And, from what I can gather, most of you are not even programmers, yet, for some reason you are attracted to the use of non-descriptive and counter intuitive terminology and structure. Many of you admit that you have failed to grasp "modern" programming languages, and that is why you have come here to learn Construct - which maintains that same programming paradigm that has given you such fits. Quite a dilemma for you, I should think.
It isn't the names for stuff that was confusing, it was the crazy syntax and unwritten rules about how the code needs to be arranged, and lots of that underlying stuff that Ashley mentioned. All the random symbols everywhere interspersed with the text of the code, the way the code needed to be formatted, etc is what threw me off. The concepts I understood easily. Getting them to work, I did not.
[quote:56igxqot]This statement assumes that because the industry uses this standard of terminology that it automatically makes it the "best and most suitable". For whom, I might ask?
People have been using the concept/term "variable" for at least hundreds/thousands of years. If you'd rather call it something else, then you have an issue with the very concept of language itself. Not even Einstein could have convinced the world to change the name. It's literally like claiming that the word industry isn't descriptive enough and deciding to call it something else. Then when you use your new made-up word everyone looks at you funny and has no idea what you're talking about. That's how language works.
[quote:56igxqot]And those of you who think you need to be proficient in advanced mathematics to make the simple things found in today's AAA games...
Right, because shaders and rendering and physics and real-time ambient occlusion require no advanced math at all.