This is a discussion on C++ sucks for games - Java-Games ; peter.lewerin@swipnet.se (Peter Lewerin) wrote > There is a paradigm > difference between CLOS and non-OOP Lisp code, but the language is the > same, and it's quite possible to mix the two. D'oh. I first meant to write approximately "There ...
C++ sucks for games peter.lewerin@swipnet.se (Peter Lewerin) wrote
> There is a paradigm
> difference between CLOS and non-OOP Lisp code, but the language is the
> same, and it's quite possible to mix the two.
D'oh.
I first meant to write approximately "There is a complexity difference
[...] but no paradigm difference.", but then I thought people would
think I didn't understand the proper meaning of 'paradigm' in this
case. So I was going to write "There is a complexity difference
[...], but the language is the same, and it's quite possible to mix
the two." And then 'paradigm' slipped in where 'complexity' should
be.
My point is that CLOS code involves more components and
interconnections: it's a little bit more complicated than straight
non-OOP Lisp code. However, CLOS code is still "Lispy" all the way,
and CLOS code and non-OOP Lisp code work well together. As a simple
example, PRINT, a basic printing function in Lisp, works equally well
with CLOS objects as with non-OOP data.
Re: C++ sucks for games C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there is
cleaner OO languages.
IMHO, Java is the language for games starting from now.
CPU are going faster, there is no reasons to not use Java for games.
Java is easy to debug, easy to maintain, easy to port as C++ is, etc ...
Programmers need to involve and try some other languages (not only Java).
Re: C++ sucks for games In article <2v36edF2g3abtU1@uni-berlin.de>, Pere.Noel@lutin.fr says...
> C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there is
> cleaner OO languages.
>
> IMHO, Java is the language for games starting from now.
>
> CPU are going faster, there is no reasons to not use Java for games.
> Java is easy to debug, easy to maintain, easy to port as C++ is, etc ...
>
> Programmers need to involve and try some other languages (not only Java).
I don't see Java as having any major advantage over C++ for experienced
programmers. And it has some real disadvantages.
I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a run in massively multi-player RPGs
and the like, though. (And of cource it is popular for cellphone
games.)
- Gerry Quinn
Re: C++ sucks for games "Vincent Cantin" <Pere.Noel@lutin.fr> wrote in message news:<2v36edF2g3abtU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there is
> cleaner OO languages.
C++ is NOT AN OO LANGUAGE! It supports OO programming, but offers many
more design options. If you exclusively program OO programs then use
java, or smalltalk or an OO language.
Why do people try to sew cloth with spears and kill lions with
needles?
Jeremy J.
Re: C++ sucks for games In article <3b9c3059.0411072203.683c50e1@posting.google.com>,
arketype@myrealbox.com says...
> "Vincent Cantin" <Pere.Noel@lutin.fr> wrote in message news:<2v36edF2g3abtU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there is
> > cleaner OO languages.
>
> C++ is NOT AN OO LANGUAGE! It supports OO programming, but offers many
> more design options. If you exclusively program OO programs then use
> java, or smalltalk or an OO language.
That is the argument of people who want to misuse C++, and don't like to
be shown up by those using it properly! C++ was designed to be OO, with
support for exceptional cases as well as legacy C code.
> Why do people try to sew cloth with spears and kill lions with
> needles?
Whatever kills the lions gets used.
- Gerry Quinn
Re: C++ sucks for games In article <MPG.1bf954e17d024719989aba@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <3b9c3059.0411072203.683c50e1@posting.google.com>,
> arketype@myrealbox.com says...
> > "Vincent Cantin" <Pere.Noel@lutin.fr> wrote in message
> > news:<2v36edF2g3abtU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there
> > > is
> > > cleaner OO languages.
> >
> > C++ is NOT AN OO LANGUAGE! It supports OO programming, but offers many
> > more design options. If you exclusively program OO programs then use
> > java, or smalltalk or an OO language.
>
> That is the argument of people who want to misuse C++, and don't like to
> be shown up by those using it properly!
