Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think that's what kept me and many away from "serious" languages like 
> C/C++ for a long time. No book I picked up covered what I thought should 
> be straightforward: How do I color a pixel on the screen. Doing graphics 
> seemed to be a lot more complicated.

>         I didn't have Internet access, nor did I know anyone who knew much 
> programming, so no one pointed me to better ways to do graphics in C, 
> nor was I aware of other languages where it may be easier.

  It's funny that even today graphics in C/C++ development (and in fact quite
many other languages) is a difficult issue.

  What makes it ironic is that a large part of C/C++ programs out there are
heavily graphical (most prominently the computer games), and seems like
everybody just somehow manages to get the graphics done, but when you ask
for a simple way of getting graphics, they will usually shrug and say that
it's a bit complicated... (Because it *is* a bit complicated.)

  Also, rather curiously, most programming languages which have integrated
graphics routines, are usually the most inefficient ones, and thus the least
adept for making eg. heavily-graphical games. There are a few exceptions
(such as ActionScript, although its capabilities for making games is quite
limited, as it's not the most efficient of languages around), but they often
tend to be a bit inaccessible (such as precisely ActionScript).

  The reason why in older computers it was easier to draw graphics was that
the language was very integrated to the system in question and didn't need
to be portable to a wide range of different systems. You had one fixed OS
(no updates or anything), one fixed hardware (no different graphics chips,
CPUs, amounts of RAM, etc) and one fixed scripting language which was tied
to that precise system.

  Immediately when you started having different users with different
hardware setups, the whole graphics programming stumbled on a huge problem.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 27-7-2009 23:24, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> +1.  BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming logic 
> >> (just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
> > 
> >   I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
> > is incompetent... ;)
> > 
> Have you met the majority of programmers?

  I have seen quite a lot of programs. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
> is incompetent... ;)
> 

A convenient excuse anyway. "Everybody needs someone to look down on. If you
ain't got nobody else, well help yo'self to me!" -Kris Kristofferson 
(quoted from
memory) :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> it was *very* useful at work and at play! And by it, I learned that even 
>> I can program,
> 
>   No offence, but I think that's one of the big problems: So many people
> *think* that they know how to program because they have written some simple
> scripts with BASIC or whatever, and then clueless employers hire them based
> solely on the fact that they *claim* they know how to program, after which
> you get horrible programs which are huge, full of kludges, full of bugs and
> basically unmaintainable.
> 
>   You just have to read TheDailyWTF to see actual examples.
> 
Ah, maybe this little monkey should just snope away and play in his own 
tree and
not bother the *real* men at work. ;)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> >> it was *very* useful at work and at play! And by it, I learned that even 
> >> I can program,
> > 
> >   No offence, but I think that's one of the big problems: So many people
> > *think* that they know how to program because they have written some simple
> > scripts with BASIC or whatever, and then clueless employers hire them based
> > solely on the fact that they *claim* they know how to program, after which
> > you get horrible programs which are huge, full of kludges, full of bugs and
> > basically unmaintainable.
> > 
> >   You just have to read TheDailyWTF to see actual examples.
> > 
> Ah, maybe this little monkey should just snope away and play in his own 
> tree and
> not bother the *real* men at work. ;)

  That kind of mocking attitude isn't really helpful.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

>     I wonder when such editors came around. Ever since I used BASIC, 
> there was the RENUM command. Of course, I _started_ using BASIC long, 
> long after its invention.
> 

Me to some of these guys must be _old_!

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> What's "plonk"? Or maybe I don't won't to know. ;)

WIYF - Wikipedia is your friend ;)

--------
Plonk is a Usenet jargon term for adding a particular poster to one's kill file
such that the poster's future postings are completely ignored. It was first
used in 1989 and by 1994[1] was a commonly used term on Usenet regarding kill
file additions.

The word is an example of onomatopoeia, intended to humorously represent the
supposed sound[2] of the user hitting the kill file. It is also sometimes given
as an acronym standing for Please Log Off, Net Kook, though this is likely a
backronym. Other used expressions are "put lamer on killfile" [3] and Please
Leave Our Newsgroup: Killfile!
--------

Not really polite unless the other party is really gone out of control (in which
case it's not polite either, just a good deal more adequate).

