• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Neutral

About 13incrediblycut

  • Rank
  1. [quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1306027122' post='4814051'] [quote]A class is just, to be blunt, "A space that holds things inside of it that can be accessed from other spaces.".[/quote] A class expresses [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_invariant"]class invariant[/url]. It can be expressed in many ways, some languages just have them as first class members. [/quote] Irrelevant to my point. >.<
  2. Check this video out -- NASA/Apollo 13 "moon landing" hoax revealed(part 1: fake science) http://t.co/0wdesvH via @youtube
  3. [size="4"]My question revolves around this "like" for OOP.[/size] [size="4"]Why, exactly? I've used it before and found it to not be so "great" as many newbies to C++ and other OOP-consisting base-languages claim it is.[/size] [size="4"]There's not really much magic behind it, really...[/size] [size="4"]I don't see what it does that's so unique... [/size] [size="4"]Let's take C++ as an example: classes. Yeah, yeah, they're kind of good I guess, but where's the merit behind them? Where's this "greatness" that C++ tutors, newbies and users, in the majority, seem to see and like? A class is just, to be blunt, "A space that holds things inside of it that can be accessed from other spaces.". Blunt yes, but true as well. Nothing a class does is something a function or variable can not. [/size] [size="4"]Even in some other means can classes be easily overtaken and all of OOP itself. Assembly is a good example... Some of C++'s "other" OOP things, which people state are "necessary", are actually very unnecessary if you ask me.[/size] [size="4"]Since when has the make or break of programming been dependent on Object-Oriented-Programming mechanisms? Never. [/size] [size="4"]OOP didn't even EXIST time ago, and we still had great software. Why is it so useful now?[/size] [size="4"]Is it really a matter of opinions, or a matter of poorly-picking the good reputed "tools" that "teachers" will "recommend" to get jobs done? I'll give you a tool all right... Encapsulation? Yeah, uh-huh... encapsulation. Where do I begin? Nowhere, because that's how encapsulation works... "magical ways"... I see magic, yeah, but it's the kind that comes from witch doctors, witch craft and black mages and not from healers. I don't even know WHERE to start with C++'s other "OOP necessities"...[/size]
  4. A base-language is really necessary?

    [quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1306025293' post='4814034'] [quote name='Andy Harglesis' timestamp='1306024796' post='4814032'] [size="3"]Is this true?[/quote] No. [/size] [size="3"][quote]if I'm not an expert at, say, C++ inside and out[/quote]There is a total of 9 C++ experts that know language inside out. Most of them are on language committee board, the other one went insane and is living on a remote island, thinking he is a coconut.[/size] [quote[size="3"]I hear everyone saying that knowing a base-language 100% is necessary before programming games. But again, why?[/quote]Meritocracy. You will not be respected if you don't know language at same level as your peers. That exerts social pressure and disrupts team dynamics. It's one of easiest things to solve, just have everyone master the language, thereby establishing the ceiling. [/size][size="3"][quote]I really believe it's true. The people who are pushing programming languages so much are people who probably just know the language and assume "everyone" must as well[/quote]Not everyone. But markets are so oversaturated with programmers that filtering by those who have mastered required languages still leaves a desk full of overqualified resumes. If not looking for a job, then it doesn't matter. [quote]when it's not necessary to know a whole language in and out to use it to your advantage, program, etc.[/size][/quote]Maybe. It's also not necessary to know foot anatomy when doing a brain surgery. [/quote] Good points, all of them. Glad others can see this the way I do. I believe that C++, at its fullest, isn't really that great. Me not being a big fan of OOP(I dislike it, truthfully)fail to see how learning C++'s deeper use(which is almost all OOP and some other stuff that I'd never need to use)would help me become a better programmer in game development. Is there something I'm blindly not seeing here? OOP isn't necessary, yet people claim C++'s core aspects of work, which are all OOP, are necessary to program games when that's untrue. How would Java programmers make games then? There's no OOP in Java, so clearly there's something "off" here with what people are pushing...
  5. [quote name='Butabee' timestamp='1306025440' post='4814035'] If you want to quickly make a 3D game I'd recommend a graphics engine like Ogre... that will save you a lot of wheel reinventing. [/quote] No, speed isn't an issue. I'd like to gain the skills and knowledge to do it the hard way.
  6. A base-language is really necessary?

