Re: Interested in starting some basic development

[Jeff Read <bitwize@geocities.com>]

Borko Jandras wrote:

> Yeah, I know. That's why I'm doing my thing in a OO language. See, doing a
> _game_ in C++ is ok, but doing a _library_ in anything other than plain C
> is not.

Why not? You use Perl libraries to write Perl programs, and Scheme
libraries to write Scheme programs. (At least *I* do.) Why not use C++
libraries to write C++ programs? If you want to write your game in
Objectionable-C so bad, why not do a C++ -> ObjC port of GAMES? If it's
a C-based language with full OO constructs it shouldn't be too
difficult.

> 
> What? You don't find their little iMac hunchback cute? :)

I find it vaguely reminiscent of the IBM PS/1 to tell the truth. :) And
the Mac slogan "Think different" sounds scarily like the Scientology
slogan "Think for yourself", with similar implications of feigning
support for independence of thought.

> Trouble, trouble. The real trouble IMNSHO is that who ever wants to use GAMES
> is stuck with C++. If GAMES was in C, you could still do the game using it in
> C++, or any other language.

Um, no, not exactly. :) For one thing, a Java version exists. :) It's
not a real winner, performance wise but it works. For another, you seem
to be implying that C++ cannot be interfaced with other languages
whereas C can. The truth is, you'd probably have to write wrappers to do
proper interfacing with other languages in *either* language, and with
C++ it would be somewhat more work, but not a lot.

> To bring a bit of KDE/GNOME war here (as if C++ vs the rest of the world is not
> enough for me), that is exactly why I favor GNOME, and find the whole KDE stuff
> repulsive. How the fsck can I do a KDE app if I don't want to program it in
> C++. Uh.

You could write some C wrappers that took care of some of the dirty work
for you and then write the rest of the program in C, if you wish.

> 
> Small in number? Where did I hear that before?

The number of people whose insistence in hating C++ is so great that in
order to work with object-oriented environments they'd rather put up
with C plus an incredibly large and twisted maze of code to make C smell
somewhat OO, rather than suffer to code in the more streamlined and more
inherently OO C++ is indeed small in number, and of a mindset akin to
those who would rather squint at long hex dumps and hand-assemble their
code than use one of those wussy, so-called "high-level" languages,
albeit not as extreme.

And please, PLEASE don't compare C++ to Windows as the two are only
tangential to each other. C++ did not grow out of Windows, it's not a
Microsoft invention, nor was it developed in the same manner as a
Microsoft product (thank God). The reason why some people say "bloat"
when their shrink shows them an index card with "C++" written on it is
because of Windows and its dreadful MFC library which insists on trying
to be the de facto standard set of Classes That Everybody Should Use, as
well as the sickening code that the AppWizards and ClassWizards produce.
Ugh, ugh, ugh. If you start from scratch and write your own classes as I
have you'll have a small set of useful classes for your application that
really don't take up that much space at all. These classes can then form
a sort of skeletal framework for other, more sophisticated applications.
I don't know what the deal is with KDE.

Hitler. Nazis. There, now this thread should DIE.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <bitwize@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker,  / Boycott Microsoft!
Anime & Sonic Fan,             / Use Linux/GNU!
All Around Nice Guy           / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------