Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: Krice on September 15, 2014, 08:31:09 AM
-
When I have searched for some other language (than C++) to learn I have noticed how difficult it is to find good tools for those languages! I think it may be an important reason why some so called better languages never became popular or more popular than they should be. C++ has had great tools in past and present, especially IDEs which are anyway a thinking man's solution to programming.
Some (or more like most) languages have roots in hacky environments like unix/linux with complex setup rituals only few people are willing to withstand, and of course pesky GPL issues making developers not sure how they can release their programs (or even make profit). And if there is commercial software it may be too expensive just to try out the language and see if it's any worth in serious game programming.
-
Spending a lot of time thinking about learning programming languages and worrying a lot about "tools" available for those languages is the mark of a dilettante. If you know what you're doing, considerations of what programming language to use and so forth are of marginal importance.
-
If you know what you're doing, considerations of what programming language to use and so forth are of marginal importance.
Not. I remember when I first started to use Visual C++ IDE. It was much better than anything else before that. It makes a big difference in productivity.
-
Yes, it would seem the use of IDEs has multiplied your productivity by at least a factor of 10.
-
While it greatly depends on what you are learning a new language for, I agree that language ecosystem does make a difference. For example, despite the fact that D is a great language by itself, it's unlikely to be used as a main programming language for a complex commercial system. Thinking too much is obviously not good, but it is better to have a clear image of what language can
do offer you and what it can not beforehand.
-
I'm sure which tools are right depends on the tastes and abilities of the individual programmer. Personally, I've glanced at a few IDEs, and always go "bleh", feeling much more comfortable using a simple text editor (emacs :-*) and keeping sources and notes in one big messy directory tree. I see how that may be keeping me back, I'm probably comparable to a Go player who refuses to play pincers, because "I understand extensions better". But I would find little meaning in life if I wasn't allowed to cater, at the very least, to my own stupidity.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Then there's this:
Some (or more like most) languages have roots in hacky environments like unix/linux with complex setup rituals only few people are willing to withstand, and of course pesky GPL issues […]
- which kind of seems to oppose the rest of your argument. Just because something goes over your head, doesn't necessarily mean that it is stupid ;) As I insinuated, my limited experience with IDEs has left me viewing them as having complex setup rituals and pesky issues (I much prefer something that's both easy to set up and flexible, ie. developing in a bare bones Linux system and releasing under the GPL). But I've cultivated enough humility to avoid assuming this makes me smarter than people who use such tools, and who are demonstrably my superiors when it comes to these things. I know for a fact that you're talking out of your ass when making comments about for instance Linux, so why even bother?
One thing I've found to be extremely important myself, is official documentation that is exhaustive, while just covering the basics.
As always,
Minotauros
-
I dunno. I've been on both sides of the fence with IDE's.
I remember getting started in programming using an IDE. I didn't know anything at all except the language, and the IDE took care of everything else. So I was able to function, and the idea of just picking up an editor and writing code - and figuring out what to do with it to build a project, and how to run and debug and examine variable values in the middle of a run and everything else without the IDE - was a hill I didn't need to climb right then; I was too busy figuring out data structures.
But a year or two later, I found that I had a need for data files built in parallel with each build of the project, and the IDE I was using didn't give me a way to do that... And a little while later I got handed a codebase that built seven different programs depending on the make target, and the IDE could not figure it out at all. And then there was a misbegotten IDE for some system I was working on that could not work on anything *except* windowed programs dependent on gnome and using autoconf, which meant importing megabytes of dependencies I didn't want for functionality I didn't need ... and bit by bit, I just sort of fell out of the habit of using IDE's.
I got no religious objections to them, and I remember how much I needed them at one time, and there's nothing wrong with them... but now that I know other ways to do the things they do, they just seem .. kind of superfluous I guess. They don't save me any effort any more over using makefiles and the command line.
-
I have a lot of experience using IDEs and using plain text editors, sometimes without even copy-paste or undo functions. For anything that's going to be over a couple thousand lines of coded an IDE is waaaaaay better for me.
One of the key things is that the IDEs I use, NetBeans and Visual Studio, come with a full selection of debugging tools, refactoring tools, and profiling tools. This allows me to find and fix problems and keep my source code clean as requirements inevitably change.
