If I only had a mathematical brain...

I'd love to program.  I really would.  But my mind isn't cut out for it.  I've seen people who think mathematically, and I'm not one of them.  I keep  getting stuck on Trig due the to stress from each lesson that adds on top of the previous lesson.  Inane equations within equations, combined with my short memory span and occasional absent-minded backwards thinking means I have to try three times harder than someone who has math "come naturally" to them.  Instead, I have a more creative mind, endlessly thinking and imagining.  I believe this the opposite end of some spectrum, as these math wizards I've met seem to be less creative and more mechanical in thinking.

I was thinking of Game Designer as a possible option, as I can appreciate programming and understand it overall, but can't do the code for shit.  But with creativity I could create a design that programmers can work with.  The only problem is I'll be trying to work in a computer field without a CS degree, and would get little respect for not knowing the details of what a programmer is talking about.

>>39
>Real languages shouldn't be a programmers kindergarten. That's what Basic and Pascal are for.

Ugh. I "started" with Basic, Basic is a wonderful language for creating horrible programmers like me. I say "started" because I didn't really do anything until I learned C in high school.

>>41
I used QBasic all through high school. I wish I'd known about C back then. The most complex program I managed to write was a good old fashioned mandelbrot generator.

It did require me to teach myself complex number arithmetic though so it was useful as a mathematical exercise if not a programming one.

It was kinda fun... running QBasic from the DOS prompt and trying to figure out how to get this language that couldn't do *anything* to do stuff with no prior programming knowledge, no documentation, tutorials and especially no internet.

>>41
I used QBasic all through high school. I wish I'd known about C back then. The most complex program I managed to write was a good old fashioned mandelbrot generator.

It did require me to teach myself complex number arithmetic though so it was useful as a mathematical exercise if not a programming one.

It was kinda fun... running QBasic from the DOS prompt and trying to figure out how to get this language that couldn't do *anything* to do stuff with no prior programming knowledge, no documentation, tutorials and especially no internet.

I wouldn't be so harsh. QBasic was missing a lot of things, but for a beginner it did more than enough. It was also quite simple; compare using "screen 13" to setting up a similar drawing context in C.

And QBasic had a large amount of documentation and examples in the help file. It was better than any other "online" help that I saw around that time period (or was that QuickBasic?). If someone couldn't figure out how to use QB from that help file they were just plain stupid.

QBasic was cool because of the simple drawing and the PLAY command.

Ah, those were the days, when I was unaware of even the simplest programming constructs, and attempted to write a roulette game with thousands of consecutive IF statements.... :D

>>45
Sounds like me :D

you know you can compile qbasic programs into executable files right?
http://www.qbcafe.net/english/index.html?dl_pages/compiler/index.html~qbc_main

>>47
Yes. Point being?

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

The one thing that pissed me off with QuickBasic was that even compiled programs were slow.

If they'd put in a decent compiler, allowed embedded asm, and supported a flat memory model, QuickBasic could have gone far indeed. :'(

>>37

>rant.end();
you forgot to import java.util.Rant and set Rant rant = new Rant(new BufferedInputStream(new InputStream(myComment)));

point being, people were talking about compiling stuff and how basic basic is when it is slightly more powerful than they might think...

also you can embed machine code in basic, i.e. you have to write your asm in pure machine code hex. fun hey.
(google CALL ABSOLUTE)

Im not a supporter of qbasic btw lol

Just because a language compiles is no proof of power.

>>53
Indeed, compilation is irrelevant to power. Compiled code merely runs faster. A powerful language enables the programmer to run faster. Far more important.

>>53
no argument there, but
>more powerful
...relative to printing hello world on screen, making the speaker beep and drawing dots/lines.

Hah, true.

The odd thing was I never noticed a significant speed boost betwee QuickBasic compiled or interpreted. Perhaps it was a result of QuickBasic using BIOS interrupts for many things.

>>56
I used QBX but the concept of compilation didn't really mean anything to me in those days. Hell I didn't even know what a function was :)
I'm still not sure whether I was making my .exes by compiling or merely by packaging the interpreter up with the code. All I knew was that I could distribute my program without people bitching about being too dumb to open the file in QBasic.

I would like to bump this in order to reflect upon a bygone era in /prog/.

Thank you.

>>58
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

This is why I still program in assembly. 

>>58
One word, the forced repressed memories of /prog/. Thread over.

Memories should never be repressed when they are good memories.

FREEBASIC OR GTFO

>>61
This may surprise you, but I actually invented that meme. `One word, the forced indentation of code. Thread over.'

>>64
This may surprise you, but I actually invented that meme. "I actually invented that meme."

This may surprise you, but THIS THREAD IS TWO FUCKING YEARS OLD. FUCK OFF.

awesome thread this was.

Has anyone else noticed that the old threads actually have discussion and stuff in them? Nowadays /prog/ is just like /b/ with even dorkier memes.

>>68

Yes, those were the good old days

Programming, or Computer Science in general, is not really a science. Maybe an engineering, or an art, or actually it's kind of similar to magic, but not a science. Also, Computer so-called Science is not really about computers; not more than physics is about particle accelerators, or biology is about microscopes, or geometry is about surveying instruments.

Read/watch SICP, the legendary programming course, and receive enlightenment.

Also, >>1 :
Don't think Maths people are necessarily less creative. The good ones are very creative. And I partly agree with >>2 : I think programming is also about communication skills; in particular, the skill to communicate processes.

If you want to become a game designer, you need communication skills, and you need a way to define and document game logic and rules, which go way beyond the obvious. To do this, you need to dominate formal languages, for which I'll still recommend you to read SICP.

>>9
retarded greasy/pointy-haired self-important MBAs
These individuals, if we can call them individuals, are a disgrace for the human species, wherever they are, wherever they go.

>>11
I suck at Mathematics but pogramming isn't about Mathematics most of the time, and hell, as long as you can use a Calculator your fine
For your average COBOL, Java or Visual Basic job, this is correct. But if you want to become a really good programmer and get to do the fun stuff, you better do it the right way.

And oh my fucking god, I've been replying to a 2 years old poster. Fucking bumping motherfuckers, wasting my time.

At least I got to read >>32, which stroke with truth like the fist of an angry god.

why can't /prog/ be more like this now :(

>>71
I was discussing seriously in >>70 until I realized it had been bumped, but see how a post like >>1's got me to post seriously. Just post seriously, and I'll post seriously. Post forced indentation of code, and I'll reply with SICP.

>>72
If I post forced indentation of SICP, will you post code?

>>73
I'll post this code:

10 PRINT "I'VE READ SICP"
20 GOTO 10


5.2.3 Recursion

    If you don't understand recursion, see 5.2.3.

>>70
Then why does it have science in its name‽

>>76
because computerology sounds gay

>>77
Watch sicp!

>>78
youre a retard

>>79
no, really, watch sicp (structure and interpretation of computer programs.).