Start by having a look at this thread (learning new languages) in this very forum.

 

It's the demo framework that's incredibly bad. The samples are basically (but not always exclusively) C rather than C++ and maniacally segmented rather than properly structured, and then all the segments are reversed-sorted to top the insanity of. Oh sorry, no, they still use some shorthand Hungarian notation. THAT tops it off!

Basically the first thing everyone does is create a basic framework that encapsulates the tedious initialisation and shut-down procedures, so you're on the right track to learn it. When you leave the sample frameworks you'll actually learn that D3D is a rather nice system to work with. Go figure.

Oh friggin' fr0ck, EA rendering the Pilgrim as a buff but moody semi-emo warrior ("the man who don't fear death") in a action slasher obviously intended to attempt to be the next God of War killer... This game could have been an ironic entry in the B-Games compo here, fercrienoutlawd.

Seriously, they could just have named the same game "Hell Killer" and the game would have sold just as well: a wild slasher in hell with crazy gfx sounds like a sure bet.

I look forward to EA's next conscientious adaptation of literary classics in "Ishmaels' Bloodtrail", where you play the buff pirate Ishmael that must slash his way though an onslaught of his arch-enemy Moby Dick's minions before confronting him in an epic show-down, complete with quick-time events.

They hate the sport comop because they have no imagination

Please, let's be gentlemen and keep personal attacks at a minimum, ok?

Anyway, reading the suggested compo themes there are some I lubricate at and some that turn me cold. And sports is one of the latter. Does that make me unimaginative or unable of doing something creative with a sports theme? No. It means I have preferences. As do any evolved and interesting person worth interacting with.

On the spur of the moment, a theme I think would be fun is "Xtreme Mundane - The Next Level"!

Sports would only be fun if combined with another theme, like alternative universe + age reversal + sports.

Ideally the whole game is a tutorial

I'm usually a little annoyed by this mechanic.  I mean, it WORKS--you can't actually go wrong with it.  But it kind of puts limits on what the game can throw at you, the player.  Early levels either stop posing a challenge to an experienced player, or they become terribly boring.  If an advanced mechanic can be used to skip an easy puzzle, then the puzzle stops being useful as a tutorial because the player might learn the hard and not the easy thing...  But if you can wall-jump for the whole game, but you never GET to because there's no point most of the time, well, that has its own problems.  And then you have issues where you get to the end of the game and you only have one or two levels at "full power"...just a few simple puzzles that use the game's full potential; that's no good.

A good way to handle this is to design those levels so that skilled players can discover alternative routes, secrets or challenges.

Viddler?

Nice to see that this Thread has developed it's own dynamic.

You do know that replies like that from the OP spells instant doom for any thread, right?

I think the main point to take away is that it doesn't really make sense to argue about nomenclature outside of a specific context, because every language defines them differently. Saying that Java references aren't really references is just silly because well, that's how Java defines references. In fact it seems the general CS term 'reference' actually contains pointers and C++ references as specific examples.

(1) Yes pointer and reference are both synonymous in CS, and context is relevant, which is what I wrote above; but (2) Java intentionally invoked the C++ context in their marketing of Java, which explicitly said "Java has references, not pointers" (remember, this was market sp3ak aimed at executives and decision makers rather than technicians, and often aimed at VB farms that wanted power but for some reason ph34red C or C++ [yes, businesses like that exists, I have even worked at such])l and (3) since we still have to confront the memes started by that FUD it IS relevant to talk about the Java "pointers or references" topic, even as from within a C++ nomenclature. We just need to remember SciFi-nerd sayings meanwhile, like Bab5's "truth is a triple-edged sword" (side A's version, B's, and reality). Silly, yes, but not as you imply, but rather in that we have to deal with silly marketing stunts and their legacy within programming and in programming languages.

This is what's wrong: http://xkcd.com/386/

That, and that is is a reasonably stimulating debate. Few debates a boring topic.

Well, your straw man argument might be spot on.

From a vivid debate on pointers and reference:

Dan: notice the thread title : )  I don't think there is any generally accepted notion of "pointer" and "reference" outside the context of C++.  If someone refers to those concepts in general, then I don't know what they mean (specifically).