For me the primary reason to use a language of your choice once experienced is to pick the one you are most comfortable solving certain kinds of problems with. While I usually pick Java due to my experience, I'll use JavaScript if duck typing is important for a project or C++ / C# if tying directly to hardware is important.
The primary reason to pick a new language should be what libraries are available and what the support system for it is like. Which is why C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, and Python are all excellent choices. Other languages, like Go, might be excellent in their core functionality but without a large support system it can be really tough to avoid implementing the wheel all over again.
Side note: unlike other languages, I learned Java first in an IDE and found that it giving me hints about my code as I worked and code completion suggestion for the standard library I learned enough that when I moved to a terrible plain text editor for a robots project I had no problem rough coding. For me at least, learning in an IDE first enhanced my learning abilities rather than stunting them.
-
Regarding IDEs, I believe their main purpose is not building the project or helping typing the code but managing and editing what you already have. When you have multiple projects of substantial size, you really start to appreciate code indexing, navigation and contextual processing. Some of the rather mundane tasks look ridiculous without proper tools.
-
On a related note – and probably making a fool of myself in light of my previous comments 8) I'm considering starting with Java to write something for Android devices. Would Eclipse IDE be a good place to start? I don't know Java or C/C++ from before, the only language I've learned to any noticeable extent being Python.
As always,
Minotauros
-
I know for a fact that you're talking out of your ass when making comments about for instance Linux, so why even bother
Actually I'm not. Many RL developers are biased towards open source/linux ideology, so they probably can't see the big picture. I don't know for sure if there is something in this, but it looks like good IDE will attract more developers compared to "linux-like" installation procedures and using text editor for writing the source code.
-
Would Eclipse IDE be a good place to start?
Take a look at IntelliJ Idea. Our Java developers (like, a dozen of them) say it is superior to Eclipse.
-
On a related note – and probably making a fool of myself in light of my previous comments 8) I'm considering starting with Java to write something for Android devices. Would Eclipse IDE be a good place to start? I don't know Java or C/C++ from before, the only language I've learned to any noticeable extent being Python.
I use Eclipse; it's OK. There are some things I don't like about it but that's mainly because I'm more used to Visual Studio, if I had used it first I probably wouldn't be too bothered. I've also tried out NetBeans in the past for Java, but settled on Eclipse I think mainly because it seemed more stable and the android emulation tools were slightly more advanced, although this was a couple of years ago so that opinion may be out of date.
-
I'm sure which tools are right depends on the tastes and abilities of the individual programmer. Personally, I've glanced at a few IDEs, and always go "bleh", feeling much more comfortable using a simple text editor (emacs :-*) and keeping sources and notes in one big messy directory tree.
I wouldn't call emacs a simple text editor, it's closer to an operating system really. However, I have heard that it has a package (several actually) for editing text :P (I use emacs a lot and really like how extendable and configurable it is).
-
Some (or more like most) languages have roots in hacky environments like unix/linux with complex setup rituals only few people are willing to withstand, and of course pesky GPL issues making developers not sure how they can release their programs (or even make profit).
As far as I know, all major programming languages with open source (e.g. GPL) implementations distribute their standard libraries under very permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, or LGPL (with an exception for static linking). So, if your executable statically links the code of the standard library (which is probably the case when you build an executable), you are free to do anything you want with it, particularly, you can sell it, and you don't have to give your code to anybody.
So, I've never heard of a well known open sourced language that has a bad restrictive license.
GCC - You are given a so called "GCC RUNTIME LIBRARY EXCEPTION" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html) to link GCC library code with your code and do whatever you want with it (unless you are doing really funny things). Yes, Stallman is a messy political guy, but the license basically lets you do anything you want.
From their FAQ:
Q: I am using a standard release of GCC (such as one provided by the FSF, or with my operating system) to compile GPL-incompatible software. How does this change affect me?
A: It should not affect you at all. Unless you've configured GCC to output intermediate representation—which is rare—the new exception is designed to ensure that you have no license obligations when you do this, just as the old exceptions were.
Rust - everything is under very permissive Apache / MIT license.
Go - evrything is under very permissive BSD-style license.
