I was told by a game developer at this seminar that if I want to learn how to program games, a good way to start is with Java and making cellphone games. I plan on learning C++ before Java anyway but around how long would it take a newbie to learn Java or when would it be a good idea to learn Java if not at all?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 19:54
Dive into Python is crap. You might like it if you've never programmed before, otherwise it's _very_ longwinded. The only reason anybody reads it is because it's free.
Then again, most language books plain stink.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-14 21:24
lol
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-14 12:23
LISP
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-26 9:59
ur gay
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-28 10:59
beware the army of 12 year old autistics
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-28 11:30
Man I like Java for the portability, but jesus christ the language does not want to be learned. Every tutorial is shite and if I hear "UML 2.1" once more, I will fucking eat a bird.
Also, and this is retarded, XILINX runs on Java. Who the FUCK decided that an 8 gig VHDL compiler should run on Java? Even on top-line machines, hardware synthesis can run upwards to an hour if your layout is fiddly enough.
>>88
Dunno what I need; I haven't got into electronics yet, will do this summer.
Yesterday in a thread on /g/ someone said that they were using an FPGA to "emulate" (synthesize? I don't know what the proper terminology is) a CPU, on which then they ran Linux.
I am currently using a Spartan3a to do some hardware reading for me, but I don't want to use VHDL for everything I need and space/weight is limited so I can't just plug the FPGA into a processor, so in the Spartan3a, I'm emulating a 66MHz processor which'll take my C code. Analog data goes to ADC goes via SPI to FPGA, is manipulated in C and fed through TCP/IP to data logger.
>>90
Right, FPGA guys are 2 c00l to ``compile'' ``programs'', they »synthesize« »designs«.
But why would you want to run Linux on some shitty MicroBlaze, when you could make an OpenSPARC and run glorious Solaris?
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-28 15:39
If you know c++ already, Java shouldn't be terribly difficult. I might suggest C# instead though. And if you want to make games of decent quality, might as well jump from c# to c# with XNA.
Cellphone games will help you deal with finite resource management, horrible compilers, and debugging annoying little things, but in general, don't do it unless you want to do it for a living.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-28 16:53
>>92 But why would you want to run Linux on some shitty MicroBlaze, when you could make an OpenSPARC and run glorious Solaris?
Don't ask me; my understanding of FPGAs is that they're magical pieces of hardware which change due to your spells.
Name:
not anyone in this thread2010-06-28 17:07
>>92
Synthesize is the right term when generating FPGA or ASIC netlists.
You compile C code to machine code which is interpreted by the CPU. The machine code is ran sequentially.
You synthesize VHDL/Verilog/schematics code to netlists which translate into real hardware structures(in the case of ASIC. In the case of VHDL, they just represent the configuration of various cells, but it's still functionally equivalent to the one ran on an ASIC, just an order of magnitude slower(or less). CPUs like x86 are full custom designs which are a lot more optimized(they optimize the schematics at the transistor/cell level, instead of just at the logic gate level) than autogenerated ASICs, because of ZOMGspeed). The netlists are ``ran'' in parallel, because that's just how electircal current works, but even then, most designs are synchronous and are synced by a clock signal, because true parallel async designs are much harder to manage and keep error-free. (In the case of a CPU, you can say that an instruction takes x (as documented) ticks to execute, that would mean it takes that many clock cycles).
But why would you want to run Linux on some shitty MicroBlaze, when you could make an OpenSPARC and run glorious Solaris?
Probably because OpenSPARC is too large, and thus too costly to fit on his FPGA?
>>95 In the case of VHDL, they just represent the configuration of various cells, but it's still functionally equivalent to the one ran on an ASIC, just an order of magnitude slower(or less).
Which is again functionally equivalent to interpreting the netlist on an CPU.
Meh, I guess what I really take issue with is the people who keep claiming that ``Verilog/VHDL is not a programming language''.
>>97
Of course you can do that, and I do consider Verilong/VHDL to be a programming language, but it's not a programming language meant to be ran on sequential CPUs (even if it can be emulated on them). It's more of a programming language than XML, in the sense that it describes a form of code which can be ran on a physical platform, not data, but at the same time it will compile to physical gate-level structures... Argh, whatever, it is a programming language.
>>99
Oh calm down. /prog/ doesn't need more people that know English as badly as it needs more people that know C, or any programming language at all for that matter.
>>100
There's a strong correlation between having anything to contribute and understanding the rules of grammar, spelling, capitalisation, and punctuation.
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy