Talk:Demo (computer programming)

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Electronic music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music

Visual arts

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Additional entries, soon

I'm thinking about creating additional demo-related entries (BBStros, 4k/64k intros, etc...) to be able to expand on the content and give specific examples. Adding a simple overview of some of the techniques used for size-restricted productions might be a good idea as well. However, wether they all deserve their own entries is left to be seen. Comments? Nezbie 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - re-write in progress

Oops, Viznut beat me to the Demo Types merge.. I have a complete rewrite of this article coming soon (this weekend?), so don't spend too much effort changing things until then. :) --Vossanova 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

It seems that someone has marked this article with an "unreferred" tag. So, should we simply copy the literature section and the "scene explained" linklist from the demoscene article to every demoscene-related article, or is there a better alternative? --Viznut 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to add references to every demoscene-related article, but it's a good idea to have a References section for the major ones, i.e. Demoscene, Demo (this one), and Demoparty. And Demoscene already has references, doesn't it? --Vossanova ^o< 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Is it just me or "computer programming" feels a) not quite fitting and b) tedious to write all the time when i wanna link? How about "Demo (demoscene)", "Demo (artform)" or "Demo (realtime)"? (Ok, these arent much better, but...) // Gargaj 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had similar thoughts - the current name is somewhat misleading. This article seems to have been originally split apart from the demo article by someone who isn't necessarily very familiar with the subject, and the name has remained the same ever since. I'd suggest either "Demo (digital art)" or "Demo (computer art)". The demoscene article has been categorized in Category:Computer art (which is a subcategory of Category:Digital art), so perhaps this would be quite a fitting context for the name as well. --Viznut 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Demo (computer art)" might be better, although they weren't really considered to be an artform in the early days. Since it's in the computer graphics category, how about "Demo (computer graphics)"? No, it's not much shorter than it is now, but it's fitting. Even more fitting would be "Demo (underground software)", but that will probably make many people cringe. :) No matter how we look at it, we're pretty much screwed with a long title, to discern scene demos from computer game demos, both of which are realtime, software, and contain programming. Oh yes, and we can't use "scene" either, because nearly every underground hobby (including music with demo albums) has a "scene". --Vossanova ^o< 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Demo (demoscene)" is probably the best option, even if it is a bit pleonastic. Not all computer art belongs to the demoscene and not all demos are programming only, so yeah. I put my vote on "Demo (demoscene)", at least until someone think of a better name. // Tobias Lind 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose "demo (demoscene)". If you don't know what the demoscene is, how will it help? It's a bit vain to assume the majority of readers know about it. Plus it's a bit.. recursive.. like looking up "excellence" in the dictionary and finding "the state of being excellent". (yes, that's from a Simpsons episode..) The best solution usually seems to be putting the category in parenthesis (e.g. Doomsday (demo group) is in Category:Demo groups). So, that would make "Demo (computer graphics)" my choice. --Vossanova ^o< 16:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but as with "computer programming" demos are not exclusively about "computer graphics", it's a combined effort between programmers, musicians and graphic artists. Nor are demos exclusively about computers (see Cellulose by Tapir, that printer demo). It's unfortunate that you sometimes have to dig deeper in an encyclopedia to get the context, but I really think that "demo (demoscene)" is the best option right now, I am, however, open for suggestions. // Tobias Lind 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I have with that is that this demo article is mostly intended for people unfamiliar with the demo scene. That's why I'd rather use a term for the article name that's more generic, like computer graphics. Sure, it's not all about computer graphics, but within the context of the article, it's close enough. If it were a more specific article, like "Greetings (demoscene)", then I could see it being used. --Vossanova ^o< 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That raises another problem though. Consistency, or rather lack thereof.. why should demos be "Demo (computer graphics)" when greetings are "greetings (demoscene)"? They're both parts of the demoscene. I'm still in favour for the "(demoscene)" category, because that's what it's about. You can't have big descriptions as categories, especially not when they're all misnomers. If people wanna read more about the demoscene then all they have to do is to read that article. // Tobias Lind 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you need a quick way of defining the term without using the term itself. If a stranger walked up to you and asked you "what is a demo?", would your answer include the word "demoscene"? Well, at least, it shouldn't. Surely you could mention the demo scene to them if you had a long talk with them about demos, but you wouldn't mention it in your first sentence. Computer graphics, art, or programming, they could possibly understand right away. But you have to tell them what a demo is first, before even mentioning the demo scene. They're not going to ask what greetings are until they know what a demo is, so they'll understand "demo scene" when they discover greetings. That's my rationale, does it make sense? --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose "computer graphics". Demos are not just about graphics, especially in the era of software music synthesis. "Computer art"? Maybe. "Computer graphics"? No. That would be just shifting the focus from programming to graphics - same thing really. // Gargaj 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the loose definition of computer graphics - "the field of visual computing, where one utilizes computers [..] to generate visual images synthetically". A blank screen is not a demo. :) I don't think using the term "computer graphics" rules out any method of creating those graphics, whether it be animation software, scripts, or program code. --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, "Demo (computer graphics)" would be nearly as bad as "Demo (computer music)", limiting the focus to only one side of the whole thing. "Demo (demoscene)" would be more tolerable - not misleading, but not very informative either. If we go with "art", then "Digital art" would perhaps be better than "Computer art" because many demos have indeed been written for programmable devices that aren't "computers" in the casual sense of the word. Of course, the word "art" is still somewhat controversial, but think about it this way: can all graffiti be considered art either? --Viznut 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Gargaj, you're thinking of the demoscene definition of graphics, referring to just still pictures and text. The general, WP definition includes any kind of visual motion or display on a computer. That's what I had in mind. "Art" is subjective, but to be fair, it would successfully differentiate scene demos from game demos, so I would support it. --Vossanova ^o< 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was thinking about the general definition and the fact that even if it includes all the visible stuff, it doesn't include the soundtrack. In my opinion, sound and music are so important in demos that we just can't hide them behind the visual side. --Viznut 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all go for EgoBooster instead of Demo! Adok said so! // Gargaj 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Demo (presentation)"? (Just to reheat the discussion a bit) // Gargaj 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "presentation" pretty much synonymous to "demonstration"? I mean, tech demos and game demos can also quite often be regarded as presentations :) --Viznut 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page uses the word "nowadays"