    [size="3"]Confusing title, yeah, I know.[/size] [size="3"]What I'm asking more specifically is about people, and many of them, are claiming that you NEED to know a base-language(a programming language itself, not an API)to the FULLEST to be able to develop games.[/size] [size="3"]Is this true?[/size] [size="3"]Like, if I'm not an expert at, say, C++ inside and out, that limited-knowledge will prevent or make it difficult to develop a game? How so?[/size] [size="3"]I know C++ basics, how to use it for what I do, but I really don't know it that well overall. I found it kind of dumb to dig deeper into the language seeing how it has little to do with game programming itself, in the big picture, but why do people say that?[/size] [size="3"]I hear everyone saying that knowing a base-language 100% is necessary before programming games. But again, why? A base-language, to the max, doesn't have much effect on game programming mechanisms, like APIs themself(which have nothing to do with base-languages in the field of relation of use), graphics(which, again, don't pertain to a base-level language's structure or use), etc. [/size] [size="3"]So what's the hype with knowing programming languages "PERFECTLY" before getting into game programming?[/size] [size="3"]I think that, to be honest, one could program by learning an API, the basics of game programming, etc., with having very minimal knowledge of a base-language itself.[/size] [size="3"]I really believe it's true. The people who are pushing programming languages so much are people who probably just know the language and assume "everyone" must as well, when it's not necessary to know a whole language in and out to use it to your advantage, program, etc.[/size] [size="3"]Again, remember, most of C++'s "deeper" things seem to be related to OOP, and we ALL should know that OOP will not make or break the weight or code behind a game.[/size] [size="3"]All in all, since C++'s deeper things are mainly OOP, it is basically not necessary to learn them because OOP doesn't limit or unlimit your ability or knowledge, skills or code behind a game: It is not necessary.[/size] [size="3"]BUT I'd like to hear some others' opinions. This is why I asked this. Sorry if it came off mean...[/size]
  7. [size="4"]Sure, yeah, I know DirectX is for Windows, it won't work on other platforms unless it's changed...[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]But overall, is DX really less great than OpenGL?[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]As far as graphics go, OpenGL beats DirectX?[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]OpenGL beats DirectX with portability?[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]But does portability mean everything? No.[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]OpenGL beats DirectX due to DirectX's bad reputation?[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]But does a bad reputation mean everything? No, of course not.[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]What do you think I should do?[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]I use DirectX, not OpenGL, because I'm a real beginner and DirectX is more straight forward than OpenGL.[/size] [size="4"] [/size] [size="4"]OpenGL doesn't have much to it itself anyways...[/size]
  8. [size="4"][size="4"]Specifically a game like FF7 for PS1...[/size] [/size] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5CwRSzXek[/media] For example, that scene ^^above^^ is one I'd like to create within a few years using either C++ or Assembly and DirectX or OpenGL. And by "create" I mean from scratch, yes, and hope to do it within a few years once I reach the ability to work in 3D environments. Here are my skills in programming as of now: [size="4"]I am currently a beginner at game programming. I have produced, at best, a movable set of pixels developing in a Windows API environment using Windows API programming. The game featured two trees made out of pixels as background art and a polygonal line under the pixels to resemble a floor on a sort of 2-D Cartesian plane. I managed to get keyboard input from Windows and move the set of pixels, resembling an inclined line, left and right and have limited boundaries to each end of the visible view of the screen.[/size] [size="4"]I also added a very tiny strategy to the game, whereas you have the ability to move the pixel set over a key(made of pixels as well)and when you press SHIFT(shift key is a button that checks for items, etc., like in strategy or puzzle games)and it will claim you have the key if you are right over it. Also, if you press the SHIFT key while at the boundary limit of either sides of the screen, it will let you know that your boundary has reached its limit.[/size] [size="4"]So, based on what I've done at best, would you say I'm on a good track to programming success over time?[/size] [size="4"]And, if anyone would help, I would like to know if repainting the screen using InvalidateRect is the only means of redrawing the screen or if that function is the only way to update what is on the screen.[/size] [size="4"]If so, how would one make a game if the screen requires repainting so much? [/size] [size="4"]Thanks in advance greatly. [/size] [size="2"]I think I attached a file containing the .cpp file for the program.[/size] [size="2"]I HEAVILY appreciate any help given, small or big. [/size]