People like Stroustrup? See:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...ented-language
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...#multiparadigm
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/oopsla.pdf
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#advanced
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#why
Gerry, you're not a C++ advocate, you're an OOP zealot who
happens to use C++. You use C++ in a more orthodox manner
than Stroustrup himself recommends, and you've demonstrated
a remarkable ability to disregard the new ideas you've been
shown here based on your vague impression of Lisp or Lisp
advocates.
Re: C++ sucks for games Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bf6ce946f68d9cb989aab@news.indigo.ie>...
> In article <2v36edF2g3abtU1@uni-berlin.de>, Pere.Noel@lutin.fr says...
> > C++ is a old gadget library built incrementally from the past, now there is
> > cleaner OO languages.
> >
> > IMHO, Java is the language for games starting from now.
> >
> > CPU are going faster, there is no reasons to not use Java for games.
> > Java is easy to debug, easy to maintain, easy to port as C++ is, etc ...
> >
> > Programmers need to involve and try some other languages (not only Java).
>
> I don't see Java as having any major advantage over C++ for experienced
> programmers. And it has some real disadvantages.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a run in massively multi-player RPGs
> and the like, though. (And of cource it is popular for cellphone
> games.)
From http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html:
ZeroC (http://www.zeroc.com/): Provides ICE, a distributed
object-oriented computing infrastructure with a modern C++ mapping.
ICE is written in portable C++ and compiles with a wide range of C++
compilers. ICE is used for massive multi-player games, such as Mutable
Realms' on-line multiplayer role-playing game Wish that allows tens of
thousands simultaneous players in a single game world. The game's core
logic and performance-critical functions are written in C++ using ICE.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs
>
> - Gerry Quinn
Re: C++ sucks for games Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
> From http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html:
>
> ZeroC (http://www.zeroc.com/): Provides ICE, a distributed
> object-oriented computing infrastructure with a modern C++ mapping.
> ICE is written in portable C++ and compiles with a wide range of C++
> compilers. ICE is used for massive multi-player games, such as Mutable
> Realms' on-line multiplayer role-playing game Wish that allows tens of
> thousands simultaneous players in a single game world. The game's core
> logic and performance-critical functions are written in C++ using ICE.
And just today someone at work pointed out Hello Kitty had a massively
multi-player game offering.
I asked, "So can I get into it, grab a machine gun, and hose down HK?"
--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces
Re: C++ sucks for games Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
> C++ was designed to be OO, with
> support for exceptional cases as well as legacy C code.
It may have been designed that way, but it failed
miserably. At least according to Alan Kay.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <1995May29.062427.3640@netlabs.com>
Re: C++ sucks for games In article <none-BB1DDE.09361608112004@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
none@vanderbilt.edu says...
> In article <MPG.1bf954e17d024719989aba@news.indigo.ie>,
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> > > C++ is NOT AN OO LANGUAGE! It supports OO programming, but offers many
> > > more design options. If you exclusively program OO programs then use
> > > java, or smalltalk or an OO language.
> >
> > That is the argument of people who want to misuse C++, and don't like to
> > be shown up by those using it properly!
>
> People like Stroustrup? See:
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...ented-language
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...#multiparadigm
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/oopsla.pdf
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#advanced
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#why
>
> Gerry, you're not a C++ advocate, you're an OOP zealot who
> happens to use C++. You use C++ in a more orthodox manner
> than Stroustrup himself recommends, and you've demonstrated
> a remarkable ability to disregard the new ideas you've been
> shown here based on your vague impression of Lisp or Lisp
> advocates.
If you read that pdf file, you'll see that Stroustrup uses the term
'multiparadigm language' when struggling for words. He wraps up by
saying: "I have argued that there are - and must be - useful techniques
beyond object-oriented programming and design. However, to avoid being
totally misunderstood, I would like to emphasise that I wouldn't attempt
a serious project using a programming language that didn't at least
support the classical notion of object-oriented programming."
I don't disagree with any of that. What I reject is the notion of those
who latch onto unfortunate terms like 'multiparadigm language', that
object orientation is just one of a number of equally useful and valid
general-purpose approaches to the programming and design of non-niche
software.
- Gerry Quinn
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks