|
Twitter is one, but it arrived before that mainly for mobiles, its still not as easy as it should be to quickly easily transfer a link to/from mobile to other devices, a 6/8 character URL is far easier to type than some of the monstrosities that appear.
Finally some sites still seem to embed War & Peace in the URL, so even ignoring mobiles, URL shorteners are useful.
|
|
|
|
|
There was an XKCD (I think) where a kid was asking his dad; "Dad, why is the internet full of broken links" and he replied "Because in the old days we thought url shortening services were a good idea".
Disclaimer: paraphrased from bad memory
|
|
|
|
|
Besides twitter, you also had facebook et al truncating the links and then google indexing a lot of mistakes
|
|
|
|
|
Amen! 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: Why do people use it?
Because momma's little baby loves it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
As everyone has said, it is twitter and a big reason is because any link you post inside a tweet gets automatically shortened by twitter.
The one place that a shortened url might be nice is in a printed book, then you don't have to type a long url in to get to something you are reading.
I don't trust shortened URLs though, as most of us here don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: Why do people use it?
1. Twitter posts. Gives you more room to fit text into your posts that contain URLs.
2.Click tracking for marketing purposes. Most of those URL shorteners have a backoffice that lets you see how many clicks you're getting.
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you could say it caught a buffer Overrun issue ?
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you even obey simple instructions?
You are supposed to tell a programmer, not 12,821,673 >32768 of them! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a programmer, I'm very intrigued. So you're saying that 103956 is more than 32768? Very interesting. Never knew that. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
Smart K8 wrote: Very interesting. Never knew that.
It's a trending way to handle error messages. When your system crashes you popup random facts so that at least the user is gaining knowledge while using your app. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I love this new trend. I'm amazed.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Are they really using signed 16-bit addresses? 
No. The index buffer defines the triangle faces of a 3D object. For some reason the vertex buffer (which is indexed by the index buffer) may contain no more than 32000 vertices. For most uses this may be enough. Rendering too many objects with 32000 vertices and a corresponding number of faces is a slow affair. On the other hand, this decreases the size of the buffers, so that you can load more 3D objects at the same time. Video memory has always been precious.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
modified 27-Mar-17 5:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Vertex count is limited to 32 bits (per draw call / buffer). If you're using 16-bit index buffers then you can only reference up to vertex 65535, but you can still have up to 4294967295 indices in your buffer, though I've never actually tried.
If there's a 32768 limit on buffer sizes it's in their game code, it's nothing to do with the graphics card (except having enough video memory to store everything you need).
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Mushrow wrote: If you're using 16-bit index buffers then you can only reference up to vertex 65535, but you can still have up to 4294967295 indices in your buffer, though I've never actually tried.
I know that, but the error message that was shown mentioned 32768 as max. index value, so we must assume that they used a 16 bit signed type in the index buffer. And in the end it's irrelevant how many vertices you have in the vertex buffer if you can't access them.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
The message actually says that there are too many indices for the index buffer, not that a specific index is too high.
I've never seen anybody use a signed type in an index buffer since it's just a waste, I'm not even sure if you can. You could use a signed type in your own code, but it'll be interpreted as unsigned on the GPU.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention awkward. Did you see the video I posted here[^] two days ago. I must have gotten something right. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Did the steam engine just derail?
|
|
|
|
|
Pong?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose of using indices is to save GPU memory. A vertex contains the very least x, y, z coordinates. It can also have additional info like RGBA color or other texture coordinates(u and v). If it just has (x, y, z), its size is 3 * sizeof(float). A vertex often appears more than once in nearby triangles. If possible, we want to represent this same vertex with an index number, instead of duplicating same information. If indices is 32 bit, we can end up using more memory than saving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's some good engineering!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
