|
Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 2:45:01 PM)
|
You've already posted your admission to your lack of knowledge in this area. Why are you persisting?
quote:
ORIGINAL: EaglePryde
That's true and i true have to say i have been carried away.
For those who are into true programming and know what i'm talking about regarding COBOL it should prove interessting to know that
many companies still run old machines. That's why Linux programming is such a loved thing because doing something for a machine that has a couple of "kb" memory wouldn't go well any other way.
Linux is an OS, not a language. You're confusing the two. Linux programming? You might as well say Amstrad or Babbage engine programming.
quote:
Many think that modern computers are the only devices that run programms or that older machines have no validity but that's very much wrong.
Who said this? You're pulling up a completely random statement which has no bearing on the discussion. You might as well say something about the Babbage engine for all the relevance it would have to this thread of discussion.
quote:
Next time someone goes into a supermarket they might even ask themselfs if the terminals that are used for processing the stuff you buy, have been programmed using something higher than the least demanding and most flexible programms like linux or COBOL. And why exchange over a thousand such machines against more modern one's when you wouldn't get any benefit.
Linux is an OS - it is not a program as you have incorrectly identified it as. It's no more "a program" than DOS. Neither is COBOL a program - it's a programming language. As for them being "least demanding and flexible" - I fail to see how a COBOL coded program is more efficient than an equally competently well written C program. And flexible - let's see you make direct hardware calls in COBOL.
quote:
Although C++ and similar are compared with "low level" programming, there is an even lower level.
If you want really low level, go asm or do it binary in machine code. That's about as low level as you can go. C is readable assembly, and C++ is C with some syntactic sugaring and VTables - push comes to shove, C++ is just tarted up C.
COBOL on the other hand is quite high level in comparison to C, C++ and asm. You give up control for being able to do in one line in COBOL what you might take 20 or more in C - but at the cost that you can't optimize what's being done as well as in C, and it's a nightmare to do anything that's outside COBOL's design. Good luck writing an anti-virus scanner in COBOL. Equally, generating a stock report based on the last week's transactions can be a nightmare in C. Different languages, different purposes for which they were designed. I've already pointed that out. Is there a reason you're covering the exact same ground I did? How is your statement supposed to progress the discussion?
quote:
Modern languages have tons of librarys you basicly use while in the beginning you'd have to even programm a simple "space" yourself.
Program a "space"? What the heck are you on about now?
Yes, most languages can call on external libraries, allowing them to use 3rd party generated functionality. What's new about this? Anyone who's written "hello world" will know this. These libraries come at a cost, however - financial cost and technical limitations in that if the library is buggy or incapable of doing what you want it to do, you'll have to go back to coding it yourself. 3rd party libraries are not a panacea for all a programmer's ills.
quote:
Such techniques are still used for the reason above. Most "kids" who are fresh out of school don't have those deep insights anymore and are regarded less programmes and more a person who is given puzzle pieces to put together in the eyes of older guys like me. Sure they make brilliant stuff but their attitude is very much..oh well.
What techniques? You identifed "programming a space" as a "programming technique". What "technique" is this?
You're making less sense with each sentence.
quote:
That's why i value the "old" things. Nothing wrong about it. Programming is not about "what is the best language or the most powerfull" but the one who suits your needs the most.
I said that. You're repeating what I said for.... what reason?
quote:
It's like comparing DW with Sins or even Crysis 2. Sure DW is less demanding and doesn't use state if the art visuals...and why should it. It doesn't need something "better".
Now what are you on about? DW and Crysis are two completely different games. Different genre, different focus, different audience. Of course they're different. You might as well be saying "a tomato and an onion are different".
quote:
In the end. What's more powerfull..the very first programming language or the last. The later are just an extension over the old, like adding books to a library. Nothing changes because the very core is always the same. A "space" youd have to programm in the old days is done for you by a button press that has the same routine behind it as is was in the old days.
What???? Languages are tools to accomplish a task (programming), not books in a library. They aren't references, they aren't repositories of information. I have no idea where you got that analogy.
As for button pressing, that's a matter of the compiler, not necessarily the language. Keep the language the same, but change the compiler and you can get very different operations happening. A keyboard interrupt on a 8086 machine running DOS will be VERY different from one on an Amiga, a mobile phone or a NLM.
You're mixing up languages with compilers with hardware platforms.
|
|
|
|
