Warp wrote:


>   Why reinvent the wheel, when there are lots of such libraries already
> available and widely used in games?
> 

Have you used those libraries? Most are undocumented, unfinished, 
undesiable or COSTs. What's worst is you don't know what you got until 
you try and to use them.

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:

> If you can learn an obscure language like Haskell, you can learn C++.

I see. And what do you base this observation on?

Haskell is a small, simple, logical language. C++ is a huge, messy, 
complex language. I don't see how learning an easy language should 
enable me to learn a hard language.

> If you 
> learned C++, or maybe Java if you preferred, you could use that skill to get 
> a job you would like (games or not).

I already *know* Java. ;-)

(Although it sounds like they've added a few new language features since 
I used it. And I am 100% certain that most of the APIs I know have been 
deprecated, undeprecated, and redeprecated at least twice by now. For 
some reason, the Java guys like to completely change all the APIs with 
each minor release...)

> Why don't you put the time into it?

What makes you think I haven't?

Actually, at college we spent a whole semester programming in C. I'm 
sure I've recounted the tale before. Basically C is a language designed 
for experts. If you do something dumb, it will make absolutely no 
attempt to save you. It will just merrily produce garbage, and leave you 
with no hope of finding out why. Apparently there are people who know 
the Secret Techniques for debugging C programs, and even writing C 
programs that are correct in the first place - but this wasn't part of 
the syllabus.

 From what I've read, C++ is exactly like C, but 80% more complicated. 
Given that I could bearly produce working code in C with the tutor's 
help, my chances of getting anywhere with C++ are basically nil.

> I 
> had a lot of fun with C++ and OpenGL in college. It's really not that hard 
> to learn for someone like you.

As I say, the trouble is that if your program doesn't work, there is no 
way you can ever find out why. (Especially if you're using something 
like OpenGL. It's an extremely complicated API, and unless you pay money 
it's not possible to get hold of useful documentation.)

I've actually thought about trying to use OpenGL from Haskell, but I 
keep being put off by just how huge and complex the API is...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The big problem with someone who has programmed almost exclusively with
> a language like Haskell for the past years is that he will be very biased
> towards the features and strong points of that language, and will then be
> constantly pulling his hair when trying to code something in C++. "Why do
> I have to do it like this? It's stupid. Why can't I do it like in Haskell?"

Like this:

http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301645

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :
> Apparently there are people who know 
> the Secret Techniques for debugging C programs

You mean putting some strategically placed printf's :-) ?

Seriously. Is that difficult?

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Invisible a écrit :
>> Apparently there are people who know the Secret Techniques for 
>> debugging C programs
> 
> You mean putting some strategically placed printf's :-) ?
> 
> Seriously. Is that difficult?

printf() is usually the part I'm trying to debug. (As in, it prints 
gibberish instead of printing what I was expecting.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :
> Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
>> Invisible a écrit :
>>> Apparently there are people who know the Secret Techniques for 
>>> debugging C programs
>>
>> You mean putting some strategically placed printf's :-) ?
>>
>> Seriously. Is that difficult?
> 
> printf() is usually the part I'm trying to debug. (As in, it prints 
> gibberish instead of printing what I was expecting.)
> 
Once you've figured how to put in the right format for the type you want 
to print, you know enough to debug. If you consider that this is harder 
than learning Haskell...

Hell, in C++ it's even easier as there is not even this problem of 
formats anymore...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

>> printf() is usually the part I'm trying to debug. (As in, it prints 
>> gibberish instead of printing what I was expecting.)
>>
> Once you've figured how to put in the right format for the type you want 
> to print, you know enough to debug.

Well you'd think so, and yet even with the correct format strings, it 
doesn't always print what it's supposed to.

> If you consider that this is harder than learning Haskell...

I still don't get it: Learning Haskell is *easy*, not hard.

> Hell, in C++ it's even easier as there is not even this problem of 
> formats anymore...

So I hear. This presumably doesn't stop a program from segfaulting when 
you try to append a string from stdin to a string constant or some such.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :
>> If you consider that this is harder than learning Haskell...
> 
> I still don't get it: Learning Haskell is *easy*, not hard.
> 

For some definition of easy and hard. Which may not be the same for 
everyone in this case :-) Ordinarily people choose the easiest way; yet 
Haskell does not get that many users.

> This presumably doesn't stop a program from segfaulting when 
> you try to append a string from stdin to a string constant or some such.

I figure that if you use the std::string class you're safe from that. I 
haven't tried, though.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

>>> If you consider that this is harder than learning Haskell...
>>
>> I still don't get it: Learning Haskell is *easy*, not hard.
> 
> For some definition of easy and hard. Which may not be the same for 
> everyone in this case :-) Ordinarily people choose the easiest way; yet 
> Haskell does not get that many users.

Learning Haskell is like learning algebra; once you grasp a few basic 
principles, the rest follows from there. It isn't instantly obvious that 
(for example) the solution to ax^2 + bx + c = 0 is x = 1/2a (-b +/ 
Sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)), but if you know the basic principles you can at least 
verify that it works.

Learning C is like learning the works of Shakespear; you just have to 
memorise a huge wedge of stuff. If you come across something you haven't 
memorised... sorry.

As for ordinary people... I think you'll find they choose the *most 
popular* way, which may or may not actually be any good. ;-) (See 
Betamax vs VHS, IE vs Netscape, etc.)

I will say this: Haskell is a great *language*, but the *tools* for it 
are sadly lacking, as are the *libraries*. C may be one of the most 
horrid languages ever invented, but at least it has an insane collection 
of tools and libraries, the like of which few others can match.

>> This presumably doesn't stop a program from segfaulting when you try 
>> to append a string from stdin to a string constant or some such.
> 
> I figure that if you use the std::string class you're safe from that. I 
> haven't tried, though.

Wait... you mean they made it a class?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>  From what I've read, C++ is exactly like C, but 80% more complicated. 
> Given that I could bearly produce working code in C with the tutor's 
> help, my chances of getting anywhere with C++ are basically nil.

	In terms of actual coding, in some ways C++ is simpler and more 
intuitive than C. Also more readable.

	I would say learning C++ is easier than C.

	Seriously,

-- 
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard-disk.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message