Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Dwarf Fortress

Minecraft

Both

[Max White]

it's all about messaging.

There is a little more then that.
OOP involves classes and instances of classses, notably objects. In a non-OOP language, it is common to have multiple lists/arrays, with data of a common index being related, so for example: If you had to store username and password, you would need a String[] for userName and another for password, and if I were user number 123, then my name is stored in userName[123] and my password is in password[123]. The only relation they have is in your logic.

In OOP, however, you would define a class called User, storing the values String userName and String password, without ever declairing an array for either. You would, however, have an array of User objects.

So OOP is about a little more then messaging. It has some realy cool stuff like inheritance, where I can store a Admin class in a User array! True, the biggest role it plays is defining your architecture, but architecture is about more then messaging.

[LoSboccacc]

c does have structs, you know.

...and you can make arrays out of structs.

so it would be users[123]->name and users[123]->password

oop is a concept, java is just one implementation.

the point of oop is information hiding via message passing.

this is from the most autoritative source:

OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and
hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It
can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other
systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them.

everything else you found in high level languages are just aid for that conceptual model of programming. don't read me wrong: I love Java, I love a subset of c++ (the one that allow to keep your sanity). I would not even think to program in plain C ever again, and all the object/classes/inheritance and stuff high level languages provides are most welcome as allow for a clean and lean implementation of that conceptual model.

but there is nothing more than that in OOP. it takes only a bit of effort to make it work in plain c.

oop in c isn't pretty, but works in the same way that oop works in java.

make a struct instead of a class, make method accepting the struct pointer name self as first argument and you're set.

for more contrive examples I'll redirect you there:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/415452/object-orientation-in-c/415536#415536

but all of that is just contrived mumbojumbo for porting java concepts in c (but oop is not about inheritance and polymorphism)

[Max White]

Well of corse you could have oop in C, it is a lower level language. Its like saying that machine code isn't OOP, yet everything is (Sooner of later) compiled down to it, therefor it must be. Basiacly its the fact that OOP is so pretty in these newer, higher level compilers, that it is an OOP lauguage.

I used to love Java, untill I got into C++ and relised just how much the JVM is doing and how little controll I had. I'm sure one day I will try C and find the same thing for C++, although don't get me wrong, I still use Java and C#, as reflective languages are too useful these days, but it can get a little annoying some time.

NO PRIMITIVE STRINGS MY BACKSIDE!!!!

[LoSboccacc]

hehe I can't just get out of java, it's like a drug to me.

[breadbocks]

I love how this oddly trollish topic on DFvMC became a debate on the merits of C and OOP.

[Duelmaster409]

I love how this oddly trollish topic on DFvMC became a debate on the merits of C and OOP.

Would you rather 6 pages of arguing and insensible fanboyism over which game is better?

[breadbocks]

I love how this oddly trollish topic on DFvMC became a debate on the merits of C and OOP.

Would you rather 6 pages of arguing and insensible fanboyism over which game is better?

As long as it would be DF fanboyism,I wouldn't mind it. But I was just pointing out how humorous the derail was for me.

[Duelmaster409]

I have magma in my bedroom. Every day when I wake up I am mostly covered in second-degree burns like a real dwarfy man.

[Yasokhuul]

> voting between minecraft and dwarf fortress on the dwarf fortress forum
> voting on the dwarf fortress forum
> voting dwarf fortress forum
> voting dwarf fortress


'nuff said...

[jaked122]

Minecraft is okay, but I really don't like paying for things. and dwarf fortress has infinitely more stuff, and I don't know how to mod minecraft

[Dakk]

My friend made a good comparison the other day:

In levels of hardcore-ness, this is Minecraft.

While this is Dwarf Fortress.

Both are enjoyable, but Dwarf Fortress is for people that enjoy a deep and complex experience upon stabbing someone's spleen with a bismuth bronze spear decorated with hanging rings of bone and spikes, while minecraft players are just as content with repeately bashing a blocky oddly object resembling a sword on a blocky enemy.

[Max White]

I love how this oddly trollish topic on DFvMC became a debate on the merits of C and OOP.

It would appear that what holds true on the internet, that is normal threads turn into trolling debates and cats are awesome, it inverse on the DF forums, that is things turn into more sopisticated topics and cats get drowned in magma for the sake of FPS.

Furthermore, when I type FPS you read 'frames per second', not 'first person shooter'. By armok I love these forums.

[janglur]

WATCH YERSELF URIST, VOTE FOR THE WRONG MOUNTAINHOME AN' YOU MIGHT TAKE A SWIM WITH THE MAGMA CRABS!

[MrWiggles]

Furthermore, when I type FPS you read 'frames per second', not 'first person shooter'. By armok I love these forums.

This is more context base really. The default understanding for the forums is frames per seconds, but when actually talking about first person shooters then FPS means that.


It only gets confusing when you're talking yer fps in yer fps.

[breadbocks]

It only gets confusing when you're talking yer fps in yer fps.

The first person shooters in the Federal Protective Service? What is there to say about that?