[Gammix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yashas Give me reasons why someone would prefer to use gini over other INI processors which have WAY WAY WAY more features and is WAY WAY WAY faster.

For this:
"Only for the sake of those who still use DINI, switch your gamemodes to this."

INI is not preferred for database, i suggest using SQL and my EasyDB is pretty powerful. I only use INI for initializing data or configuration files.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yashas You are competing in the wrong world. Start bench-marking with y_ini or eINI. Your include provides far less features and is slower. You MUST beat y_ini in performance if you want to keep the include this simple if you WANT people to use it.

I haven't even performed any speed tests until now and this an old library of mine just polished a bit.
(I take my statement back about its speed, dini2 is really fast)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yashas The only interesting feature I see is the timeout feature.

If you want a syntax as of DINI and want no script changes but to switch to a faster one, this is the best way i can think of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yashas You'd do better if you would have forked the existing INI Processors and added new features to it.

New features to INI processor is just a waste of time, your eINI is having load features but they are useless to have, just get an idea from the number of users. SQL is much easier option for that.




Update v1.2:
- Fixed reading file bug (file was closed before actually reading data!)
- One global timer to handle instances/opened INI files
- Removed INI_CONVERT_DINI, the script auto converts DINI functions



EDIT: The thread will be renamed to DINI improved.