08:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Brokecdx-> after ddnet update some demos disappeared i cutted 1 month ago, did this happen to anyone else?
09:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <deen> @Brokecdx- do you have a limit to the number of demos set?
09:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <deen> If so, the most recent ddnet version correctly deletes them while the old one had multiple bugs around this
09:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Brokecdx-> @deen  no it's set on unlimited
12:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> Servercompass offers good ddos protections or is planning to do so
12:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> as far as i know @ReiTW | Blizzard  (bombay) used it effectifly agianst daily blocker ddos
12:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> oh btw does any1 know what @heinrich5991 is talking about
12:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/542662328772984842/unknown.png
12:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> oh and nvm the ddos protection probably i was missinformed a bit.
12:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> capital S in seconds
12:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> ah
12:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ChillerDragon> sänks @Jupstar ✪
13:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> why are we even compiling system.c as C90???
13:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> What is this? 1989?
13:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> why not xd
13:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> why even c is the question
13:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> c++ allows alot more xD
13:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> No compound literals, no vlas, no single line comments, no middle of block declarations, no declaration in for initialization
13:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Any other reason needed not to use C90 in 2019?
13:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> c++11 -> threads
13:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> I guess it might be useful if someone wants to compile teeworlds for their PDP-7...
13:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i think ddnet already decided to use c++11
13:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i think(thought) ddnet already decided to use c++11
13:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> doubt we'd ever compile system.c with a c++ compiler
13:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yeah rename to .cpp and allow c++11 features ^^
13:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> C89/90 is not a subset of C++11
13:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Might need some fixing 😛
13:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> maybe yes :D, but i think not huge things mostly casting issues probably
13:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i mean system.c is mostly a wrapper only anyway
13:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> god damn c++11, "ISO C++ forbids converting a string constant to 'char*" Who tf decides these things...
13:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> That's it, I'm migrating to brainfuck, I'll be explicitly coding in brainfuck from now on
13:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> well i think it makes sense in some way
13:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> char *p = "test"; That not working makes sense to you?
13:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yes
13:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> bcs the string is stored in some tables in the exe under windows
13:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> It was fine until C++03. Besides no matter where you store it that string is going to take 5 bytes, why put it in some platform dependant place anyways?
13:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i think their main intention is to have it declearable as non modifable memory
13:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> like read only
13:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Anyways, that's not why they made the change, the standard says it's because string literals are supposed to be const char *, which makes sense, however breaking existing code for something like that is imho stupid
14:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yeah dunno, i was born with c++11 stuff, so i don't know different really xD
14:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Maybe I should just use javascript for everything where types don't matter, argument counts dont matter and the standard is barely a suggestion
14:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> xD
15:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @Learath2 can't use something newer than c90 with msvc
15:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I think it makes sense to have string literals be `const char *` and not allow to convert const pointers to non-const ones implicity
15:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> implicitly*
16:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> god damn microsoft, they are all just trying to drive me insane todday
16:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> @heinrich5991 it makes sense, I agree. Causing a breaking change for it is just not worth it after decades of people using it in code
17:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> :yes: :ww: :no: :gg: :sendhelp: :lol: