I'm sorry if some of you find it offensive, but basic is a choice language for beginners. Or can you recommend anything that's easier? Huh. That doesn't mean anybody programming basic is automatically an amateur - even if they don't use a basic with OOP. I never said or implied that. And if I had, that would have been calling myself a lousy amateur - I use it too, you saw the game, didn't you? So there.
All that aside, I still haven't heard an argument why other users should not have access to programming features that a few stubborn anti-OOP separatists have deemed "evil".
I'm all ears...
small 2D shooter with some impressive effects
There is merit in both arguments. It is a little tough to pick up a language like Purebasic or Blitz and "go back" to it's linear design after becoming familiar with OOP. If you have never really programmed in an OOP environment then you don't miss it. It's like if you have never taken drugs you don't miss them but a drug addict would miss them greatly.
OOP is a progression of programming technique but is is certainly NOT the only way to program and it certainly does not relegate everything else to only to the "beginner" or "hobbyist". In fact, I think the opposite is sometimes true. It's sort of like saying that somebody who codes killer HTML in wordpad is less skilled then somebody who points and clicks their way through HTML (maybe never seeing a line of actual code) using a product like Dreamweaver. Perhaps Dreamweaver is a more efficient way of doing the job but who is more skilled? The person who codes everything by hand or the person who points and clicks objects to create a lot of their code? Then again, who is more efficient?
I myself make liberal use of includes to keep my code manageable when using a linear development tool... I guess the includes could be considered objects in a sense. The overall code footprint and execution speed should also be a consideration. Just my 0.02 cents worth.
OOP is a progression of programming technique but is is certainly NOT the only way to program and it certainly does not relegate everything else to only to the "beginner" or "hobbyist". In fact, I think the opposite is sometimes true. It's sort of like saying that somebody who codes killer HTML in wordpad is less skilled then somebody who points and clicks their way through HTML (maybe never seeing a line of actual code) using a product like Dreamweaver. Perhaps Dreamweaver is a more efficient way of doing the job but who is more skilled? The person who codes everything by hand or the person who points and clicks objects to create a lot of their code? Then again, who is more efficient?
I myself make liberal use of includes to keep my code manageable when using a linear development tool... I guess the includes could be considered objects in a sense. The overall code footprint and execution speed should also be a consideration. Just my 0.02 cents worth.
Last edited by stevev4v on Wed May 31, 2006 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+, eVGA GeForce 7950GT KO, 1GB PC3700, Creative X-Fi. 200GB SATA Striped RAID.
-
netmaestro
- PureBasic Bullfrog
- Posts: 8451
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
Delphi is drag-and-drop, VBScript and JavaScript are way high-level (read "easy") interpreted tools designed more with an end-user type programmer in mind. They have their place to be sure, but they aren't in the same class as PureBasic or C. PureBasic is a power tool, and if you want to use it that's going to mean learning to understand and create logic flows and structures, not just use OOP ones included in the easy languages. You have a couple of the trimmings of what could potentially be a good game, I hope you have what it takes to master a real language and make it happen.
Last edited by netmaestro on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
BERESHEIT
-
White Eagle
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:38 am
- Location: Maryland
I will never understand the logic (or lack thereof) of people wanting to turn a BASIC language into a C++ clone. What is ironic is those usually asking for OOP can't seem to even handle programming in BASIC.
mp303, you might want to check out Beginning Programming for Dummies
by Wallace Wang. It should help you get a grasp on whatever you are struggling with in BASIC. Once you get a grasp on the fundamentals of BASIC, I would suggest the 2D game programming book on PureBasic. That should help you over whatever troubles you are having writing games with PB.
OOP is great, I love it myself, but Fred has stated before PB won't be OOP. Most BASICs that try and implement OOP end up with a half-assed implementation. BlitzMax is a perfect example of this.
mp303, you might want to check out Beginning Programming for Dummies
by Wallace Wang. It should help you get a grasp on whatever you are struggling with in BASIC. Once you get a grasp on the fundamentals of BASIC, I would suggest the 2D game programming book on PureBasic. That should help you over whatever troubles you are having writing games with PB.
