My code didn't have any errors though

----> in progress of magic mod now

Except it did. It didn't work properly, right? That is the definition of having errors. What you mean is "it compiled", but just because some piece of code compiles doesn't mean it is not faulty.

 

I know, I'm just an innocent victim 

What?

 

void utils is a coremod.

Ehm, no it isn't.

 

If it was faulty it would crash the game since my updates are so high (functional imo). It didn't show up as any errors on eclipse but I had to manually go into forge through start menu to access the crash log I couldn't access it through forge on eclipse.

 

My definition of errors is red on the screen. 

 

(you know I'm innocent mannn, cmon)

 

then how come it uses a hidden vanilla block you don't have access to?

Ehm, if it wasn't faulty you wouldn't have come here reporting that it doesn't work. Seriously?

well its working now, I was referring to the working one >.<, yeesh, gimme' a break here.

 

What? Apart from the fact that that is not the definition of a coremod, where in the heck do you see that? Link please, the code is on Github after all.

 

I don't know how to access the phantom block personally.

What the heck is the "phantom block" and what does it have to do with Void Utils?

 

I know you played 1.5.2.... (maybe not though)

I most certainly did play 1.5.2. How is that relevant?

 

It was either 1.5.2 or 1.6.4 it was added to handle faulty textures in texture packs.

You are talking about the black/pink checkerboard? In that case, that is a [texture[/i], not a block. And I have no idea what it has to do with Void Utils still or how that makes Void Utils a coremod.

 

maybe microsoft can put it to a vote

I give up. Either you are intentionally talking nonsense or not, but either way, I have no clue what you are saying. At all.

 

Pretty sure he's referring to this. You know the bug that occurs when a block exists on the server but not on the client? If you walk into the block you get stuck. He believes that is a block in its own right, rather than a bug.

My definition of errors is red on the screen.

Eclipse can highlight syntax and semantic errors, but it can't predict very many runtime errors. Code can be faulty simply by trying to use a pointer before it points to something. Eclipse can sometimes warn you where that's likely, but not always (Eclipse can't predict that a method will return null).

 

Anyway, there are many ways for programmers to make promises and then break them at runtime. These broken promises are faulty code even if not the kind of faults that Eclipse can detect and show in red.

 

Take away lessons:

 

1) When you don't know how to use a method, use Eclipse to show you all references to it. Look at how Minecraft and Forge use it.

 

2) Learn how to set breakpoints and run your mod in the debugger. Just as Eclipse gives you red to highlight syntax errors, it also gives you a debugger to step through code and into method calls so you can see what the frick-frack is actually going on when (or just before) it fails at runtime.

My definition of errors is red on the screen.

Eclipse can highlight syntax and semantic errors, but it can't predict very many runtime errors. Code can be faulty simply by trying to use a pointer before it points to something. Eclipse can sometimes warn you where that's likely, but not always (Eclipse can't predict that a method will return null).

 

This kind of error is what the industry calls a runtime exception and is still an error.

 

There are also logic errors where there is nothing wrong syntactically nor does a runtime exception occur, but the function does not performed the assumed duty that it has been given.

 

Eg:

/**adds two numbers and returns the sum**/

int add(int a, int b) { return 5; }

 

Which is why there are things called unit tests.

 

The fact that I, Jeffry, and D7 are all posting the posts we do in response to you says that you're wrong.

 

lmfao, don't tell me you didn't laugh man. I worked hard on that.

 

 

Sorry, but this had to be done. I know I'm not the only one thinking this...

 

Either you are intentionally talking nonsense or not, but either way, I have no clue what you are saying. At all.