Originally posted by sledge
I will go sit in a corner, cry, and contemplate that without knowing this language I am pretty much fucked as a game programmer.

Not necessarily true. You don't have to learn C++ to be able to program games, as there are other equally viable languages out there with their own slew of game development libraries.

Python and PyGame
C#/VB.NET and DirectX /Axiom
Java and lwjgl/jogl
Or even just go with straight C and use something like SDL/GLFW

Heh. Plenty of people don't really believe that C++ is an improvement over C. Personally, I use C-style C++, and by that I mean it's C with classes (which was the original name for C++). I rarely break out the real C++ features, like namespaces, templates (though I do use those occasionally), or any of the other crazy things. Hell, I shy away from inheritence, and I sure as hell don't see why you would use anything other than the printf() family.

The REAL fun is writing Java code in C-style. It's possible...

I'd hope you are at least good with C before making a post like that, though.

Sheesh - go program in assembly....

C++ is simple. Just learn the basics and add to it as you go.

Inheritance and polymorphism ABSOLUTELY ROCK! When used correctly - nightmare otherwise. There are so many cool things you can do with the features available that it's hard to really grasp it all. Template functions alone will save you hundreds of hours of programming. Template classes are another workhorse. Once you get to know the stuff it really is nice.

So sit and cry in the corner until you feel better, take a deep breath and start again - easy does it. There are tons and tons of features, and they are often admittedly difficult to get your head around. When the going gets frustrating, back up, take a breath, have a donut and try again.

Rich

C++ is like juggling chainsaws. If you do it right you can look really cool and it will be awesome, but if you do it wrong then you can end up with a severed hand and then you are really in the corner crying.

Eventually, C++ may very well become defunct, and the majority of games programmers will have to evolve or get out. What separates a good programmer from a bad programmer is one with an open mind who actually makes an effort to learn nuances of a programming language as needed and without prejudice... embracing what works and accepting what does not work. C++ does give you the ability to shoot yourself in the foot, and you'll have to wrap your head around some advanced object oriented concepts before you can appreciate those "dangerous" powers.

Katamari, Do your best!

I agree with you. There ate times when C++ just isnt worth the trouble. But when it comes to building and creating games where control of low level programming and the flexibility of Object-Oriented programming are both very important you need a language like c++.

If i ever find myself in need of a cross-platfom application then i'll go to java. And if i ever need to run anything on DOS 5 then i'll go back to QBASIC.

Well in theory asm can be just as flexible as C++ if you code it right. All programming languages end up as a the same 1's and 0's (well not the exact same but you get my drift). C++ just adds the ability to change large blocks of code into function calls and large blocks of functions into objects. You can use other object oriented programming languages or procedural programming lanuages and accomplish the same tasks. It's the way C++ changes code into functions and functions into objects that i personally like (and apparently alot of people agree with me).

let me rephrase: "C++ allows you to take a chunck of code and turn into a function and then take many functions and turn them into an object(or class)."

Maybe i'll just edit the original post...maybe.

That was the point. The idea is that all programming languages are essentially the same. C++ is a just matter of preference..

I think C++ is incredibly useful to game programmers. But I also think that extremes are not good. One thing I love about C++ is that I can write a global function when I need to and fall back on old procedural techniques when they benefit. For axample, I have an Assembly Language function that fills a chunk of memory using DWORD fills. In some other languages (like Java, I think), you'd have to make a class or something. How retarded is that?

Conversly, I think forcing everything to be procedural and closing your mind to object oriented programming may be too limiting. Who can argue that templates are a godsend? Write one templated sorting function or templated hash table class and be done with it. Polymorphism is just incredibly cool; you can create a list of generic objects and tell them to call their specialized draw or AI functions. You can't beat that! Yes, you can set up something like that C, but you'd probably have to use an annoying system of function pointers.

Anyway, it's 1:00am and I'm rambling.... I guess the whole point I'm trying to make is this: do what you're comfortable with, but keep an open mind.

You know the point of this forum is to encourage open discussion not to insult other people.

If you think something someone said is flawed then you don't have to make fun of them. Why dont you try to tell them their error politly and try to educate them so maybe everyone can learn something? Things are alot more productive that way.

lol, I knew that 1:00am rambling would come back and bite me in the ass. No biggie, it takes more than that to insult me.

My ignorance of Java makes me quite unqualified to say much about it. My point was only to convey that while I enjoy and use OOP, I dislike being locked into it as is the case with Java. That's why I don't use it.

I know exactly what a v-table is. You can do object oriented programming in Assembly if you really wanted to.... My point there was that you'd have to do it manually. Object oriented programming is really more about the design then the coding. Object oriented programming languages do nothing more than provide syntatic sugar to aid the programmer. With C, you don't have that sugar. It's like DarkPenguin said, it all gets converted into 1' & 0's in the end. The CPU could care less whether I wrote procedurally or used OOP, it just wants the chunk instruction in the pipline.

Finally, I didn't mean to imply any incompitence at programming nor any close mindedness on your part. How could I? I have never met you and have never seen any code from you so I certainly have nothing to base that on. My statements were meant to be general and were not targeted at you. I find that I sometimes have to force myself to open my mind to other approaches for a given problem when I feel I know the best solution.