Talk:Languages

From GPWiki

Languages Page

Personally, I find it rather redundant to have a page about various programming languages, their history, etc. The Languages page needs to talk more about the languages pertaining to game programming. IMHO, it should answer questions like why to use C++ over C#, etc. 193.95.236.148 17:04, 21 November 2005 (EST)

Well, that's why we have the Picking_a_Language page linked at the top of the Lanugages page. Perhaps we should make the link move obvious? Or did you see the link, but feel that the Picking a Lanauge article is insufficient? Ryan Clark 20:44, 21 November 2005 (EST)

Making the link more obvious would be a good idea. That way after you learned about the language itself, you'll have more information to pick one.

Visual C++

Doesn't it seem a little strange, calling Visual C++ a language of its own? Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought it was an IDE, maybe with a few extra features...It only has one page as a language. Should it be under: C:Development_Environments --Snoolas 14:28, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Agreed... it doesn't really make sense, there. Please fix if you've got a minute! Ryan Clark 16:06, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Well, I fixed it, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. I removed the Visual C++ link from the languages page and added a link to the same page by the Visual Studio links on the C:Development_Environments page. --Snoolas 17:15, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Thanks, Snoolas. I've tweaked things a bit to keep all of the VC++ content in one spot. Ryan Clark 18:55, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

As far as I know, Visual C++ differs from ANSI (normal) C++ in that it takes advantage of the .NET platform. I'm uncertain of the differences myself, though. 193.95.236.148 22:59, 21 Nov 2005 (PST)

No, you can use normal ISO C++ in VC++ (7.1 or later, because before the the compilers were pretty buggy and/or nonconformant). The .NET thing is "Managed C++" or "C++/CLI" or something. ( And no, C++/CLI isn't a conformant extension to C++, which has gotten many people very annoyed. ) --pfeilspitze 11:30, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

NASM

I see that NASM has been added to the list. I think this may be better, "ASM." NASM is just one assembler, and everyone uses something different, and every assembler has different syntax. If I, for example had put that there, it would have been FASM, because my assembler of choice is FASM. If at some point we actually get some content for that section, we could just say, "all code in this tutorial is in NASM syntax." Likewise for any in MASM or FASM, or *gasp* GAS.--Snoolas 12:24, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Agreed. On top of that, each architecture uses different assmebly language and different OSs use different interrupts. - sik0fewl (I'll log in next time, I swear..)

Good points. Fixed Ryan Clark 15:09, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

"Game Programming Info"

At the top of the page, it says:

We currently have game programming information for the languages listed below.

That isn't true. What about all those links that show up in red that don't have pages? It seems that any way it could be put so that it is true would be exceedingly ungraceful. ;) PS. That edit with the <gasp> and "oh noez" was mine. Didn't log in. --Snoolas 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't think that most of these languages mentioned on this page should even be here. For example, all of the tutorials for Dark Basic Pro are offsite. Also, why is there a seperate Dark Basic? It barely has anything on the page. One last thing, I think the languages should be organised by popularity rather than "platform". And what's up with the virtual machines section? --Dial-Up 22:08, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Yeah, I definately agree with you. Sometimes it seems like the wiki is being abused as a pimpage medium for these obscure Basic clones and such. I like the idea of sorting my popularity. --Snoolas 22:37, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I also agree. It seems like some of these BASIC variants are getting out of hand... although, I guess we should mention them, but in a more appropriate (cursory?) way. Perhaps we could lump them into a "BASIC Variants" page? Ryan Clark 14:11, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Why group C and C++?

It seems dumb to group those two programming languages. Of course C++, being a superset of C, can compile C code but C++ is a whole different language than C. Grouping them toguether? It seems a bit dumb and lacking in understanding. Why not separate them? --Mecanismo 09:58, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Well, in the context of game programming, it may be best to group them. Most of our tutorials' code could be either. Most libraries that work with one work with the other perfectly. Most IDE's that can do one can do the other... If we separated them, we would end up repeating a lot of the same tutorials and library listings...--Snoolas 10:20, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I agree with Snoolas. I think it's primarily to reduce duplication... and since most C programmers are C++ programmers anyway, it doesn't tend to be a problem. However, if you have some compelling reasons for us to split the C and C++ apart, we'll certainly do so! Ryan Clark 14:14, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT)

