Raycasting

[jamonathin]

Thanks for your inputs guys . It would make a lot of sense to practice this stuff in Turing, cuz I know all the commands and crap, and as Martin said, it's fast and clean. Thanks again guys.

[wtd]

Now... when I say that if you don't want to deal with OOP you shouldn't use a heavily OO language...

I didn't mean you shouldn't. I think you should instead try learning.

Learning how to work with OOP and use it to your advantage is likely far more important than any knowledge you'll gain raycasting in Turing.

[Martin]

Nah, he can learn OOP later. Fun is more important right now. And it's not like you won't learn anything writing a raycasting engine.

[wtd]

Didn't want my input to seem like:

"You suck at Java, nOOb! Go back to Turing you moron!!!111!!onehundredandeleven!"

[[Gandalf]]

"j00 sux0r5 @ j4v4, n00bz0r5!1! g0 b4ck t0 tur1ng j00 m0r0n!11!!11!!"
I felt like killing some time on something that wouldn't benefit anyone. These things are actually pretty challenging to write. lol

You know, as impossible it is to comprehend, you can still learn the basics (and a bit further) of OOP using the object-oriented part of Turing.

[wtd]

[Gandalf] wrote:

You know, as impossible it is to comprehend, you can still learn the basics (and a bit further) of OOP using the object-oriented part of Turing.

It isn't impossible to comprehend. Turing just makes you work too hard for what you learn. Last I checked, Turing didn't support a lot of OO concepts present in many other languages.

[[Gandalf]]

Ok, but it still serves as a decent introduction, right? Does it make you work too hard to learn just because it lacks some OOP features?

[wtd]

From what I've seen, the syntax is unwieldy due to declaration, allocation of memory, and initialization having to occur on separate lines. Additionally, there's the requirement that one specify separately members names which one wishes to make public. This opens up lots of opportunity for typos to cause bugs that would occur elsewhere.

Then there's the semantic overhead. One must understand pointers to make use of objects in Turing.

[wtd]

Oh, and from what I've seen, there are either very few or no classes provided with Turing. This means there's little to experiment without writing one's own classes.

[[Gandalf]]

I see, and I agree. I meant that an introduction to OOP in Turing is better than no introduction at all, and I was also looking for a better explanation of the shortcomings of OOT rather than it missing some concepts.

[wtd]

Why does it have to be Turing or nothing?

I would honestly say that learning another language that better supports OOP will lead to understanding OOP concepts more quickly than trying to gan the same understanding in Turing, despite one already knowing the other aspects of Turing.