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Unfortunately not - I started my computing career no earlier than in the
> mid-80s, after having seen (and toyed around with) a C64 somewhere; and I
> wasn't older than 12 back then.

Fortunately perhaps. The Commodore PET was one of those desk tops with
a built in monitor. It had, I guess, a 16K ROM and 16K of RAM. (That's 
K) and
programs we stored on a cassette tape.
> 
>> If I remember right, the QuickBASIC and QuickC
>> IDE's were models of what a good simple IDE should be. Microsoft was
>> good in those days!
> 
> They're not bad these days either. It's just that the typical scale of
> applications and desired UI paradigm has changed a lot.
>

In those days MS wasn't trying to hog the market (or lacked the 
resources to try),
didn't have a monopoly, and didn't rely on advertising hype for sales. 
And they hadn't
come up with idea of letting their users. Today I avoid everything 
Microsoft that I
can. To my regret, I let price influence me to by another Windows 
machine about a
year ago. I've kicked myself ever since!


>> Yes access to Windows graphic functions seem unnecessarily complicated and
>> poorly documented. I can't see any good reason for this.
> 
> As for being poorly documented, I'm not sure. Might be one of those cases of
> documentation written for people already familiar with the concepts. As for
> unnecessarily complicated, I'm quite sure this was originally due to
> performance constraints in the advents of GUIs, and later due to compatibility
> issues.

What you say maybe true. Also writing good documentation may be a difficult
poorly paid, and thankless task.

> Turbo Pascal - and I think Turbo C/C++ as well - did not use hard-coded routines
> to access graphics, but proprietary graphics card driver ("BGI" = "Borland
> Graphocs Interface") modules, in order actually access the graphics hardware.
> There were drivers at least for CGA, EGA, Hercules, 16-color VGA, and IBM
> 8514/A, and there was also some 3rd-party 256-color VGA driver available for
> the famous "Mode 13h".
> 
> I wouldn't be too surprised if people found a way to provide a BGI driver that
> could open a window of a particular size and use it as a canvas. Heck, I even
> personally wrote a driver for the SuperVGA modes of my own Trident TVGA 8900
> card (except for the blitting operations which I found I didn't need) =B) 

I have several graphics "packages" which use the "Mode 13h" but programs 
compiled
with them, even pre-compiled examples don't work with XP (and I suspect 
the graphics
card I have is also incompatible). The graphics routines in John Beales 
wonderful
heightfield programs don't work, though the rest of the program does.


>> No, but it's fascinating, and in my little experience addictive.
> 
> Don't get *too* addicted to it - it has some bad habits, and its own share of
> being frowned upon :P

I didn't and there's no danger of it now, but I can see how it might be 
easy.
> 
> 

:)David

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

>     I can sympathize with David. As a kid, graphics was one of the fun 
> things about BASIC/QuickBasic. 

I'm still kid and hope to remain one eternally. But in the work I did in 
science
and engineering,graphical and image displays were almost essential!

> 
  No book I picked up covered what I thought should be straightforward: 
How do I
color a pixel on the screen.

Yes!! My experience exactly, except that I have never found out how to 
plot a pixel colored
or not on XP. (It was easy enough in DOS). But it can be done, is done, 
all the time. Pov-Ray
does, but so far I haven't been able to find anyone who can tell me how.
> 
>     I didn't have Internet access, nor did I know anyone who knew much 
> programming, so no one pointed me to better ways to do graphics in C, 
> nor was I aware of other languages where it may be easier.

I haven't been able to find it on the internet either.

David

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>  I wonder when such editors came around. Ever since I used BASIC, there
> was the RENUM command. Of course, I _started_ using BASIC long, long
> after its invention.

IIRC one of the main factors of BASIC's popularity - the all-time famous C-64 -
did *not* have a "RENUM" command.

The first computer *I* used, the Amstrad CPC, *did* - hehe :P

Post a reply to this message