(Not that that debate really has anything to do with us right now, I just wanted to grab that quote to show that we're not thinking new and unique thoughts here.) And it was the C++ context that Java constructs were named for, and a FUD straw man that Sun set up when declaring the evil and bug-prone nature of pointers wherefore they'd only use the safe good references. The Java naming of language facilities were intentionally misleading marketing (same as other arguments at the time of the birth of Java, f.i. MI and Operator and function/method overloading).

PS: Bonus points Mikademus and Average Software for their outstanding use of straw man arguments.

I know the word "straw man" is in vogue in the 'net atm, but I am actually not aware of having made any here...?

PS. Creds for slick table.

[edit] Sure they are different in behaviour: they are defined to be different. So? Java's "references" are still recognisably pointers, even in C++ terms:

* you allocate with new
* you assign and reassign *targets* with = (note that string syntax is a special exception explicitly defined in the language standard).
* you can have NULL pointers (and the associated exception is even called "NULL pointer exception")
* there's probably more but I am sleepy

Code:

const int &r = 0; // Legal.
const int *p = &0; // Illegal.  0 does not have an address.

To actually split hairs, 0 does have an address on some platforms. I think PDP-10 .. PDP-20 (UNIX-based OS for VAX mainframes) allowed referencing address 0.  <-- we need a :cheers-mountaindew: or :cheers-jolt: emoticon

Yeah, I know some platforms have a hardware 0, but that's not the concern of C++.  &0 is illegal even on those platforms, I believe.

Quoting the "Vaxocentrism" entry of the 1991 ed. New Hacker's Dictionary (that I actually have in dead-tree version):

1. The assumption that dereferencing a NULL pointer is safe because it is all bits 0, and location 0 is readable and 0

Note that ESR speaks in a C-coding context, though. I had a quick look for if the Standard says something about dereferencing 0 in C++, but it seems to be intentionally undefined.

Code:

const int &r = 0; // Legal.
const int *p = &0; // Illegal.  0 does not have an address.

To actually split hairs, 0 does have an address on some platforms. I think PDP-10 .. PDP-20 (UNIX-based OS for VAX mainframes) allowed referencing address 0.  <-- we need a :cheers-mountaindew: or :cheers-jolt: emoticon

That's part of the constraints I was talking about. Everything you can do with a reference, you can do with a pointer, but not vice versa.

Nope. Using C++ semantics for illustration:

Pointer:

Code:

int my_int = 42;
int my_other_int = 84;
int *p_int = &my_int; // set target
p_int = &my_other_int; // reassign
*p_int = 42; // set target value
p_int = NULL; // assign NULL

References:

Code:

int &r_int; // COMPILER ERROR: references must be bound
int &r_int = my_int; // set target, BIND ONCE ONLY
r_int = my_other_int; // set target VALUE, reassign impossible
r_int = NULL; // set target VALUE (zero)
r_int = *((int *) NULL); // assignment to 0 illegal >> COMPILE ERROR

Bonus special:
int *p_int = 0;
r_int = *p_int; // good way to crash and burn >> COMPILE OR RUNTIME ERROR

The Java assignment operator is a good example of that Java "references" are really pointers; assignment does not set the value of the pointer target but reassigns the pointer to another target. This is probably the first gotcha that newbies encounter when learning the language.

If you can't do arithmetic on it, it ain't a pointer

Actually you're wrong. Java has normal pointers. However, the language prohibits (imposes restrictions) on certain faculties, like assignment to NULL, pointers to pointers and pointer arithmetic. The "." and calling it "references" all have to do with marketing.

Quick reply: if the only thing you need in the DLL is the 2D array things, and they are quite low-level, then go with C. It is an easy to understand procedural language, and the DLL handling are virtually identical for both C and C++ under Windows.

Oooo, it's prettified! (<-- My Firefox spell-checker thinks this is a correct word! )

To make DLLs that runs decently you'll have to learn another language anyway, and if you want the more efficient arrays they'll have to be in the DLLs and then you've already done the entire game in another language anyway.

Save yourself the grief and code it in a suitable language from the start already. Also, as a CS student you should have already learned at least one proper language, and if you haven't see this as an excuse? 

<language_minutae>

I don't know if Java has properties yet, but it definitely has no pointers.

Correction: Java has ONLY pointers and no proper references (as C++ has) though Sun named them the other way around and used the dot as the pointer dereference operator, and forbids user initialisation to NULL. Put it like this, if Java had only proper references, you wouldn't have to check for null pointer exceptions.
</>

Tutorial levels are what's killing civilization.

That, and giant mutated monsters.