video game programs

marquis24 · Post by **marquis24** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:30 am

is ther any free or trail basic video game programs available to download

Stoic · Post by **Stoic** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:32 am

That do what?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:39 am

gcc

Learn how to code. C, C++, ObjectiveC, Fortran-77, Java all supported.

Stoic · Post by **Stoic** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:46 am

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.... Or you could you know buy a book...

And if you really want to make video games (but you might want to edit ram) you should also learn Direct X.

And Java is the devil.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:17 am

Stoic wrote: And Java is the devil.

Why? Because it's more cleanly designed than C or C++?
Because threading is no longer a pain in the ass?
Because it's not slow? (If it is, go get a decent VM...)

God forbid we get a halfway-decent language...

y2kwizard · Post by **y2kwizard** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:22 am

Actually, tryhil, he's right to a point.

http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/javacover.html

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:55 am

y2kwizard wrote:Actually, tryhil, he's right to a point.

http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/javacover.html

There's a few points in that article I take issue with. Yes, I know who Paul Graham is, and I do respect his skills, but there's some passages in this article that seem funky:

(1) Graham admits that (a) he's only glanced over reference books above Java, and (b) that his critique is not of Java per se, but of a totally different subject. Therefore, this doesn't really make much of a rebuttal.

Well, let's just assume that it's a rebuttal. Here's a few counterpoints:

(2) Yes, Java has been hyped. A lot. However, that doesn't explain why it's gradually finding a comfortable place in universities. As a point of comparison, Microsoft's C# is also getting hyped, but it's not getting the same type of acceptance. I find that this point doesn't speak much of Java's merits (as it probably wasn't meant to do, anyway).

(3) Yes, it was aimed low -- a lot of people say that Java was designed for TV set-top boxes for Internet TV and the like. However, you could say that for nearly any computer language existing today, since they all originated on compartively low-power hardware.

Graham says that Java was designed to be easier to grasp than C -- well, so what? That's probably part of what makes it a cleanly designed language. See my point.

(4) I'll grant that I've never heard of anyone say that they love Java, while I have heard a lot of people say that they love C, C++, and I've heard way too many people say that they love Objective-C, Smalltalk, Perl, and LISP. I'll also grant that I'm being forced to use Java.

I don't see how that invalidates any of my points, though.