There are areas where indeed the grouping of articles is desired. The articles on C libraries is one example. Still, it should be noted and given enphasis to the fact that C and C++ aren't the same language. There are articles which show code examples written in C++ and lists them as C/C++ code, which is not only false but it also transmits a idea of lack of knowledge of the subject. The recurrent reference to C/C++ in situations that aren't applyable brings added confusion to newbies and conveys the false idea that there isn't a C language and a C++ language but instead, a language which is simply called C/C++. Therefore GPWiki should fight against this and spend a special amount of attention correcting this error. --Mecanismo 10:13, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I definitely agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure how you suggest that we go about making this change. Where do we make the split? We could certainly do better in our description of C and C++ themselves, but when it comes to game programming tutorials and source, we tend to say C/C++ so that users won't be surprised if they see one or the other, or both. Ryan Clark 14:11, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I believe that the articles which deal with pure C code which can be used with C++ code (for example, openGL libraries), should be treated as C articles. Yet, they should also be included in C++ tutorial lists/categories. When writing tutorials specific to a certain language, a prefix could be used in the name. For example, an openGL vertex array tutorial with C examples could be named "C:OpenGL vertex array". If there was another vertex array article with C++ examples, it could be named "C++:OpenGL vertex array". If the tutorial article is language-independent, we could link language-specific examples from the article's page. What are your thoughts on this? --Mecanismo 10:47, 27 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Again, I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see it as such a large issue. If you feel strongly about it, then please go ahead and make the changes you've outlined. However, as mentioned before, please only do this if you intend to apply the changes consistently to all relevant articles on the wiki. We don't want to have two systems in use at the same time! Ryan Clark 17:46, 27 Aug 2005 (EDT)

"cross-platform languages" section: incorrect name

The name implies that the languages included in that section are cross-platform. That isn't true. The languages themselves aren't cross-platform but their implementations may or may not be. It is possible to write code which is not cross-platform with a language which is supported by multiple platforms and a language which is supported in only a single platform can be supported in others if an implementation is created. Therefore, I suggest that the section names be rethought and a more correct designation is attributed.

Personally I believe that the best solution is to list the languages according to their function (programming languages, markup languages, scripting languages, etc...) and the rest be included as a reference in the articles or as another category. --Mecanismo 12:10, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Agreed! A great idea. Grouping by function would be more logical. Thanks for your continued insight, Mecanismo! Ryan Clark 14:11, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I've just reorganized the article. The language categorization should be reviewd (some languages will be referenced in the programming and scripting languages category). Please take a look and say what you think about it. --Mecanismo 10:36, 27 Aug 2005 (EDT)

J2ME

I would like to see a section specifically designed for J2ME games, as it is a very specific platform with several constraints. I am trying to get started with it, but It's been no walk in the park for me.

Seems reasonable

I don't see why we can't have a J2ME sub section under Java™. I looked at J2ME a while back, but was put off by the lack of info, perhaps we can start someting here on the Wiki.

Javascript

Isn't javascript a scripting language? Games are being made (small now, but getting steadily larger) written in javascript.

javascript is a language, not only a scripting language. In KDE you can do a JS stand-alone program using KJS. Bufalo 1973 22:54, 9 September 2006 (EDT)

C#

Doesn't anyone care about C#? It's a much safer language to learn, and although C++ is faster, it's not that much faster.

We care about it, we just don't have any tutorials for it so it's not listed on the languages page. If you care to add some C# tutorials, we'd appreciate it! --Ryan Clark 23:04, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Sure! I'll go ahead and add a few DirectX and C# tutorials. I better create an account, too.

Attempt to add languages

An IP just re-added D to the list, I rolled it back. We need to watch for this. By the decisions we made in the forums, it does not belong. --Snoolas 20:14, 17 January 2007 (EST)

XNA out of place?

Does anyone else find XNA a bit odd to be located in here? XNA is not a programming language. If we add XNA here, we might as well add DirectX and OpenGL, too. --Spodi 02:37, 24 February 2008 (EST)

If I remember correctly I added the xna link so that there would be more xna links referring to the xna page so that it would not be an isolated page with no links pointing to it. ... personally I don't think it really detracts from the purpose of the page but you do have a good point. XNA is a framework not an actual language. --Created by: X 17:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)