What does the word 'nowadays' mean? This the kind of word that should be on a wikipedia usage watchlist, if not outright banned from usage, except in quotes. Words and phrases like "these days" or "today," referring to the present, "nowadays," and other temporally-dependent qualifications can reduce the dependability and relevance of wikipedia. They require not only disambiguation, but an ongoing maintenance effort to reduce their negative impact. Any word or colloquilism that cannot remain permanent or that changes over time should be subject to this kind of scrutiny.

Credibility is Wikipedia's largest liability. Let's try to turn it into it's largest asset.

I would like to see wikipedia remain credible, reliable, free and clean, surviving the credibility onslaught that is happening... nowadays. Jshoults 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.244.196 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DemoSample.jpg

The image Image:DemoSample.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Ptn-gift.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed, History

Started reading this article and immediately noticed some issues. The definition is maybe not so good. Not always multimedia in the fullest sense, and not always lacking elements of interactivity, and can often be featuring animations as well as realtime effects. But this is minor point. Platforms is needing some citations, particularly the 'PC/Window' as main platform, some citation to support demo scene on listed platforms. Also, last paragraph about respect of majority demosceners, I doubt there is citation existing for this.

History section talks about cracking. During 80s this was grey area as far as legality is concerned, for many countries, not until early 90s that Europe software companies organised with FAST etc. So, maybe need to modify the language to reflect the legal realities of the 80s world. Certainly, in some respects the demoscene (not demos themselves which I understand have much longer history) is starting with 8bits like the C64, and then develops into a more recognisable phase with the Amiga/ST. Also, some DOS cracktros/intros/demos are appearing. I think claim that piracy killed the Amiga (or any other platform) is contentious, so really needs a citation or nine to back it up, probably need to be expressed more balanced. Also, 'Authorities apply pressure' is a bit vague, maybe the author is meaning peoples like FAST. The last paragraph which is linking legal pressures on crackers with the invention of stand alone demos is demonstrably false. The first stand alone demos (real demos, not just intros or cracktros) are appearing in the later 80s, before much of the computer laws are being passed, and there is a long period of co-existence, even when some of larger demogroups start making commercial games they are still cracking (strange but true, maybe different people in the groups are doing the things).

Demo type section makes no mention of 40k demos, odd (maybe check aminet for examples). MegaDemo definition is maybe not so accurate. Don't like Trackmo definition, it was meaning always demos with custom track loaders running from disk. Has nothing really to do with the contents, but mostly content is following lines of a bigger demo or MegaDemo. Also, I think I see earlier examples than those given.

Maybe is needing some works on the grammar, expression. Is hard to read in parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon Alert

The described use of demo seems to be specific to one subculture of computer programming. The word Demo is used much more generally by most people as simply “a (usually reduced) variant of a program that demonstrates the features and function of the program.” I inserted a link to the Demo disambiguation page that clarifies this. --Krisrose (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion as of 12 August 2014

I also disagree with the deletion nomination. The demoscene in the 80s and 90s was huge. I have read this article and it is all factually correct. I was a part of this scene back in those days. Do not delete this, if it needs imrpoving or rewriting then get an editor to do it. This was an important part of computer programming and many of the guys who made these demos went on to become game programmers at major companies. Future Crew was one of the best demo groups out there, and if you listen to the music in their Second Reality demo you can hear techno that was way ahead of its time. I hear echos of this music in modern day tracks to this day. Do not delete, improve. 76.69.13.35 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the deletion nomination. The article may require work, but demos are most definitely notable. Muncadunc (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's crazy to delete a page of computer art history. Weak reasons and pretty much deletionism here. The contributor who marked it for deletion could have helped with content and sources instead. 94.195.143.227 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why no PC demos in the platform specific section? I ask in relation to another proposed deletion, that of [[1]]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? Crazy! http://www.kameli.net/demoresearch2/ --Ondertitel (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demo (computer programming). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821232046/http://www.jimbrooks.org:80/programming/opengl/boing/ to http://www.jimbrooks.org/programming/opengl/boing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video requested

This documentation could benefit from a screencast to explain the topic in an easily accessible way. See WikiProject Screencast for additional information.