Microsoft Windows make programming and game designing sucks!

Microsoft Windows makes games programming sucks. Why?

Remember the good old days where we have plenty of spaces
and freedom and without boundaries, code all you want.
Take QB as an example.
You used PUT and GET to do animations...(I dont use that, instead
ASM to do it :)

Take DX or VB as an lousy example...
How many things you gotta initialize just to display a simple pic?
At least for me, it took me for a while to understand that bitblt
and stretchbit is somethin like QB's PUT and GET!

And DX makes life easier for the gamers but worse to the
programmers! Just because it groups up all kinds of video cards
and you can code easily, and that's not what I meant!

in DX, you gotta dim DX, DX's components, then the DX device,
the DX surface, the DX buffer, the DX events, the DX functions, the
DX variables, the DX constants, the DX #$%@&*...

Uhh!!! I felt better now! After spitting all the things the drive my mind crazy...:eek:

You don't have to use DirectX... use C/C++ and write your own 3D engine.. see you later!

In about 7-8 years. If you hurry.

What are you complaining about? Remember the good old days when you had to write 10 versions of sound output, 3 of mouse input and 2 of graphics output. When you had to worry about segmentation or initializing protected mode. Dig through endless interrupt tables. When you had to set interrupt handlers. You really MISS that?

I don't think QB is/was a good language for games, but if it was easy to draw a picture - go use pure VB and you'll see how easy it is to draw a picture there...

DX makes life so much easier for programmers. The amount of intialization is nothing compared to the amount of code that you have to write to create even a fairly simple tetris clone.

Writing a 3D engine yourself wouldnt take as long as 7 or 8 years, but it would invariably take longer then 2 years, run slower, and look worse then anything written in DirectX when you started. If you dont want 3D, knock yourself out trying to get DDraw speeds with BitBlt(), or maybe GetBitmapBits(). You could even do it pure assembly, if you like.

If you want to draw a picture in VB, it would take you 2 lines of code, one of which is loading the picture.

Z.

remember the good old dayz when i didn't know anything about programming.. wait those weren't good. anywayz, I still have no idea of what you're talking about :D Guess that's a sign for me to get off my lazy arse and learn DX :[ And I sure am glad I can use a bunch of functionz and stuff that mikersoft already slapped together instead of taking 50 billion years to program my own~!

I am re-implementing all of the Microsoft math functions that i need for my own engine (Matrix stuff, ray intersection code, and the like). It isnt all that hard.

Z.

even if you write your own engine you need to use some sort of API unless you use software rendering . . .

NO. I dont've to exploit the full power of the SVGA card...
How about VESA?
I actually want to return to MS-DOS...

Hmmm... I wonder how you pure pixel plot? Must be hard... assembly maybe?

Maybe you should try writing sound card device drivers, before you think about making dos games. Or even a keyboard interrupt, so keyboard events are non-blocking...

Yeah, when you are finished your engine, we will have already created 2 or 3 games, using the latest technologies.

Oh, and I would like to point out that Mac and Linux game programming is just as difficult as it is on Windows. The fact is, game programming isnt easy. If you want easy, stick with "Hello World".

Z.

Oh, and I know _exactly_ how you feel right now. I wish I was programming when people were just starting to make games - games like the first Zelda, games like Chrono Trigger.... 3D is good too, don't get me wrong, but now there is no place for 2D games...

No. Of course there'll be a 3D engine.
In fact there're lots of MSDOS programmers out there, just as
much as Windows programmers.
I want to create this engine for their benefits, and open source it
as well, hey, u hardly make money with MSDOS programs these
days.

As you write this engine, a lot of research has to be done, and
you improve yourself on the way. This is what I called the
True Programmer. U'll be familiar with all kinds of systems.
And I dont want when somebody ask me what can I do with
my current programming level, and I answer 'Urr, those Office
kinda softwares, mini games, MP3 player, blah...blah'
Instead I'll answer:"Umm...OS,system driver,3D engine, blah
all the way up."

Dont you want to be like this?

You get all of that experience by doing more then one application. Doing a DOS 3d engine is simply a refusal to evolve, and when an organim in nature refuses to evolve, it dies. The same goes for the programmer. I have just about the same amount of experiance that you want, and I have hardly stepped out of D3D. Without using an API, you are dead. Nobody wants to play a pixelly 3d game. They want to play a huge dot3 bump mapped, pixel shaded monstrosity, and you wont be managing that without the use of a 3d API. Sorry, but it wont happen.

Z.

Yeah, and I can say, with my current programming level, I can do "high-end office applications and 3D animation" whereas you can make "DOS games and some things that nobody needs cause you can't kill Windows (= my own OS)".

Zaei, here's code for a DOS based blit (ASM), don't know the exact mode things, it's 320x240x256. I attached it. It's for NASM and part of the game Jump'n'Bump (www.brainchilddesign.com)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jian2587

In fact there're lots of MSDOS programmers out there, just as
much as Windows programmers.

---

Can you support that with any fact?

not to mention that judging by the way you wrote the subject of this post, you have a hard time putting a sentence together, so no employer would probably really care how much you tried to tell them you know, cause you'd sound like an idiot while you're telling them.

Thanks CornedBee =).

rickm, there are other MSDOS programmers out there, though the context he used it in is a bit twisted. Most of them out there are programming in that environment because they are simply learning, and will be on to something better in a few months.

And please no flames, just flat out fact here =).

Z.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaei
Thanks CornedBee =).

rickm, there are other MSDOS programmers out there, though the context he used it in is a bit twisted. Most of them out there are programming in that environment because they are simply learning, and will be on to something better in a few months.

And please no flames, just flat out fact here =).

Z.

---

Im not saying that there arent any, just find it unbelievable that there are actually as many as windows programmers.

You will not be able to convince me that there are more MSDos programmers out there than VB (most common programming language by a very long ways), C++ (doesnt have to be windows, but a lot of the time it is), and ASP combined.

When people go on about MS being a monopoly and not doing anything for the common plebs, I always mention DX.

DX is the bollocks! And it took MS to implement it, it was going nowhere with the company that invented it...

You can write something in DX and be pretty damn confident it's going to work on most machines regardless of their hardware.

Remember back with the old Dos games where you had to choose your sound cards when the game was installing? And set the IRQ's etc. That's not very nice for the average user to have to do.

And DX means the programmer doesn't have to care what sound card the user has as DX handles all the compatability issues...

I find it funny when people whine about how horrible MS is. I dont even understand where this view comes from. What has MS done that is soooo bad? It seems that the only thing that MS has done is become involved in several aspects of the technology sector. It also seems that the only people claiming that "MS $uX0r$" are generally less then 30 years old. Perhaps it is a puberty thing, about "going against the system", blah blah blah.

Or maybe I am off my rocker =). If someone can explain it to me, I would be much obliged.

Z.

Mmm. A lot of people keep saying "How much nicer IT would be without MS". Bah. We would be 5 years behind without MS. 'Course, we all hate bugs. Here's a groovy little formula. I hope all you MS haters can follow, it's fairly complex.

Writing software = inevitable bugs
More software = more bugs
More bugs = more patches

MS writes more software -> more bugs
MS writes more patches -> less bugs, more software


So when you complain about another GPF (if you're on 95) then think about how much they've done, and what they've acomplished, and how little that one small bug really means to the whole philosophy.

'Course, I hate bugs too...

Euk I know...
Yes MS' a monopolist, but then I never said, fully get into MSDOS
programming. Kind of balancing, now indeed is MS era, you
develop programs for the OS, and help MS to monopolize, but then that's what consumers want.
But then, you have to master something like hardware programming as well.
I really don't call my self a real programmer if I dont know
all these system stuffs.
I define those programmers for Windows OS as merely
Designers.
Pls dont feel insulted, I really think like that...

But programming windows still requires a good portion of programming skill. Actually it requires no less programming skill than system programming, it just requires less system knowledge (but then system programming doesn't require any knowledge of the WinAPI which is hard enough).

I don't say MS is bad and MS apps suck, it's just that if MS wasn't a monopolist it would be better. I will delay using XP until the other things aren't supported anymore, but I won't throw 2k away to use Linux (because I like games and am too lazy to get them running on Linux and because I think of myself as a windows programmer).
Actually most BSODs and GPSs come from programs not written by MS, because MS knows how to make their apps compatible to windows.
We can't say where we would be without MS, but I think MS is getting too greedy the last 2-3 years.

Jian,

What's the point of reinventing the wheel?

If someone has written something that acts as a stable interface to allow you throw out programs in a fraction of the time, then why refuse to use that ana recode it all yourself from scratch?

I gather from your posts then that you're a demon in ASM, as you don't call yourself a real programmer unless you know all the system stuff...

Why would you term someone a designer? What is the difference between game AI in ASM, in DOS, and game AI in C++ in Windows? Does programming it in windows make it less difficult? You seem to have this misconception that "real" programmers sit around with a hex editor, twiddling bits by hand. They dont. Its like saying that ninjas dont use guns. Its rediculous. Does a construction worker use a stone axe, and a pully with vine ropes to build a skyscraper? Of course not! He uses the latest technology that he can afford! Its the same in software development. The contruction worker will use prefab parts if he can get them, he wont go around and build it himself. The plumber wont create a water pump or heater from scrap iron, but instead go an buy one from someone else. The same goes for Software development.

Z.

I don't think he's saying that game mechanic creators are designers, I thinks it's more directed at other applications VB is famous for, like Database programming.

Something akin to "You are a designer because you create database programs, but you don't know what those API's and SQL commands do."

Now personally, I don't code DB apps. But if I did, I'd say "Ok. I'm a designer. You're a programmer. You take seven times as long as me to create a DB program."

