How to become a games programmer

1. Learn C++. Possible alternatives: C, C#. If you are a fag: Java, Haskell or Python.
2. Learn Calculus
3. Learn Linear Algebra
4. Learn classical physics
5. Learn a 3D API. OpenGL or Direct3D.
6. Learn how to play sound get input etc on your target system.
7. Read about game engines and how to make them.
8. Make Game
9. Profit

Very simple. Good luck.

I don't know who Guido van Rossum is, but I have a strong desire to piss him off.

you can sell flash games to many websites

>>42
look up miniclip in wikipedia

C is the only language you need.

Abstraction is a dangerous thing when one does not understand the underlying truth of 'enhanced' languages.

>>44 Abstraction is a dangerous thing when one does not understand
More dangerous than pointers and C strings?

>>45
C doesn't have strings. Only fuckups don't understand pointers.

>>46
C has strings.

>>45
Abstraction considered harmful.

>>47
C has char *, but it does not have strings.

>>49
Oh god, what an idiot.
define me string plz.
OH wait, the standard has defined it already. you fail.

>>49
So we're in agreement that using a language where we pretend char* and a null terminator are strings is insane?

6.4.5~:
A character string literal is a sequence of zero or more multibyte characters enclosed in double-quotes, as in "xyz". A wide string literal is teh same, except prefixed by the letter L.

what do u think strcmp strcat etc stands for ????? string maybe??

>>52
>>53

Those are usage conventions of pointers and (char)0, not a language construct.

>>54
with your logic, you could say that computers do not have strings.
Also, C has strings wether your stupid brain can comprehend it or not.

>>54
You know, if there's special syntax for it ("foo" = the string foo), it probably qualifies as a langugage construct.

>>56

Nah, it's just a macro dude

Strings are not built into the C programming language. You have functions that have been written to adapt to the needs of strings, but there is no predefined handling of strings in C. In reality, strings need not be terminated with null characters; this is merely a convenience feature of C.

>>55
Get a life, fucktard. Always posting on 4chan with nothing else to do with your pathetic 'life'. Very sad.

>>58,59
You do not understand programming, get out.
C has the so called ``C strings''
C strings are defined by the standard.
you're full of shit.
C strings are bult in the C programming language.
You do not need any functions to have strings.
In reality, strings do not exist.
And it is not a feature of C.

Why do i even bother replying to you?

ps. If C does not have strings, please, please tell me what "fuckyou" is.

>>60

Array of chars?

>>61
incorrect.
Not even close to 'chars'
an array -- yes.

>>60 Do concepts exist?

>>60
You are full of phail.

>>64
yet, you fail to answer to my question or prove me wrong.
sorry sir, but you do not know C.

>>60
Failure

If C does not have strings, please, please tell me what "fuckyou" is.
It's a pointer to char, dumbass.

>>66
Exactly.

There are only a few basic data types in C:

char    a single byte, capable of holding one character in the local character set
int    an integer, typically reflecting the natural size of integers on the host machine
float    single-precision floating point
double    double-precision floating point

In addition, there are a number of qualifiers that can be applied to these basic types. short and long apply to integers:

   short int sh;
   long int counter;

(...)
5.5 Character Pointers and Functions
A string constant, written as

   "I am a string"

is an array of characters.  In the internal representation, the array is terminated with the null character '\0' so that programs can find the end. The length in storage is thus one more than the number of characters between the double quotes.
(...)

No, I'm not K&R. the above, though, was quoted from the book. Even though it's true, strings are not built in in the C programming language, still, the fact that string constants ARE defined in the C language, and moreover, that the internal representation of string constants is fixed (plus all the string functions in the C standard use this same representation), does point to this idea:
The internal representation of strings as array of characters plus '\0' is specified in the C standar.

You people are arguing the meaning of ``strings.'' Truly pathetic anonymous.

>>66
pointer to char
nope, it is not a pointer to a char.
It's a const string of sizeof.
>>68
K&R is old, "foo" is no longer an array of n chars.

Am i the only C expert in this board? sad.

>>68
I have the book, dumbfuck. You still don't know what you're talking about.

>>70
What in the fuck are you talking about? Wait, IHBT. For the second time.

>>72
L"test"
(int*)"test"

No longer an array of chars IS IT?
as i said, it's sad

zG2CVXS5 doesn't know shit about C
cgmoAS42 is confused

sad, very sad.
I was expecting more from people that wank over the SICP cover.

>>71
still? that was my first post on the entire thread.
>>70
sorry, to me C89 is the only C.

>>74
that fuckwid zG2CVXS5 assumed your post was done by me so he flamed you without really looking at the content -- good example of a troll.
a pointer to a char would be

char c;
&c

>>73
SICP does have a really really nice cover....

>>73 I was expecting more from people that wank over the SICP cover.
You were expecting *Scheme*rs... to know *C*. That makes sense.

>>77
Any schemer that doesn't know C isn't worth his salt.

This whole argument degraded into semantics. A C string is an array of characters, pointed to by a char*, terminated by a null char. It's not a language construct, perhaps not even a "standard", but by the terms of every single string handling function defined in ANSI C, it's very much a recommendation.

You're all fucking insane. "asd" evaluates to something of type char *, const char * if you really want to push it, plus the compiler storing characters "asd" plus a byte 0 somewhere in the executable that gets loaded, possibly but not necessarily as read-only memory. It's not an array, it doesn't say anything about its length, and most of all, >>73 was obviously trolling because L"asd" is a different expression and (int *) "asd" is "asd" (a pointer to char) which is being casted to int *.