OOP is great, I love it myself, but Fred has stated before PB won't be OOP. Most BASICs that try and implement OOP end up with a half-assed implementation. BlitzMax is a perfect example of this.
It's amazing how quickly some people turn to insults rather than intellegent discussion. :roll:White Eagle wrote:I will never understand the logic (or lack thereof) of people wanting to turn a BASIC language into a C++ clone. What is ironic is those usually asking for OOP can't seem to even handle programming in BASIC.
mp303, you might want to check out Beginning Programming for Dummies
by Wallace Wang. It should help you get a grasp on whatever you are struggling with in BASIC. Once you get a grasp on the fundamentals of BASIC, I would suggest the 2D game programming book on PureBasic. That should help you over whatever troubles you are having writing games with PB.
So VBScript is a C++ clone? VB is a C++ Clone? Delphi is a C++ clone? FreeBASIC is a C++ clone? Shall I go on and mention a whole bunch of other languages with OOP that aren't C++ clones?White Eagle wrote:I will never understand the logic (or lack thereof) of people wanting to turn a BASIC language into a C++ clone. What is ironic is those usually asking for OOP can't seem to even handle programming in BASIC.
-
White Eagle
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:38 am
- Location: Maryland
yeah i played a lot with it.whertz wrote:Very good. Reminds me of Super Stardust, an old DOS game from 1996. It would be a shame to shelve it now, how about releasing the source so someone else can finish it? (not me, too busy on my own game)
at the beginning, it was Amiga 1200 game, here is the proof:
http://www.shitsite.co.uk/images/amiga- ... ardust.jpg
and i'm pretty sure that it wasn't OOP coded
No programming language is perfect. There is not even a single best language.
There are only languages well suited or perhaps poorly suited for particular purposes. Herbert Mayer
There are only languages well suited or perhaps poorly suited for particular purposes. Herbert Mayer
thanks for-
NoahPhense
- Addict
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: North Florida
-
mp303
As you can see though, looking at the game, I'm not having any troubles as such. And as I've stated earlier, sure, I could go ahead and write the whole game without OOP.White Eagle wrote:The guy posted about the troubles he is having with trying to write a game in PureBasic. I posted two really good resources that should help him come to grips with PureBasic.It's amazing how quickly some people turn to insults
I could, but I don't want to. I like OOP - it works for me.
Did I mention I have 20 years of programming experience? 10 years professionally. Not all OOP of course - it didn't even exist in the first many years of my programming experience, and I've written large applications with no OOP too.
So I'm fairly confident that I know how to program - I'm a respected programmer in a media house with 300 employees, and I get lots of positive feedback from my peers, as well as from the people who use the applications.
So you can presume about me what you want, but I feel confident enough to just sort of lean back and laugh casually at your ignorant insults.
And you can think what you want of OOP and programmers who use it. But facts is, the industry uses it, requires it, demands it. Do you think Photoshop, Flash, CuBase, Word, Firefox, Outlook or most other major desktop applications were written in linear C? Most major 3D engines?
Most programmers with any real, practical, professional programming experience, have not been able to avoid OOP - and by far the majority of those obviously find it to be much more efficient.
Allegedly, you belong to a small, overlooked elite of super programmers who have advanced far beyond what the majority of feeble, so-called "professional" OOP programmers can achieve. Congratulations. Whatever floats your boat, man - I'm not going to argue, you're probably right. OOP languages are yesterdays news, and the future lies in linear Basic programming.
How could I have been so blind.
-
Num3
- PureBasic Expert
- Posts: 2812
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:51 pm
- Location: Portugal, Lisbon
- Contact:
Erh... No, the future is Brain Fuckmp303 wrote: OOP languages are yesterdays news, and the future lies in linear Basic programming.
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
