Talk:TOC

From GPWiki

Why the "discussion of alternatives" header about Java and Python? They are as much a language as C++ I'd say. Also, Python would fall under the scripting languages. --Marijn

• I was not sure if someone would like to write tutorials for those languages, because the are some kind of rare in game development, IMO. If you think there is a need for both of them, move them to the same level as C++ --egore911

Well, they are both viable languages for game development. Of course, until we have tutorials for them a tutorial page is not much use. --Marijn

I added them as languages, if noone objects discussion can be reomved. --egore911

I removed 'mono' as scripting language, because, as far as I know, it is not. Marijn

• I'm not sure about that. AFAIK .NET and C# (and so MONO) is a script interpreting language and is compiled at runtime ... so I'm not sure how to classify it ...

egore911

Mono is an implementation of the .NET framework, not just of C#, so I guess the language would be C# --Marijn

Yes, I think it's too complicated for the Main Page... it would overwhelm a new visitor! We don't want people to freak out when they first come here. How about this simplified version of the TOC (blended with some of the content we already have on the wiki):

Introduction

• What is game programming?
• How do I get started?

Tutorials and Source Code

• Sorted by Programming Language
• Sorted by Library / API

General Game Programming

• Programming Techniques
• File Formats
• Glossary of Terms
• Books & Reference Material
• General Links

Tools

• Programming Tools
• Content/Media Creation Tools

Project Management

• Project Organization
• Post Mortems

Community

• Forums / Message Board
• Community Members
• Community Projects

Each of those bullet points above would point to new pages where we would then go into more detail (like you have on the TOC).

Ryan Clark 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

• Hmm, that would increase the click count to reach a page by 100 % ... from 1 to 2 ;D I can live with that. It's quite a good TOC you listed there, go for it!

egore911 10:24, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Ok, I'll implement this "mini-TOC" on the main page, as soon as I get off work tonight. It should be up and running by the time you wake up tomorrow :)

Ryan Clark 10:32, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

That sounds like a hint to continue my work tomorrow? :D

egore911

Hehe, no, you can keep going! I'm just going to re-factor everything, that's all :) It shouldn't affect anything you're doing, other than to re-organize it.

Ryan Clark 10:53, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Well, if you include the majoriry of this page, why would we need it? I got anopther idea: Why not using this TOC as frontpage (or do you think it's to ugly/to much for a frontpage)?

Nonetheless I like to have a TOC with many details, since I don't have to click a link on 50 sites to reach where I want to go.

egore911 09:57, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Where do you guys think we should link this TOC from? I'm planning to do a re-write of the main page, to include the majority of these headings... are we going to keep this TOC, too? Seems to me like it would be a lot of work to maintain a TOC, in addition to the main page, and sub-pages.

Ryan Clark 09:51, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I say this page is deleted. There's no reason keeping it. It's totally out of date. --Snoolas 10:44, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I don't know - In my oppinion, we still need to discuss how the category and article structure should be organized... Sion 11:25, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)