Hey, everyone... here's a glimpse of what I'm working on for my Compsci Summative. I'm using VB, not T***** of course, for all those who dis VB over T***** should try to this in T*****, with smooth playability.
Computer Science Canada IsoBeta |
| Author: | TheXploder [ Sat May 21, 2005 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | IsoBeta |
Hey, everyone... here's a glimpse of what I'm working on for my Compsci Summative. I'm using VB, not T***** of course, for all those who dis VB over T***** should try to this in T*****, with smooth playability. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sat May 21, 2005 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coming from Turing, VB is going to probably seem decent. If you actually like VB, though, then you need to a wider variety of experience. 
VB6 or VB.NET? |
|
| Author: | TheXploder [ Sat May 21, 2005 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What do they learn in the US in compsci class, I don't think they use Turing... This is with VB6, well if my school would be VB.Net compatible I would use that... |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sat May 21, 2005 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TheXploder wrote: What do they learn in the US in compsci class, I don't think they use Turing...
This is with VB6, well if my school would be VB.Net compatible I would use that... Many high schools use Java. Some probably still use Pascal. There might also be some using C++. I wouldn't use any of them for an intro class.  |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Sat May 21, 2005 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shouldn't this be in the VB section? or general programming at least? I was talking to this guy in one of my class' - and trying to get him into programming, and he mentioned knowing logo  . |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Sat May 21, 2005 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IsoBeta |
TheXploder wrote: I'm using VB, not T***** of course, for all those who dis VB over T***** should try to this in T*****, with smooth playability.
If I still had my minor dice project from last year, I would post it. It was pretty much the same as what I can tell from your single screenshot, but in Turing. Also, my friend Gennie did an RPG for her FINAL project which looked quite similar. It can definetly be done, especially if you're familiar with Turing's object-oriented features. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sat May 21, 2005 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: TheXploder wrote: What do they learn in the US in compsci class, I don't think they use Turing...
This is with VB6, well if my school would be VB.Net compatible I would use that... Many high schools use Java. Some probably still use Pascal. There might also be some using C++. I wouldn't use any of them for an intro class. What's wrong with pascal for learning? I'd say it's a great language for learning to program, and if you get some kind of basic graphics routines then you can do some nifty things there as well as cool algorythms! |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sat May 21, 2005 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: wtd wrote: TheXploder wrote: What do they learn in the US in compsci class, I don't think they use Turing...
This is with VB6, well if my school would be VB.Net compatible I would use that... Many high schools use Java. Some probably still use Pascal. There might also be some using C++. I wouldn't use any of them for an intro class. What's wrong with pascal for learning? I'd say it's a great language for learning to program, and if you get some kind of basic graphics routines then you can do some nifty things there as well as cool algorythms! It's decent, and a few years ago I would have agreed with you, but the benefits of interactive interpretation for education can't be underestimated. And yes, there are languages with interactive interpreters and strong, static type systems.  |
|
| Author: | TheXploder [ Sat May 21, 2005 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IsoBeta |
Hikaru79 wrote: TheXploder wrote: I'm using VB, not T***** of course, for all those who dis VB over T***** should try to this in T*****, with smooth playability.
If I still had my minor dice project from last year, I would post it. It was pretty much the same as what I can tell from your single screenshot, but in Turing. Also, my friend Gennie did an RPG for her FINAL project which looked quite similar. It can definetly be done, especially if you're familiar with Turing's object-oriented features. I did this in T***** before, but it was really slow... With a simple 10x10 plane.. and just some walls, I posted it a while. But in VB this is a 19x19 plane and runs much smother. What do you mean by Dice project? |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Sat May 21, 2005 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TheXploder: you do realise you're allowed to say "Turing" right? We won't flame you or ban or account for that, seriously. Turing isn't as weak graphically, as you seem to think. Unless you're doing some intense AI or physics calculations or HDRI lighting there, it looks like Turing could handle it. Hikaru79 was referring to the old Massey computer science tradition of making a game involving dice (or at least, a focus on some random numbers) for a project in the middle of the year. I don't know if they do it any more, but mine was Dungeon Dice from Yugioh. |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Sun May 22, 2005 1:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coutsos wrote: Hikaru79 was referring to the old Massey computer science tradition of making a game involving dice (or at least, a focus on some random numbers) for a project in the middle of the year. I don't know if they do it any more, but mine was Dungeon Dice from Yugioh.
Woah, sic! Dungeon Dice Monsters, I've never played it, but it always looked interesting in the anime ^_^; What an original idea, I just ended up doing a turn-based RPG like 95% of my class  Do you happen to still have this around? It'd be fun to play! |
|
| Author: | zylum [ Sun May 22, 2005 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
the only reason turing wouldnt run as smooth is because of picMerge... since isometric games need picMerge, they will run slower on turing. if you made a normal 2d rpg then there wouldnt be a problem. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun May 22, 2005 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
infact since VB has interfaces to directX, you could use hardware acceleration in VB which is not possible to use in turing, thus making VB very much faster. However, VB and turing are both poor choices as C, C++, pascal, or even C# and VB.NET all provide those same interfaces except with much better execution speeds. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon May 23, 2005 3:44 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | |||
Cornflake wrote: infact since VB has interfaces to directX, you could use hardware acceleration in VB which is not possible to use in turing, thus making VB very much faster. However, VB and turing are both poor choices as C, C++, pascal, or even C# and VB.NET all provide those same interfaces except with much better execution speeds.
And indeed, many languages are themselves implemented in C, meaning it's relatively straightforward to write a wrapper around the native libraries. You might write:
In Ruby, for instance, and the message is sent via Ruby, but the internal changes happen in native code. |
|||
| Author: | Paul [ Mon May 23, 2005 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From what I've seen of his game, its not turn based, its real time. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue May 24, 2005 5:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What I dont get is, if Turing is compiled as C, then properly done - it should be as fast as C too... I don't know how holtsoft did it... |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue May 24, 2005 9:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm pretty sure that when Turing "compiles" something it simply creates a copy of the interpreter with your program hard-coded in. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue May 24, 2005 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow... So then it comes back to - there should be an option on what libraries and files to include with your program based on what it needs... That would make the exe smaller. They should also really try to optimise the interpreter, but I guess it doesn't matter too much since Turing is mostly used for learning... It would be nice to have a faster, more effiecient Turing though. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue May 24, 2005 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[Gandalf] wrote: Wow...
So then it comes back to - there should be an option on what libraries and files to include with your program based on what it needs... That would make the exe smaller. Making the executable smaller doesn't always equate to it running faster though, and storage space these days is pretty cheap. For what it's worth I've seen Eiffel, O'Caml and Ada programs that ended up as much larger executables than equivalent C or C++, but run at least somewhat faster. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue May 24, 2005 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I meant it as two parts, on how Turing should be better . The thing about smaller .exe's is, for transfer purposes, and it is just easier to move.
I don't pretend to be an expert on optimizing compilers/interpreters, but they should somehow at least make it a bit faster. I'm sure its possible without sacrificing anything else. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue May 24, 2005 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps they should. Unfortunately there's no motivation to do so. Turing will never be used outside of academia, and even then only in Canada, and only at one or two grade levels in high school. Your time would honestly be better spent learning languages that will be relevant once you leave High School. |
|