D - the standard library Phobos (as well as the DMD compiler) is released under BSD-style Boost license.
OCaml - the library is under LGPL (with an exception allowing static linking).
Haskell (GHC) - everything is under very permissive (2-clause BSD)-like license.
Haxe - the library is under 2-clause BSD license.
FreePascal - the library is under LGPL (with an exception allowing static linking).
(I am taking only compiled languages, so no Python, Ruby, Erlang)
Other libraries, particularly, ncurses, SDL, and OpenGL bindings are usually also under LGPL, BSD, or MIT license.
Edit: added Haxe to the list.
Edit 2: Thanks to Krice, updated the text. The LGPL-ed libraries I mention give an additional exception for static linking, even though it is not allowed by the vanilla LGPL.
-
As far as I know, all major programming languages with open source (i.e. GPL) implementations distribute their standard libraries under very permissive licenses: LGPL, MIT, or BSD. So, if your executable statically links the code of the standard library (which is probably the case when you build an executable), you are free to do anything you want with it
LGPL is not permissive. It was invented as a hack in the license, because GPL was simply impossible in some cases. LGPL allows distribution of executable without source code if you dynamically link it (which means LGPL licensed dll's are separate from the .exe). Not statically, as you wrongly say.
Other libraries, particularly, ncurses, SDL, and OpenGL bindings are usually also under LGPL, BSD, or MIT license.
SDL2 is no longer LGPL, because it makes commercial development easier I suppose in cases you have to statically link it.
GPL also may be a compelling reason why developers avoid some languages (available free tools are GPL only).
-
As far as I know, all major programming languages with open source (i.e. GPL) implementations distribute their standard libraries under very permissive licenses: LGPL, MIT, or BSD. So, if your executable statically links the code of the standard library (which is probably the case when you build an executable), you are free to do anything you want with it
LGPL is not permissive. It was invented as a hack in the license, because GPL was simply impossible in some cases. LGPL allows distribution of executable without source code if you dynamically link it (which means LGPL licensed dll's are separate from the .exe). Not statically, as you wrongly say.
Great! Thanks for the correction. Both languages that I refered to as using LGPL, are in fact using LGPL with an exception allowing static linking.
-
Both languages that I refered to as using LGPL, are in fact using LGPL with an exception allowing static linking.
Compiler's so called standard libraries are like that, because they are internal part of the program anyway. I don't know if you even can dynamically link parts of standard library. Anyway if you could it would be ridiculous to distribute all required library dll's with the executable. Imagine all programs doing the same with their separate sets of library files. Well, actually some programs do exactly that. Blender 3D for example is shipped with the entire Python language, because those idiots haven't been able to create backwards standard. I guess Python is in constant change, because it sucks so much.
-
I know for a fact that you're talking out of your ass when making comments about for instance Linux, so why even bother
Actually I'm not. Many RL developers are biased towards open source/linux ideology, so they probably can't see the big picture. I don't know for sure if there is something in this, but it looks like good IDE will attract more developers compared to "linux-like" installation procedures and using text editor for writing the source code.
What I meant was (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it doesn't actually seem like you ever used Linux. I remember you once complained about how hard it was to install software in Linux (http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=1247). You probably read that somewhere, but your apparent qualms about "'linux-like' installation" are comparable to fearing Windows because DOS is clunky – it might have been true back in the day (see "dependency hell"), but it's been a non-issue for at least a decade (today it's done with a couple of mouse clicks or a single terminal command).
To each his own, you know. I just think someone who never used a particular OS shouldn't educate others about its merits and flaws. That said, you're well entitled to piss all over the GPL if you so please, and you're probably right that IDEs have a much broader appeal than terminal+editor (but I didn't know you were such a sucker for the mainstream, Krice ;)).
As always,
Minotauros
-
On a related note – and probably making a fool of myself in light of my previous comments 8) I'm considering starting with Java to write something for Android devices. Would Eclipse IDE be a good place to start? I don't know Java or C/C++ from before, the only language I've learned to any noticeable extent being Python.
I use Eclipse; it's OK. There are some things I don't like about it but that's mainly because I'm more used to Visual Studio, if I had used it first I probably wouldn't be too bothered. I've also tried out NetBeans in the past for Java, but settled on Eclipse I think mainly because it seemed more stable and the android emulation tools were slightly more advanced, although this was a couple of years ago so that opinion may be out of date.
