posted February 19, 2007 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

3D computer games are probably the most complex and challenging of software projects. It is interesting to see how games developers cope with the demands of their craft...It makes me wonder whether future operating systems should be built around a kernel of games technology.

---

I had the exact same idea!

I built my own virtual machine (written in PowerBASIC, of course) that is essentially a game "kernel", or mini operating system. It has its own 2D/3D graphics engine, can multitask thousands of different objects at once, etc.

Tasks are written in a BASIC-like object oriented scripting language, so it is very easy to learn.

The whole package is called Liquid Studio. You can check it out at www.globalheavyindustries.com.

A trial version is available for download. I am still finishing up the documentation, but the trial version includes a bunch of sample scripts to demonstrate the syntax of the language and give an idea of how it works.

Thanks,
Flick

posted February 19, 2007 06:03 PM            

I have Windows/XP operating system (maxi, not mini) with a BASIC-like language compiler (PowerBASIC/Windows).

Why would I change?

MCM
PS: Ok, so I did something like this myself once back in the MS-DOS days. I admit it, it was fun.

posted February 19, 2007 06:32 PM            

The the main problem I find with programming computers these days is that it's no longer fun.
To investigate even the simplest thing now involves so much effort to get around or figure out the operating system that it's just not worth it.

The most fun I ever had was with a PET computer in the late 70s and BBC micro in the early 80s.
I had multitasking BASIC programs running on a PET with 32k RAM and a 1MHz 6502 CPU.
The BBC micro was way better. I had it doing all sorts from real time oscilloscopes and signal processing, echo location, FFT and fancy graphics. I would have serious problems doing lots of these things on a modern PC now even though they're hundreds of times more powerful.

These days, even the most trivial thing such as setting an I/O pin high is beyond the ability of most people without many hours or days or even weeks of research.

Paul.

posted February 20, 2007 01:47 AM            

quote:

---

These days, even the most trivial thing such as setting an I/O pin high is beyond the ability of most people without many hours or days or even weeks of research.

---

I had lost a lot of that joy when Windows out-moded DOS so I moved on to hardware and networks, but about 7-8 years ago I came across EZGUI and the fun of programming returned. What I learned was that there are still huge challenges in programming, but there are also some fabulous 3rd party tools that help get over a lot of the mundane, difficult tasks. In all my years I've never had so many choices for real high-quality database engines. SQL, Cheetah, Tsunami, just to name a few, and there are dozens of good index managers too. There are plenty of quality IDEs and RAD packages to choose from, not to mention truly unique graphic tools for just about any task you have to accomplish.

I know there is a feeling by some that an application, especially a PB application, has to be "pure"; small, fast, and no external dependencies (ie: DLLs), but rather than struggling over tasks such as printing, embedding FTP functions, or creating highly polished owner-drawn GUI forms with ease, I simply use the wheels that have already been invented which leaves the parts I like most, the fun parts, making it all do what I envisioned in the first place.

I'd also point out that the PB community is blessed with a good number of very talented 3rd party vendors. People with a passion to code and a true desire to create with an artist's flair.

posted February 20, 2007 05:22 AM            

quote:

---

We don't need better computers or better computer languages. We need better programmers.

---

My take on this is: we don't need "better", we need "other".

While the simple concept of TRUE and FALSE is overwhelming obvious at the first glance, it does in no way reflect how humans "think". Because we operate all the time with "eventually", "most of the time", "a couple", "highly unlikely". Unless the programmer/hardware/software finds a way to adapt these unqualified measurements in one way or another, people will always struggle sooner or later with some parts of a software.

Knuth

posted February 20, 2007 03:30 PM            

Taking the position that better, faster, and more powerful
computers should somehow have made us either superior programmers,
or have rendered the art of programming to mere child's play, just
plain misses the point that the platform is only part of the
picture. Programming is a creative process that involves an
intimate understanding of underlying factors, and that forces us
to consider matters in rational terms.

Computers can only do what they've been programmed to do, and yet
that is what makes them unique and valuable: Properly programmed
and in proper working order, they can be counted on to do what is
expected of them. Efforts to make computers more like humans
would open the way to unexpected behavour, a breakdown in
rational thought and action, and a net loss in dependability.

There is a lot of quaint notions assicoated with the idea of
making computers more like us; less judgemental and inflexable,
more impulsive, more sympathetic to our needs, wants, and
wishes. We want a feeling robot, another unjudging companion
besides our faithful dog, but one we can relate to on a higher
plane.

We ask ourselves, why can't we have computers that do what we
want them to do, rather than be forced to learn so much about
them in order to be able to tell them what to do? That's our
lazy bone kicking in.

Programming is the domain of those that choose to recognize and
accept the challenge and limitations of machines, and look for
ways to make them do more. It can be more enticing and more
absorbing than many other intellectual pursuits. It can, and
likely will, burn you out over time.

Programming is both a means to achieve a high degree of teamwork,
and yet allows for significant individual accomplishment. It can
be a great leveling field, because you cannot bluff or con a PC
into believing you are a great programmer, when you simply are
not. Programming is a way out for those that relate better to
machines than they do to other people, it makes being a geek a
not-to-bad thing.

In other words, programming is a whole lot more than allowed for
when you try and justify why it remains an art form and creative
process, rather than a cut-and-dry methology that should have
grown and improved at a linear rate in conjuction with advances
in computers overall. Thbe original question was based on a
false premise, that there was a direct correlation between the
two.

posted February 20, 2007 05:59 PM            

I could not agree more.

I believe that programming is a great ego buster. If you are incapable of saying "I might have made a mistake" then you will never be any good at finding program errors.

I love the solid unforgiving logic of a program.

posted February 20, 2007 06:32 PM            

------------------

posted February 20, 2007 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

the main problem I find with programming computers these days is that it's no longer fun

---

Say what?

I'm having a ball. I can't wait to get up in the morning and conquer some problem that I couldn't solve yesterday. And actually solving it is a gigantic 'upper.'

My brother - nine years younger than me - already has a six-inch thick file for "things to do when I retire." Me, I'm not even thinking about retirement.

MCM

posted February 20, 2007 10:49 PM            

quote:

---

I can't wait to get up in the morning and conquer some problem that I couldn't solve yesterday.

---

I often find, after struggling with a particular coding issue toward the end of the day, that the solution comes to me upon waking the following morning. My subconscious works the problem while I sleep.

The amazing thing to me is that the solution is usually simple, straightforward...even elegant (sometimes), compared to the convoluted approach, often involving too many lines of code, I had been considering the night before.

The greatest computer is the one between our ears.

posted February 21, 2007 02:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank W. Kelley:
The amazing thing to me is that the solution is usually simple, straightforward...even elegant (sometimes), compared to the convoluted approach, often involving too many lines of code, I had been considering the night before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank W. Kelley:
The greatest computer is the one between our ears.

---

------------------
thinBasic forum
eros.olmi@thinbasic.com

posted February 21, 2007 07:38 AM            

I have come to rely heavily on sleeping as a means to solve difficult
problems, so much so that I take two siestas during the day.

I'd recommend it to anyone, but is our work culture ready for this?

posted February 21, 2007 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Are we still in the dark ages of programming computers? Shouldn't it
be easier to write programs?
What I mean is .. Isn't a loop a loop and a branch a branch and shouldn't
it be just easier to make a pc do what you want it to do?

---

I can feel the heat already from this posting.

------------------