Which is better for making simple 2D games? I've started learning the Ruby programming language, and so far it's pretty good- easy to use, simple syntax, etc... But is Flash any better?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 0:33
Flash isn't really programming. I would stay far away from it. Although if you aren't looking to go beyond simple 2d games, then it really wouldn't matter.
I like Java's 2d interface, personally. Combine that library with a good IDE like Eclipse, and you can crank some stuff out there pretty quick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 0:34
Flash isn't really programming. I would stay far away from it. Although if you aren't looking to go beyond simple 2d games, then it really wouldn't matter.
I like Java's 2d interface, personally. Combine that library with a good IDE like Eclipse, and you can crank some stuff out there pretty quick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 1:21
Flash isn't really programming. I would stay far away from it. Although if you aren't looking to go beyond simple 2d games, then it really wouldn't matter.
I like Java's 2d interface, personally. Combine that library with a good IDE like Eclipse, and you can crank some stuff out there pretty quick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 4:06
haskell > * > flash > java > ruby
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 4:50
Kill Java with fire
Flash could very well be even slower
AFAIK there's not much for games in Ruby, but if there is, you can use Ruby. It's a better language than Java will ever be, and better than Flash's JavaScript (although JavaScript itself is not bad).
If you can't find what you need in Ruby, use Python+PyGame+whatever extra libs you need, there's a lot for 2D games.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 8:09
Actionscript (flash) is crap, and java is evil. Don't know ruby very much, but with python you can do a lot of things. You can also use Perl but its syntax can kill you, beware.
I never quite understand 4chan's obsession with dynamic languages. They have their place, and are useful, but that doesn't mean statically typed languages are horrid.
Quite frankly, for large projects, a statically typed language like C, Java or (gasp) c# will own the equivalent dynamic - both in performance and in maintainability.
For small stuff, the dynamic languages will get you going faster, and be much easier to change as you mess with things. Good for getting a prototype working really quickly.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 10:21
>>8 that doesn't mean statically typed languages are horrid.
But they are. Work more to achieve the same. So I avoid them wherever I can.
Quite frankly, for large projects, a statically typed language like C, Java or (gasp) c# will own the equivalent dynamic - both in performance and in maintainability.
Not really
For small stuff, the dynamic languages will get you going faster
For big stuff they do as well. They are more productive, simple as that, so they are more productive for 1K lines and 1M lines.
Good for getting a prototype working really quickly.
Never understood why people speak of "rapid prototyping". I write the good stuff from the start, and if I fuck up, as long as everything was properly abstracted and your language has a proper, dynamic OO model, portions can be replaced with minimal impact. There's no such thing as prototypes, the application simply evolves, and if I need to rewrite it because it's too slow (never happened), that'll be version 2.0.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 13:09
>>9
you obviously have zero experience actually working on large scale projects, since you have no clue about performance, prototyping, or large code bases. gtfo of /prog/ and go back to your high school programming classes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 17:46
>>8
Hey, what's wrong with C#? I've been thinking of learning it as a first language because http://www.xnatutorial.com/ seems to be a way to have fun at the same time.
I thought that it doesn't matter what a person learns. That as long as he gets the general ideas down, all he has to do is learn the syntax for whatever language he chooses later. Am I wrong? I wanted to check out Lua as well, but I don't see any exercise-y stuffs for it. >.>
The language itself is generally fine. SYntactically, its just java with some more event stuff added on top. However, there is only one option when developing with it - Visual Studio. Were this not the case, I would have a much higher opinion of it. Visual Studio is the shortbus IDE.
Yeah, there are a few other alternatives, but none are all that mature yet. From what I hear, the JetBrains guys are making a .NET IDE, but that hasnt shown up yet. You are also (effectively) tying yourself to one platform. Yeah, Mono exists, but I hear its not really easy to get cross compilation working.
Learning Microsoft languages first can take you down the dark path, and I never advise it. Their tools are built to make rapid development (not good development) possible, and its not exactly easy to learn good development practices when so many crappy shortcuts (like designers) are available to you. Why bother learning how to make controllers work when you can just use a clicky Form Designer - a designer that generates code so horrid that in VS2005, it actually hides it in a seperate partial class file ....
C# isn't that bad. I call it "Java, now with less stupid!" It has its quirky bits, sure, but all languages do.
That said, I tend to think that better programmers start closer to the silicon and work their way out to higher level languages. I wouldn't suggest starting any higher than C++, e.g. Programming students who start out at a Java-equivalent level frequently seem less likely to grasp the hidden costs of any given library call. At least learn to write "Hello, world" in ASM to expose yourself to what your machine sees.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-04 10:40
C# is that bad. I call it "Java, now with slightly less stupid!"
Your statistics are meaningless I WAS THERE to give a shit about EOF?
Name:
Trollbot90002009-07-01 11:04
that he was up She felt his hand tending to her asymptotic limit Her convergence would soon be gone forever There was a program to rip through your.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-21 2:03
Thatbad I callit Java nowwith less stupidIt has itsquirky bits surebut all languagesdo That saidI tend tothink that betterprogrammers start closerto the siliconand work theirway out tohigher level languages?
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
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