Eclipse used to be the clear winner against NetBeans for Android development, but that's mostly changed these days. Mostly because the Eclipse team hasn't really been improving their support as well as the NetBeans team. However if you want to do anything graphical on android, use Unity with JavaScript and you'll be up and running quickly.
I haven't used IntelliJ IDEA since I don't want to pay for something that is unlikely to offer more than NetBeans does. I say that based on NetBeans giving me the same feature set as Visual Studio Ultimate, and it's hard for me to imagine any IDE giving more features than VSU.
-
I just think someone who never used a particular OS shouldn't educate others about its merits and flaws.
I can process information. I don't need to have personal experience. Linux has flaws, it's not perfect and the problems it has are well known. If it was better than let's say Windows 7 then why the heck everyone is not using it? In desktop use Linux is in like 0.1% of computers.
-
Linux is a great OS, I switched from Windows about 7 years ago, first to Ubuntu, then to Arch Linux. Even 7 years ago in was a superb system. Never had real problems with it, installed it on 4 laptops and 2 desktops. I think, it is very convenient as a programming environment, especially if you choose a good desktop envoronment that does not get in the way (choose the one that works the best for you).
Modern graphical interfaces of OSX and Windows are simply not designed for developers, so they install IDEs, tmux or something similar to mitigate the issue. Linux on the other hand (especially with a good desktop environement) is already a development environment.
Another bad thing about modern Windows and OSX. They try to hide the real paths of the files and substitute them with GUI dialogs and conceptual "Documents", "Pictures", etc. In this respect, OSX's Finder is simply an insult to the user. I'm not an old unix hacker, but I value the simplicity of the system I am working on, and Linux fits my needs much better than Win or Mac.
-
I haven't used IntelliJ IDEA since I don't want to pay for something that is unlikely to offer more than NetBeans does.
There is a free Community Edition of IDEA which is similar to Express Edition of MSVS. As far as I can tell, commercial version of IDEA targets enterprise audience and its additional features are of little use to indie developer.
Modern graphical interfaces of OSX and Windows are simply not designed for developers, so they install IDEs <...> They try to hide the real paths of the files and substitute them with GUI dialogs and conceptual "Documents", "Pictures", etc.
Quite a few developers at our company use Macs. They say it combines the power of usual *nix environment with overall stability and comfort in occasional office tasks.
-
Modern graphical interfaces of OSX and Windows are simply not designed for developers, so they install IDEs <...> They try to hide the real paths of the files and substitute them with GUI dialogs and conceptual "Documents", "Pictures", etc.
Quite a few developers at our company use Macs. They say it combines the power of usual *nix environment with overall stability and comfort in occasional office tasks.
Well, OSX has a complete unix environment in the terminal. Like cp, rm, vi, awk, ed, bash, and other unix stuff. I was talking about the graphical interface, the way they handle windows, the dock, workspaces. When the windows you open are just text editors and terminals OSX is not that great. This is why many people like to install tmux on Mac, for example.
OSX is good at what it is doing, but I think it's GUI is just not designed for developers, and you need to install some extra soft, at least Sublime text editor, or tmux, or something to handle your projects. Choosing an OS is a matter of personal tastes.
-
I agree with koiwai. It boggles my mind that people can program in Windows. The text editors (Sublime in particular) have always just known where everything is located with no extra setup (python, ruby, C, etc), so I can just Ctr+b to do a build in Linux. When I was making GradHack, I wanted to do a test build on Windows and couldn't figure out how to run a program with python at all. I "downloaded" python (hurray for package management like apt for Debian which actually puts things in the right places) and "installed" it.
Typing "python gradhack.py" did nothing. I downloaded Sublime for Windows in the hopes that this amazing text editor would find python and allow me to build from within it. Didn't work either. To this day, I still haven't figure out how to run a python program in Windows. And lets not even bring up git. "sudo apt-get install git" Done. You can use git from anywhere in your system. I just wanted to git clone my project to Windows and ended up going to github to click to download it.
I know that people that professionally use Windows as development environments probably will scoff at this, but as an amateur, Linux is so easy and Windows makes you fight with it at every step.
