote:

C# is okay cuz it's like C++ but without all the crap that always goes wrong. But on average, companies that make apps with VB get them done about 27x faster. Like I said, you have to be an old moron who won't update to still use it.

C# is more like JAVA than anything. And what crap goes wrong with C++? Like someone mentioned before...GIGO.
Sure, you can write a VB app 27x faster than C++, but it'll also be slower. Just use the tool that's right for the job. If you can take the performance hit, go ahead and use VB, but don't say that "crap goes wrong" just because you can't apply the right tool for the job.

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

At a conference, a speaker asked for a show of hands and found that twice as many people claimed to hate C++ as had ever written even a single small C++ program. The only word for such behavior is bigotry. In dealing with C++ bashing, we should remember that bigotry is bred by ignorance and fear.

There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.

With all that said, I hate to see how you feel about C.

well, i think VB is faster. it has much more strings but on the other hand, C++ has the two +'s in the end wich means it is FAAST.

so basically, both are the same.

The two pluses in C++ are NOT for speed. The two pluses indicate that C++ is an incrementational improvement of C (primarily for the addition of Classes). Think of incrementing a value:

Code:

for(int i = 0; i < someValue; i++);

LuV3r8o1 · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 1194 **Location:**

W3GAN wrote:

well, i think VB is faster. it has much more strings but on the other hand, C++ has the two +'s in the end wich means it is FAAST.

so basically, both are the same.

Prove it. There's nothing out there that can point to VB being as fast as C++.

But at the same time, in order to get one job done in both languages, there are a multitude of libraries and optimizations that will effect the outcome of the runtime.

However, based on how either language works, VB usually isn' faster than C++ since C++ is compiled down to native instructions and VB isn't. There is a dependence upon the VB run-time dll's that causes overhead when using VB.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

hmm. c++ vs VB...
c++ has 3 letters. VB 2.
vb can type strings VERY fast.
i once wrote strings 27x faster with VB than i did with c++.

c++ sucks. trust me, im a programmer.

but on the other hand if we count native instructions, GUIs and printing. i think c++ is faster.

flexo · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 861 **Location:**

xzaz wrote:

fock the Europe update. We need security and FASSSSTT!

well only against acc theft.. cause i don't give a f.uck about bots.. bots will always be there... just deal with it....
it's like complaining about air.. you can cry as much as you want, you can try to get rid of it... but it won't change shit.... so even banning bots is useless, it won't do anything they will start over or others will come. Only thing is that you scare a small group of ppl from starting it.

so better give me a update.....at least that will do some good in the long run..
I mean how f.ucking long does it take to translate some stuff.. i really don't get it... :banghead:

then again.. i ain't no programmer... :roll:

PureOwnage · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 1104

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

desolator144 · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 1016 **Location:** US

Every time I said C++ was slow I meant development. Yeah the program might take 5 seconds longer to load every time and 1 second longer to do certain tasks but if it takes your IT department a year less to write it in VB, do it. These days, by the time you're done working on a huge C++ program for a company, you have to start all over cuz it's outdated. That's why there's VB. It's fast, it can do high level stuff with less programming, and there's less stupid annoying glitches that you constantly have to around. I mean geeze, character arrays have to be one longer cuz of that secret invisible ending character? I say shove that behind the scenes in the framework and let me get on with my life and actually design the program. C++ was great like 10 years ago but with what software does now, nobody should ever ever ever use it to write an entire large program. Sure you can make little C++ mini apps that just do a single process that needs to be done over and over but as soon as you start making something with a GUI, you gotta switch over to VB or you'll never finish in a reasonable amount of time.
btw C++ is actually so outdated now that it's NOT faster at stuff like printing because it wasn't designed to do anything like that and you sort of have to trick it into doing that. There's also so much super new stuff that C++ just plain can't do at all, it's ridiculous.
And the makers of C actually made A and B before it (wow I know, creative) and instead of calling the new, improved one D, they used the newly invented increment operator of ++ to show that the version incremented....you know, like as a joke. Yes so now C++ is a joke two different ways lol.

Death2U · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:34 am

Nothing beats programming in assembly. Assembly is the fastest language.

C++ && Java && VB && evertyhing else == SLOW;

Gul · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 385 **Location:** Where?

desolator144 wrote:

And the makers of C actually made A and B before it (wow I know, creative)

Please, stop talking. You're making my ears bleed. From your description of C++, I'm starting to wonder if you're even being serious. The way you describe everything is asinine.

Quote:

Nothing beats programming in assembly. Assembly is the fastest language.

Assembly is only good for embedded systems.

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

I program for a living, so I'd like to comment on this too.
I mostly maintain old systems with Assembly and Pascal and stuff, but I do enjoy C. C++ and Java are decent, though I'd rather use C. VB and C# are great if you're trying to make something for a business to use. Easy GUI and drag 'n' drop and all the shit that makes computers easy for stupid people. It's easy to write, too. I interned at company where I wrote everything in C# without ever learning before I worked there.

I have no idea why I'm posting other than to say I like z80 assembly best (and similar chipsets like 8080s and stuff) and if I ever have to program anything on a PC that doesn't require networking, I use C. If I need to use a network, C# all the way.

Gul · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 385 **Location:** Where?

threefingeredguy wrote:

I interned at company where I wrote everything in C# without ever learning before I worked there.

This coming fall, I'll be on a co-op for a company. They code mainly in C# and I have zero experience in C#. Most of the work I've done is written in C/C++.

I was planning on learning C# this summer before I head to work. Do you have any recommendations on good sites, tutorials, or books?

LuV3r8o1 · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 1194 **Location:**

desolator144 wrote:

Every time I said C++ was slow I meant development.

Yea, I knew you'd run to that. Why not just be clear and up front. You've been saying "C++ is slow" not "C++ development is slow". Next time you want to say something along those lines, and not look like an idiot, please be specific.

desolator144 wrote:

These days, by the time you're done working on a huge C++ program for a company, you have to start all over cuz it's outdated.

If it takes that long to write a program (in any language) then you should be fired. It's not the language that slows you down, its your proficiency.

desolator144 wrote:

It's fast, it can do high level stuff with less programming, and there's less stupid annoying glitches that you constantly have to around. I mean geeze, character arrays have to be one longer cuz of that secret invisible ending character? I say shove that behind the scenes in the framework and let me get on with my life and actually design the program.

This made me giggle. Besides the floating point representation, please name another "glitch" in the language that makes it so impossible to use. Please.
That "secret invisible ending character" you speak of is called NULL. I don't know what else to say about that statement without resulting to insulting your mother and family for the stupidity and ignorance that is being displayed by that statement. And as I said before, there's this class called the string class. It's apart of the standard library. Not hard to use, I swear. If you don't know about the string class, you should not even utter the syllables that are "C++".

desolator144 wrote:

C++ was great like 10 years ago but with what software does now, nobody should ever ever ever use it to write an entire large program. Sure you can make little C++ mini apps that just do a single process that needs to be done over and over but as soon as you start making something with a GUI, you gotta switch over to VB or you'll never finish in a reasonable amount of time.

I think this list speaks for itself: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html
Some key points of interest: Adobe, Apple, HP, Metrowerks, Microsoft, Mozilla, KDE

desolator144 wrote:

btw C++ is actually so outdated now that it's NOT faster at stuff like printing because it wasn't designed to do anything like that and you sort of have to trick it into doing that. There's also so much super new stuff that C++ just plain can't do at all, it's ridiculous.

Proof? And what is this "super new stuff" you speak of? Sounds very interesting. Makes me excited - SUPER new stuff. WOW!

desolator144 wrote:

And the makers of C actually made A and B before it (wow I know, creative) and instead of calling the new, improved one D, they used the newly invented increment operator of ++ to show that the version incremented....you know, like as a joke. Yes so now C++ is a joke two different ways lol.

