[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

>Making a shit game in oop language >Lazy, so everything

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 25
Thread images: 1

File: 1408829635614.jpg (30KB, 499x320px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1408829635614.jpg
30KB, 499x320px
>Making a shit game in oop language
>Lazy, so everything that should be an object is actually an array with a clusterfuck of macros
>No use of objects anywhere, despite the language being literally designed for objects
>Every time I want to change the properties of something or flesh something out, I have to spend 20 minutes dicking with the array and jotting down more notes so I know how to properly use it
Is this what programming in C is like? No objects, just micromanaging a shitton of arrays that loosely follow the same blueprint?

Are objects just obfuscated arrays to make development easier? Just like arrays are obfuscated stacks to make development easier?
>>
You have no idea how to implement objects in C and yet you're complaining about C?

Fuck off back to /agdg/, you worthless sack of shit.
>>
>>51482046
C has structs, you know.
>>
>>51482059
I'm not complaining about anything and C isn't object oriented anon.

I'm also not using C, but ok.
>>
No, C devs use structs and functions that take those structs. Being a C dev is more like making every function need 4 to 8 parameters.

You're just shit, sorry.
>>
>>51482097
>>51482083
So C is actually casual as fuck?

And I'm just writing casual mode assembly where I get all of the benefits of a high level syntax, on top of having arrays, but all of the frustration of having to micromanage lists of data?
>>
>>51482120
pmuch
>>
>>51482120
>assembly where I get all of the benefits of a high level syntax, on top of having arrays,

correct.

>but all of the frustration of having to micromanage lists of data?

you dont *have* to do it that way no. you can use structs.

you appear to be complaining that c does not have implicit language support for oo.
which it doesnt, you can fake it, but at that point you should probably consider c++ or some other oo language.
>>
>>51482120
>>51482182
Learning C, I can agree with this. But you don't have to micromanage, structs are a thing.
>>
>>51482249
>>51482284
i literally just posted im not using C. i literally made it clear in my first post im using a shit oop language, but im just being retarded.

why would I ever even use C when HL/ASM compilers for x86 exist? and no i'm not using hl/asm either.
>>
>>51482316

yeah. you also LITERALLY wrote...

>Is this what programming in C is like?

after a whole bunch of greentext describing your frustration with programming.

so because of your poor writing skills many read that as you complaining about c.

as in...

>wah
>wah
>programming sucks

is this what c is like?

you see how we were confused doncha OP?
>>
>>51482316
>why would I ever even use C when HL/ASM compilers for x86 exist?

fuck me, being this new.

why? cos you might only have 2poofteenths of fuck all memory is why.
you might not have an os. you might be severely limited in terms of power.

now get the fuck off my lawn.
>>
>>51482403
>after a whole bunch of greentext describing your frustration with programming
no, a bunch of greentext that is a bunch of lamenting about how the way i structured my programming is leading to tedious work.

not to mention literally in the first line i say im using an oop language, which is your first tip that:
>is this what programming in c is like?
is comparing the tedium of my own deeds and choices to the tedium of manual memory management.

I do see how you got confused because apparently you can't read which makes parsing abstractions quite the issue, huh?
>>
Git gud
>>
>>51482440
HL/ASM compilers are more robust than any freely available C compiler that isn't tailored to your coding style.

You should know that, faggot. The only reason to use C is because depending on the complexity of what you want to write, it can cut down on how many lines you have to write vs ASM, as C compilers are now caught up to your average code monkey's assembly ability.

HL/ASM was created specifically to blow C the fuck out of the water and be better than it in every single way. Which it is.
>>
>>51482485

>trying to justify OP's lack of clarity

yeah i know now thats what you meant, but a whole bunch of people didnt read it that way cos *you* werent clear.

they did however spend time trying to answer even tho you werent clear, but dont let that get in your way m8, you just keep digging.
>>
>>51482522
enjoy locking yourself to one platform while my code is portable and just as fast
>>
>>51482522
Don't try arguing with Ctards

They think because they learned how to handle their memory that they are hot shit. For fucks sake, the guy thinks C is better than fucking HL/ASM for tasks that require cycle crunching and intense optimization.

He's the kind of retard who will honestly believe that GCC is capable of matching assembler from a high-power level programmer who's been doing it for decades.
>>
>>51482579
>HL/ASM
>Platform restrictive
Dude you don't even know what HL/ASM is?

Also
>C
>Just as fast
No it's not. On a test of comparatively written code and compiled for a x86 target (which is the slowest for HL/ASM), HL/ASM spends about 20% less cycles doing any mildly complex task.

But of course, you think HL/ASM is assembly, which you'd also be wrong. Yeah your freeware C compiler is about as fast as rushed assembly code or some low complexity shit where there's really no optimization to be had. But anything that has to be compiled will forever be terrible at floating point operations, and after a point, register juggling.
>>
>>51482579
forgot to mention in
>>51482666

Unless you wrote your own compiler and spent a lot of time and effort doing it to structure it to optimize while looking for YOUR specific coding style, it's not going to be even comparable to something with a much more fleshed out, much more complex compiler like HL/ASM or even straight assembler provided you aren't an incompetant twat who never learned assembler.
>>
>People actually advocate for fucking around with registers all day to do basic math
Fuck that noise
>>
>>51482695
>you can write a better compiler in 2015
>>
>>51482046
>what are structures
>>
>>51482853
>He doesn't know modern cpus come with built in instructions for high-level mathematics
this is why x86-fags need to fucking die with the 80's. its fucking inexcusable that the more complex and verbose-style instruction set is 50x more aggrivating to do math in than a modern RISC processor.

ARM fags too. You are living in a slightly newer past, but it's still the past. The time of 4,500,000 operations on a 10-ring kernel is upon us and we are still dicking around with an architecture so fucking shit that modern day processors only emulate it, wrapped in a much newer, sleeker kernel that is so much better that it actually makes it fucking faster.

Fuck x86. Fuck Intel. Fuck AMD.

I used to admire Apple for the sole reason that they were trying to wrestle a modern instruction set into household computing, but ever since they dropped it for x86 I'm fucking furious. Even stallshit thinks x86 is hot shit. The only one talking sense is Terry fucking Davis, who's a lunatic schizo, but he's also one of the few talking any sense because he isn't one of the many Intel supporters whom I grow increasingly suspicious are payed fucking shills or company boys.
>>
>>51482874
>You can't
Holy shit anon have you never even tried to write one?

How many years have you been programming? That's like 10 year mark shit.
Thread posts: 25
Thread images: 1


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.