-
I still haven't figure out how to run a python program in Windows.
Double clicking .py works if there is Python installed. Or setting up Notepad++ with simple debug.bat set as macro combined to shortcut. I run my Python projects with ctrl+f5 from Notepad++.
Building executable is easy with py2exe installed on Windows. Simple script in compiler.py in project's folder and double clicking that makes exe from my projects.
That's simple Python development on Windows.
Edit: I might add that on Linux I have really trouble making stand-alone projects that do not need installed Python, I've never managed to do that. On Windows it is as I described.
-
so I can just Ctr+b to do a build in Linux.
In Visual Studio you need to press only one key: F5. So it's 50% easier than in linux!
-
In Visual Studio you need to press only one key: F5. So it's 50% easier than in linux!
You seem to miss the crucial point: Only if it works! (Which it won't because Visual Studio won't know where python is located.)
Maybe I should point out that this was on Windows 8.1. Is that maybe the difference? I've tried double clicking, and it didn't work (but I know python is installed because I can open IDLE and type things like 2+3 and get the right answer). I'm kind of interested in trying this again now that I've started. This just further proves my point.
-
I haven't used IntelliJ IDEA since I don't want to pay for something that is unlikely to offer more than NetBeans does.
There is a free Community Edition of IDEA which is similar to Express Edition of MSVS. As far as I can tell, commercial version of IDEA targets enterprise audience and its additional features are of little use to indie developer.
I've seen that and need to try it just to see what feature set it has. I should also make a lib setup video for SquidLib like I did for Eclipse and NetBeans. The part of it that I'm skeptical about is it providing enterprise support at that cost that NetBeans doesn't provide for free. Although as many enterprise things, it might be the phone-in live person support that's the selling point.
Modern graphical interfaces of OSX and Windows are simply not designed for developers, so they install IDEs <...> They try to hide the real paths of the files and substitute them with GUI dialogs and conceptual "Documents", "Pictures", etc.
It's true that Windows and OSX are designed for general use rather than development use, but even on linux a good IDE makes a huge difference to working on any non-trivial project.
-
Maybe I should point out that this was on Windows 8.1. Is that maybe the difference? I've tried double clicking, and it didn't work (but I know python is installed because I can open IDLE and type things like 2+3 and get the right answer). I'm kind of interested in trying this again now that I've started. This just further proves my point.
I've developed Python on XP, Windows 7 and Windows 8 and it works out of the box by double clicking. I put a simple
a = 5
print(a)
raw_input()and it opens a console window with title "C:\Python27\python.exe" and displays 5 and it waits for enter.
-
Some (or more like most) languages have roots in hacky environments like unix/linux with complex setup rituals only few people are willing to withstand
Hahah, that's a good one, you DO know that c and c++ were developed for and on UNIX, right? ...right?
Also calling UNIX a 'hacky' environment, as opposed to Windows of all things, wow.
-
Modern graphical interfaces of OSX and Windows are simply not designed for developers, so they install IDEs <...> They try to hide the real paths of the files and substitute them with GUI dialogs and conceptual "Documents", "Pictures", etc.
It's true that Windows and OSX are designed for general use rather than development use, but even on linux a good IDE makes a huge difference to working on any non-trivial project.
I agree, complex programming systems like Java may be unwieldy without a good IDE. About a year ago, I thought about writing a game for Android, read about it, installed SDK. An IDE like Eclipse (or NetBeans) just ties all the pieces together, and it must be very convenient.
-
You seem to miss the crucial point: Only if it works! (Which it won't because Visual Studio won't know where python is located.)
Python must be the problem in that case.
-
Hahah, that's a good one, you DO know that c and c++ were developed for and on UNIX, right? ...right
I think the possible answer is that Windows was not invented when C and C++ were first developed. Yes, I was right. Quick look at wikipedia tells: C++ - 1983, Windows 1.0 - 1985.
-
All hail Krice the mega-troll, baiting otherwise intelligent people with ludicrous and (nerd-)enraging statements into commenting over multiple pages. Has nobody ever heard of "casting pearls before swine" or "preach to deaf ears"?
