Yes, I can develop games using the Sharp 8-bit chip, and with the Gameboy board, I can develop SNES games using Ricoh 5A22, I can develop Sega Genesis games, such as a small Sonic clone I made directly for Sega (it was a nightmare working with Motorola 68K and memory-mapped-I/O), and I even made a bootloader-like system software program for my PS2's "Emotion Engine".
Despite all of that, C++ templates still confuse me.
Think of templates like a form you would have to fill the blanks. the form does not know your gender or your age, so it is generic to fit anyone. Templates are the same way, they are a generic form to fit whatever they may need.
Disagree. Templates are not abstract at all, the reason they are difficult is they have somewhat shitty syntax and are very very quirky. For example a complete template specialization must be in a cpp file; a template partial specialization must be in a .h file, unless it is in a cpp file and is only used only by that cpp file; a general template implementation must be in a .h file, unless it is in a cpp file and is only used by that cpp file. That is because the order of template implementations in your files must be the same as the order in which they appear when the compiler processes your files. This is clearly bad design; the compiler can do the sorting for you and figure out cyclic dependencies - you shouldn't have to babysit it.
The above buggy issues make templates very difficult to work with. Let me note that, although I am so critical to c++ templates design (but no more critical to them than I am to my own code), I have not seen a better implementation of templates than in c++, except possibly in D (I don't know that language well enough to judge; I have heard however that recent C++ template design is partially inspired by D).
The good news is that all issues I have with C++ templates are fixable - none of them are deeply rooted - I am looking forward to future versions of C++ for fixes.
Yes, I believe you. I've been programming in C++ for like 10 months or so, and I made a few games. (Asteriods, Pong, A prototype RPG engine, and A prototype RTS engine, etc) Matter of fact, I'm working on an RTS engine & RPG engine currently, if you haven't seen my pleads for help on the forums already.
I don't think I will ever understand templates. I haven't even taken the time out of my day to strengthen my grasps on vectors, which I will do during study hall at my school (its boooorrrrinnggg)
I was using incorrectly the word ``abstract'' synonymously to ``difficult to grasp/understand'', and not in the sense you are giving.
The word ``object'' is itself an abstraction. What is a non-abstract ``object''? Chairs, pens, balls, books - those are ``non-abstract''. Everything remotely connected to computers is extremely abstract.
On another remotely related note: I often hear people say ``abstract algebra''. As a mathematician, I protest because there is no such discipline. And, as an English language user, I disagree even more: ``abstract algebra'' as opposed to... ``concrete algebra''?
Depends which one. The GBA had an ARM7 processor, so the assembly language would be ARMv3. I believe older GameBoys used the Z80, which was based on the 8080, so its instruction set would be somewhat similar to x86 assembly, but 8-bit. The GBA had a Z80 coprocessor for GameBoy emulation, so it actually used both.