• Forum
  • Lounge
  • Language simular to C++ that's higher le

 
Language simular to C++ that's higher level?

Pages: 12
I've been programming in C++ for a good amount of time now but it seems like I'm stuck on program design. I think it'd be easier for me to learn program design/theory in a easier/less complicated language then come back. I would love to try C# but since they killed XNA there isn't a good graphics library I have found. Thanks. Also a language that has similar syntax to C++. So nothing like Ruby. Thanks.
Last edited on
I would love to try C# but since they killed XNA there isn't a good graphics library I have found.

Have you considered Unity? What little C# I know, I've learned entirely from this neat little engine: http://unity3d.com/unity/download
Monogame is an binary (and source AFAIK) compatible re-implementation of the XNA framework. I'd definitely check that out if I were you.
avilius wrote:
binary (and source AFAIK)

just out of curiosity, is there an example of where something is binary compatible but not source compatible?

edit: @op: what makes you think c# is easier than c++?
Last edited on
I didn't really like unity. I'd rather build things from scratch then use an engine. It kind of seems like cheating from coming from c++, lol.
what makes you say that? also, you can use an engine to generate c++ code as well. otherwise, it would be just as much cheating to use the stdlib.
If you use c++ would you not use D3D or OpenGL? Then perhaps boost asio for networking? And maybe some other 3rd party sound library too?
This is effectively an engine... its all the individual components needed for a game, cobbled together. An engine like unity (or perhaps unreal for C++) just does all this for you. Not exactly "chatting" as you've still gotta make the whole game outside of the physics/graphics/sound and whatever else is going on, but it let's you focus more on content of the game, or models/textures etc, since it handles the more nitty gritty in the background.
I'd rather build things from scratch then use an engine. It kind of seems like cheating from coming from c++

I used to have this attitude... I highly recommend you stop that. You will be much more productive and satisfied when you learn to use the tools available.

This is effectively an engine

Uh, no. Using DirectX or OpenGL with some networking library is not at all what using an engine is like.

@OP, if you really want to stick with C++ then go pick up Unreal Engine. It's like 20 bucks a month, or free if you're a student. You can also just pay 20 dollars once and then cancel your subscription. You still get the engine, you just don't get updates unless you pay. Unreal has a ton of very nice tools for your use. Play around with that for a bit, then you'll realize building a game (that anyone will care about) from "scratch" is a monumental task and will very likely turn out much worse than if you had just used an engine.
Uh, no. Using DirectX or OpenGL with some networking library is not at all what using an engine is like.


I meant that all those individual bits combined together, in a way that does something useful (Ie run a game) is the engine, in that respect it's the same, however things like unity/unreal do an awful lot more for you...
consider my view as such: unreal is to an engine what an IDE is to a compiler
no... IDE's and compilers have nothing to do with each other... The point of an IDE is to group a bunch of tools together, and a compiler turns A -> B
closed account (z05DSL3A)
no... IDE's and compilers have nothing to do with each other... The point of an IDE is to group a bunch of tools together, and a compiler turns A -> B
is not the compiler a tool in the tool chain that is integrated into the development environment this is the IDE and therefore do have something to do with each other?
it doesnt have to be though. just like a car doesnt necessarily need a road
@ResidentBiscuit

I never said I want to make the next big game from scratch. I just want to learn from scratch (like what the original post says!). I really doubt someone who learns with Unity for a year knows nearly as much as someone who works with C# from scratch. Even if they did C# syntax wise (I doubt), I feel like they wouldn't design wise seeing Unity has you covered for a lot of that.


Besides, Unity seems much more creative wise than program wise. I'd rather learn how to make collision faster than set up levels.

I'm not downplaying Unity people. I used Unity at one point too and it seemed ok. I'm just telling you what I prefer.
Last edited on
Little Bobby Tales wrote:
just out of curiosity, is there an example of where something is binary compatible but not source compatible?
Let's say people are reverse engineering a proprietary dll:

Original:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
typedef struct my_data_t
{
    int x;
    int y;
};

API_FUNCTION int do_something(my_data_t* data, int num_datas);


But then a reverse engineered dll has:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
typedef struct MyData
{
    int xCoord;
    int yCoord;
};

NEW_API_FUNCTION int do_something(MyData* my_data_, int elements_);


The same interface is given, yet the source isn't really compatible (stylistic).
Last edited on
interesting.... hmm... didn't think about that.
I really doubt someone who learns with Unity for a year knows nearly as much as someone who works with C# from scratch.


Ah, i see... yeah do that XD
as for the original question i don't really know, personally i much prefer C++ for the control over memory and my much loved pointers that aren't in C#/Java/VB/etc. If you can make C++ work then I'd stick with that but that's my personal bias
Pointers are available in C# with unsafe code.
Um...

Little Bobby Tables wrote:
no... IDE's and compilers have nothing to do with each other... The point of an IDE is to group a bunch of tools together, and a compiler turns A -> B
Grey Wolf wrote:
is not the compiler a tool in the tool chain that is integrated into the development environment this is the IDE and therefore do have something to do with each other?
Little Bobby Tables wrote:
it doesnt have to be though. just like a car doesnt necessarily need a road

Er, that's not exactly an equivalent comparison.

A car needs an engine, otherwise it won't go anywhere.
Likewise, an IDE needs a compiler, otherwise it can't develop an executable.


*compiler==interpreter==whatever makes things go
an ide doesnt need an executable though. not having a compiler doesnt stop it from being an editor, managing project files, or debugging (like with break points. not print debugging).
...Just like not having an engine won't stop you from tinting the windows and adding a spoiler and lift kit with really shiny rims.

Or checking the wiring harass with a voltometer.



Go on, just admit that the whole point of an IDE is to integrate editing tools with a compiler.
Pages: 12