Wow, you are horribly misimformed.
A - Grace Hopper in 1951
B - Ken Thompson & Dennis Ritchie in 1969
C - Dennis Ritchie in 1972
C++ - Bjarne Stroustrup in 1983
D - Walter Bright in 1999
The only things that overlap are that Dennis Ritchie had a hand in both B and C. However, he is stated to only have "contributed" to B whereas he, himself, designed and created C. B, C, and C++ were all developed at Bell Labs, but not by the same people. Other than Dennis Ritchie, no creator has overlapped between two languages mentioned above.
Yes, the name of C++ was a joke, but I'll be damned if it didn't catch on. You are literally the only person that I've seen scoff at C++'s name. You are a special person.

Death2U wrote:

Nothing beats programming in assembly. Assembly is the fastest language.
C++ && Java && VB && evertyhing else == SLOW;

YES!

Everything should be written in assembly!

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

Gul wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

I interned at company where I wrote everything in C# without ever learning before I worked there.

This coming fall, I'll be on a co-op for a company. They code mainly in C# and I have zero experience in C#. Most of the work I've done is written in C/C++.

I was planning on learning C# this summer before I head to work. Do you have any recommendations on good sites, tutorials, or books?

Forums are great since they have people to help you, time-tested tutorials posted in stickied threads, and most have an IRC channel if you need live help. I liked the forums on Microsoft's website the best. I got prompt and helpful responses there. Most of the other forums can give you just as much help, but the people there are more immature and prone to trolling.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

omg

havent u used strings u naab? assembly isnt as fast as c++. how many times do i need to say it? learn to use google lol.

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

omg

havent u used strings u naab? assembly isnt as fast as c++. how many times do i need to say it? learn to use google lol.

Now you're making your trolling too obvious. You can say outlandish things, but if you say something that is so clearly not true, then you lose your credibility. Unless you're talking about MIPS, which is really fucking slow.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

omg

havent u used strings u naab? assembly isnt as fast as c++. how many times do i need to say it? learn to use google lol.

Now you're making your trolling too obvious. You can say outlandish things, but if you say something that is so clearly not true, then you lose your credibility. Unless you're talking about MIPS, which is really fucking slow.

now it's getting to hard for me. nada understanding.

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

omg

havent u used strings u naab? assembly isnt as fast as c++. how many times do i need to say it? learn to use google lol.

Now you're making your trolling too obvious. You can say outlandish things, but if you say something that is so clearly not true, then you lose your credibility. Unless you're talking about MIPS, which is really fucking slow.

now it's getting to hard for me. nada understanding.

I guess you've never programmed then.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

threefingeredguy wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

PureOwnage wrote:

lol @ W3GAN he is just repeating what everyone is saying, he doesnt know shit about programming, just because a programming language has less letters in its name makes it faster W3GAN? lol GTFO

LOL, finally someone understood it. but c++ is faster cuz of the 2 plusses, trust me just look at the strings. (27x speed)

C++ isn't faster than C. I have seen C programs that were faster than assembly ones, but that was because people have been writing some awesome C compilers that find all sorts of optimizations and the assembly programs weren't optimized much.

omg

havent u used strings u naab? assembly isnt as fast as c++. how many times do i need to say it? learn to use google lol.

Now you're making your trolling too obvious. You can say outlandish things, but if you say something that is so clearly not true, then you lose your credibility. Unless you're talking about MIPS, which is really fucking slow.

now it's getting to hard for me. nada understanding.

I guess you've never programmed then.

no shit, sherlock.

Vandango · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 4143 **Location:**

W3GAN wrote:

no shit, sherlock.

best not mess with the dedective xD

threefingeredguy · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 507

Karlos Vandango wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

no shit, sherlock.

best not mess with the dedective xD

My mind is as sharp as a knife.

Waisha · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 3216 **Location:** wat

threefingeredguy wrote:

Karlos Vandango wrote:

W3GAN wrote:

no shit, sherlock.

best not mess with the dedective xD

My mind is as sharp as a knife.

this topic has given me an opinion of programers saying the opposite.

Death2U · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:31 pm

Not sure why yall are still arguing about the best programming language.

Assembly is definitely, by far, the best. It takes skillz to learn assembly, but no language on Earth comes close to the speed of assembly.

Silkroad Online Forums

I think I know what's up with the "data backups"

Who is online