Just thought I''d put my two cents in...

I started out, like a lot of ''n00bs'' wanting to make a ''1337 rpG'', and one of the first things I found was something called ''C++''. I learned a little of that and made a simple console RPG with weak math and bad storytelling...then I saw an article in a friend''s game magazine about RPG Maker on PSX. I looked into that and then found out about RM2k for PC (I think it was about the time 2000 was translated). I checked that out, converted my pitiful console RPG into a pitiful graphic RPG, but I learned more about the work that went into making ''1337 rpGs''...where am I going with that? Dunno...if it wasn''t illegal to have a copy of Rm2k on your computer then I''d probably find you a link, but if you just HAPPEN across a copy on the internet, then I''d recommend that path (by the way, I recommeneded that because it''s high''er-level nature and mouse-driven interface allow you to focus more on game logic then syntax and...you know...stuff).

So you have fun with this post...unless it gets eaten by the...wad.

"TV IS bad Meatwad...but we f***in need it"

quote:Original post by Stonicus

quote:Original post by antareus
And what is wrong with that? Not every language has to be the ungodly mess of complexity and power that is C++.

C++ is only complex and "ungodly messy" if you make it. Sloppy programmers write sloppy code, don''t blame the language.

quote:Because people take attacks on their language of chocie personally. Cept for C++ programmers though I find.

Don''t take attacks on your language personally. You said you shouldn''t. Also it is best to quote exactly instead of twisting words around if you want to try to make a point.

Anyway, compare C++ to D and tell me that C++ is not overly complex.

The first couple rhetorical questions that popped into my mind:
Why do constructors default to implicit conversions?
Why should I have to split up header and implementation files? It''s so C!
Why isn''t the pointer to function syntax able to accept a normal function or a member function?
Why do I need to use Boost to use real functors?
Why are the standard binders so crippled?
Why should the language have a pointer and a reference type that are both used?
Why do reference parameters modify their value without providing a visual indication to the caller (like the address-of operator in C).
Why can''t I store references inside STL containers?
Why do C++ programs take so long to compile?
Why isn''t there a 100% correct implementation of C++?

I''m not looking for answers to these questions. Just because people accept C++ as the de-facto language for game development doesn''t justify its clutter of features.

I criticize it because I want it to be better. Not that they will turn it around and make the drastic changes I wish for, but it is a complete waste of my time to maintain header and source files when I am fleshing out a class. When I need to add a new member function I have to:
1. Write the spot where it is called (otherwise I will forget) and probably copy-paste the name.
2. Switch to header file. Programmer context switch pulls me out of the zone a little.
3. Enter it in the header file, watching alphabetization.
4. Decide the parameters list or maybe remember it from the calling spot.
5. Switch back to original source file. Insert member function, typing out the classname and the scope resolution operator needlessly. Paste name in. Write definition.

How can you justify this needless complexity? Reduced compile times? Hardly! Any changes to the header file affect clients. If I have to write a pImpl class then thats like an additional 2 steps onto that list.

C++ needs a ton of support from external tools that would do all of that for me. And ones that would support refactoring similar to how VS.NET Whidbey and many Java IDEs support. However, they are all so concerned with just getting it to compile correctly.

I am using it currently and I like it, but, damn, it needs a cleanup. Languages shouldn''t be designed by committee. They''re currently considering an addition for C++0x that lets you used unnamed char arrays in struct/class definitions to save space for future expansion of the vtable. What kind of crap is that.

Some Lambda quotes:

quote:I have reaffirmed a long-standing and strongly held view: Language comparisons are rarely meaningful and even less often fair. A good comparison of major programming languages requires more effort than most people are willing to spend, experience in a wide range of application areas, a rigid maintenance of a detached and impartial point of view, and a sense of fairness. -- Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++

quote:The next big programming language will be slower than what it replaces. -- Todd Proebsting, Disruptive Programming Language Technologies

Hehe, boku san, nice sig :-D

To Antareus: I have no idea what the hel...ck you''re talking about...but keep on keepin on. Actually, I think the only thing I really understood was the "Why...take so long to compile?" But you know...right on. Oh yeah...isn''t there like...a reason to have a reference and pointer operator...because...pointers can change variable values using indirection whereas references are static? I don''t know, I don''t understand pointers that well, so references are like...my little mini-hel...ck (hehe).

Ademan: Aquateens rule.

Hammertime

"TV IS bad Meatwad...but we f***in need it"