That's just a slightly silly idea of a REAL programmer. I reckon a real programmer is someone who knows enough stuff to create the program he/she needs as efficiently and as perfectly as possible. But that's just me.

A programmer is a person who programs. There isnt much way around that. A good programmer is someone who knows the best way to get something done, or can learn it quickly. It has nothing to do with knowing the lowest system access programming. It is good knowledge to have in some cases, but the fact remains that a designer is not a programmer. Basically, you are saying that the people who write, for instance, the server application for Amazon.com, are not programmers. That doesnt fly for me.

Z.

well what I want to say is, that it really is a good thing to create your own 3d engine, but do it the way Zaei does it.
He uses the good tools he is given and improves what he needs to improve. there is no need to try to improve on some of the kernel things of DX, because they have been optimized for years now and they are always up to date with the newest hardware...

could anyone here explain me what a designer really is?

My idea of a designer is someone who sits down and lays out the basic foundation of something (be it software, or a magazine, or what have you, both fit the category). For example, the designer of a game would be the person who comes up with the basic specs of the game, such as the type, and all of that stuff. This would usually involve things like plot and story, characters, and gameplay mechanics. A lot of people seem to think this is an easy job, but it certainly is not.

Z.

There shortest path between two points is a straight line, there's no need for unnessesary complexity.
The future programmer will be a "designer", at least if SQ is to define the way. To make a RTS for instance will only be a matter of designing each game concept like units, buildings, user interface, tiles, maps, etc. It's only a matter of abstraction, and SQ is providing that abstraction.

For any component, there has to be an implementation, or nothing happens. Once those components are create, you have to make them work together. I couldnt just sit at my computer, and say "I want an RTS unit". It just doesnt work that way =).

Z.

what doesn't work that way? Your computer, or your programming language?

My computer. I cant tell it to program for me =(.

Z.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaei
My computer. I cant tell it to program for me =(.

Z.

---

well isn't that even some kind of instruction?

c:\MakeSomeCoolGame.exe --to c:\Dev\myGame --genre FPS --API D3D

Z.

I'm a [microsoft-hater]-hater, meaning that I despise microsoft haters :p

Heh anyway, the only thing that I don't like about MS is when they kill low-level stuff in products like VB or try to "evolve" everything to OOP and stuff that they consider "better". Take VB.NET for an example, or DX8, where you need a good 3D graphics card to draw 2d stuff...

OOP IS better.

DX assumes that everyone HAS a better graphics card. This is not neccesarily a bad thing. My graphics card really sucks(I mean, REALLY), but I can still manage. If your card cant do the fancy 3d stuff, or you just want 2D, there is nothing AT ALL wrong with sticking with DX7(I know that, come November, TOW will be sticking with DX8.1, and not moving to 9, most likely).

Z.

OOP Isn't better performancewise, DX was just successfull in partitioning objects and abstractions avoiding bottlenecks (and thats quite amazing indeed, but because of the smart dudes at microsoft, not OOP)
OOP is quite a limiting strategy when designing larger applications, and compromising between performance and abstraction is a time consuming project, the ability and choise to use templates in C++ to compromise between static and dynamic polymorphism is an even more time consuming project, STL is a proof of that, and it's definitely not OOP.

Today, the performance overhead induced by OOP is almost neglibable. I find it to be very flexible, and quite suited to my own tasks =).

Z.

you know, overheads accumulates with abstraction, and without abstraction OOP is useless, If you take advantage of the STL instead of using a variant array, then you're already violating and compromising OOP. Not taking advantage of the abstraction is usually the way OOP programmers compromise for efficiency though, and everyone has a different way of doing it, and different ways for different situations, all in all, there is no reusability to talk about. True OOP code will run at a pace and with size like java apps.

virtual functions cause one extra dereference per call, to get the function from the vtable, which adds 4 bytes per virtual function to the total class size. Non-virtual members add no overhead, and no extra size to the class. You cant actually be comparing that to Java >=(.

Z.

Look, I just think that they shouldn't kill things that could still be useful for some people because it's not useful for them, for example, many programmers would be really pissed off if they take ASM out of C++ because they think it's low-level and that not many people use it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaei
virtual functions cause one extra dereference per call, to get the function from the vtable, which adds 4 bytes per virtual function to the total class size. Non-virtual members add no overhead, and no extra size to the class. You cant actually be comparing that to Java >=(.

Z.

---

you're right, but I can compare VB with Java, think about garbage collection ;) Think about VB.NET, a form with no controls on it and no code uses 10M ram compiled in release mode, and VB.NET is taking a lot more advantage of OOP than VB6, but the abstraction provided by STL is still overwhelming, think about doing that with OOP polymorphism, that would bloat all containers, make iterators useless and slow down functors with the virtual calls instead of inlining them.

I can imagine how nasty VB.NET is. And we can certainly compare it to Java =).

Z.

then we are in agreement :)

Agree =).

Z.