-
You give him too much credit. This is fairly standard Slashdot trolling material circa 1999. He does a good job of building a believable persona of ignorant petulance as a vehicle for trolling, but it's pretty old fashioned, facile stuff at the end of the day.
-
You give him too much credit. This is fairly standard Slashdot trolling material circa 1999. He does a good job of building a believable persona of ignorant petulance as a vehicle for trolling, but it's pretty old fashioned, facile stuff at the end of the day.
No, I'm not, we're on the 3rd page already. On a subject called "Theory about popularity of languages" from a person who probably knows and has worked on 1, on a single platform. And people give serious responses. If I'm to choose between people being stupid or him being a good troll, I'll choose the latter.
So, no, I'm not.
-
from a person who probably knows and has worked on 1, on a single platform.
Teemu can be compiled directly without changes on VC++ and gcc, and on Windows and Linux. MacOS compilation needed some minor changes in how SDL was included. Can your game do the same?
-
Teemu can be compiled directly without changes on VC++ and gcc, and on Windows and Linux. MacOS compilation needed some minor changes in how SDL was included.
Ok, fair enough, my bad assumption.
Can your game do the same?
Now begone troll, go pester those who actually listen about your theories derived from your cluelessness. I like to have conversations, not engage in some unbacked e-peen competitions.
-
You give him too much credit. This is fairly standard Slashdot trolling material circa 1999. He does a good job of building a believable persona of ignorant petulance as a vehicle for trolling, but it's pretty old fashioned, facile stuff at the end of the day.
No, I'm not, we're on the 3rd page already. On a subject called "Theory about popularity of languages" from a person who probably knows and has worked on 1, on a single platform. And people give serious responses. If I'm to choose between people being stupid or him being a good troll, I'll choose the latter.
So, no, I'm not.
People respond to trolls out of lack of experience and a trusting nature, not stupidity. I suppose there's also an element of believing there's something to be accomplished in discussing nonsense like this, the basis of which belief reasonable people could disagree about. Stupidity might be a little harsh, but I respect your opinion on that count.
-
People, thanks for various hints re: android. Unity actually looks interesting for a number of reasons, but there's no Linux version of their dev tools unless I cough up 1500 bucks, it seems. (So there you have it, a tangible disadvantage to using Linux (and one of many, as I may add) ;)) Anyway, I'll give the other options that were mentioned, a tug, and see where I end up.
As always,
Minotauros
-
F# is quite interesting, funny and it's supported by Visual Studio! I just don't seem to get a lot out from reading about F#, should some day try to write some real life code like for example a small roguelike.
-
People, thanks for various hints re: android. Unity actually looks interesting for a number of reasons, but there's no Linux version of their dev tools unless I cough up 1500 bucks, it seems. (So there you have it, a tangible disadvantage to using Linux (and one of many, as I may add) ;)) Anyway, I'll give the other options that were mentioned, a tug, and see where I end up.
As always,
Minotauros
Funny that, I see it as a tangible disadvantage to using unity myself ;)
-
That's an angle I completely approve of, of course :D What I found appealing with Unity, was the cross-platform aspect, ironically. But I came over an open source alternative called Godot (http://godotengine.org) (MIT License, compiles to Android and iOS as well as desktops and a few other devices). It seems quite decent to my needs, so I've decided to try that for the moment. Java would probably have been the "better" option, rationally speaking, and I'd never even actually considered using a game engine as opposed to mucking about with compilers et al in my beloved terminal, but I thought, meh why not try something new?
I'm sure it will feel limiting at times, but on the bright side it's quite quick to pick up and play with. After just a few evenings of bungling around with the (rather incomplete) documentation, I've learned some basics and put together an almost finished Pooyan clone :P The engine uses a scripting language similar to Python, but stuff like the main loop, redrawing the screen etc. is kept out of sight. To a perpetual noob like me, it might be a good companion, but there's of course a special pleasure (and, probably, consistency of vision in the ensuing game/program) to be had from writing stuff like engine and interface yourself.
Speaking of which, I need to get back and give Land of Strangers some loving soon. I was just about to add some intelligence and personality to the NPCs. Just having a few quite hectic months, ahem.
As always,
Minotauros
tl;dr: Godot seems like a good alternative for anyone looking for a game engine.