0) There is no such term as "pseudo language". "Pseudocode" refers to stuff the programmers write that isn't actually intended to be understood directly by a computer, but simply illustrates some algorithm. All the languages you mention are real languages, except for C+, which does not exist, and Torque, which is not any kind of language but is instead an engine, which is basically a whole bunch of starter code that defines useful functions for a specific kind of game.

1) Programming is hard, and there's no getting around that. Helping you out any further than that rather depends on exactly why you felt your DarkBasic experience was "disappointing" and "a total waste of time".

2) That said, all flavours of BASIC generally get little respect from talented programmers; when used commercially, jobs using them seem to attract less-skilled programmers, and when used for hobbies, they often seem somehow insufficient (lacking in power or expressivity, or just not well supported in terms of libraries, engines etc.)

3) Have you tried Python?

Zahlman I realise learning to code, or how to program is a duanting task, especially in this day and age, there is plethora(damn another one of them intelligent sounding words, doh....lol), a lot of languages, add to that all the utilities and tools one must learn to use....well lets just say I harbour no illusions that it will be easy. One thing in my favour is the huge resource center I have at my fingertips, the net is chock full of learning.
My dissapointment stemming from DarkBasicPro, essentially stems(srry) from the fact that it has bugs,I suppose this could be soley that is's changed, regardless things dont work as they . This is well documented, judging from the forums at TGC, people are always asking about the 'manual', but no responses? And it just seemed everything I came across for DBP all had syntax errors, the books, the tutorials, the posts on the forums, everything. Very few examp[les of code actually work, only the most up to date I guess. If you dont know how to program very well in the first place, it is makes it hard to tell where all the syntax errors, new commands, etc.. are to go.
So I thought rather than spend my time learning how to workaround the problems I would rather spend my time learning something that is more established, and well documented.
If DBP is to come out with a proper manual, I will buy it, but without it, or at the least, up to date reference material, the syntax in the help file is wrong, in many cases it seems(!!!), until they do that its unusable for me.
Thanks for all the links for Python, I actually have allready learned a bit of Python, so should be all right. Thanks all

PS ohhh yeah about Pseudo language, its just the first thing that came to mind when I thought up the title, sorry, no big thought went into it. I think I heard it somewhere else, but cant be sure actually....duh. Seemed like an allright fit at the time? I guess New User Friendly Basic Derivative languages would have been more apt..lol NUFB!(just kidding)

[Edited by - Graiskye on August 11, 2006 2:02:23 AM]

When I started programming I went for Python and Delphi. Delphi was quite a cool way of learning programming as you could do nice stuff with the Borland compiler, however I'm not sure they are still distributing that for free.
The move to C++ was easier after having learned these other languages!

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote:Original post by superpig

Quote:Original post by Forsaken Incognito
C++ supports OOP, among many things, while C does not.

Yes it does.

Well not out of the box. It takes some manipulating to do so...

Not really. Look, it's polymorphism in C! (Pardon if this doesn't compile, but you get the idea...)

struct Foo{ (void)(*func1)(void); (void)(*func2)(void);};void baz(struct Foo *vt){ vt->func1();}void bar(void){ Foo a; Foo b; a.func1 = myFunc1; a.func2 = myFunc2; b.func1 = otherFunc1; b.func2 = otherFunc2; baz(&a); baz(&b);}

Now, probably what you intended with your statement is that C++ automates some of the drudgery of the mechanics of OOP, which is definitely true. However, that's definitely a different thing - you can do OOP in assembly, for example.

im always upto date with DBP and its site, a few weeks ago they realised there 6.2 update in the trial version, you should go try that since its a whole diferent version than it was before.