Visual, How Visual is Visual?

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • You fellows seem to be on the right track with regard to game making. I like your stated concept of presenting everything in a "visual, human readable way".

    Having downloaded the program and clicked around quite a bit, I can't say I find it to be totally as comprehensible as I had hoped. I couldn't even figure out how to start creating a "world" or "scene" or layout. That is the very first step anyone will try to take, and it is not graphically obvious where to start. I had to load one of the templates to see anything in action, but even that gave no visual clues as to how to "begin at the beginning".

    Another thing I noticed after studying the Wiki and such is that the tiny icons that are strung together in sequence, indicating the order of "events" and "functions" are not incredibly descriptive - many functions are depicted with the same rather cryptic icon of what looks like an "eye" or an "angle" symbol or something. The true meaning is only visible by hovering over the icon for a time with the mouse pointer. Why not use a different icon for each action or function?

    The "root" screen that intends to indicate the program flow in a "human readable way" does a fair job at doing so, but I found that once one delves deeper into actions and "functions", the obligatory "programmer speak" begins to emerge all over the place - words like "variables", "global variables", "functions", "z-order", "exclusion", etc. - none of which I found very descriptive, even in the context of actual programming functionality. Why not use "plain English" here that will be comprehensible to everyone, as well?

    Believe it or not, a product of Microsoft Research has actually succeeded in hitting the idea of "layman's programming" on the head with their soon to be released 3D game making application called "Kodu" - I encourage you all to watch the inventor's own explanatory video demonstrating their programming paradigm: http://hk.truveo.com/Kodu-Videos-X360-CES-2009-Developer-Commentary/id/2653837507

    Kodu uses the language of the senses to explain all of its programming functionality. I wonder if Construct would enable a motivated user to enter the "source" and change all of these cyptic, programmer specific terms into their "human readable" forms? If you can explain it to me, a non-programmer, I'll happily set out to "fix" the lot.

    Still, from what I have been able to find, after many weeks of searching for the ideal game making environment, it appears that the authors of Construct see at least part of the picture.

    Psmith

  • I think Construct was made the way that it is assuming that users already have at least a small understanding of game making programs. You don't HAVE to have prior experience, but if you've ever used any other program things as simple as "variables" should be instantly recognizable.

    I think most programs use "programmer speak" because it's what most semi-experienced to expert users know. If they used simplified terms for everything it might help complete newcomers, but it would detract experienced users who are used to programs using common terms.

  • I don't find Construct to be that much visual . Kodu is Microsoft(R) creation tool... MS(R) always takes simplicity of use to the maximum, IMO there's nobody who has that much application design skills to match MS(R) products.

    If someone doesn't have much experience with non-MS(R) game creation tool interface, it's always hard to start. Unlike graphic or sound creation programs, in games you have to parallely organize all those: graphics, music/sound, logic, what is more complicated .

  • yes, construct uses some programming terms for things, but to try to abstract it into something else would be more confusing.

    take variables

    what do you call something that you can use to store any value in any form you can think of?

    want to remember a sentence someone typed in, need to remember the name of something, need to remember the x coordinate of something, need to remember the angle of something? need to remember a value that represents a characters emotional state? need to remember the value you're plugging into an equation? a player's score? the 3rd item in someone's inventory?

    what are you going to call something that can do all these things?

    I think variable is as good a word as any, and even if we called it box, or memory cell, the concept would still need to be explained to a lay person. Don't be intimidated by words. if you want to do away with variables altogether, you're going to severely limit the power of your software, if not, it's the best word, because as caspis said, you're going to alienate people who enjoy programming already.

    variables are just one example. functions is another one. functions do something. that something can be a complex math equation, renaming a character, resetting the game, putting some objects in order. anything you can program, you can make a function...it's a shortcut in a sense.

    like if we had a function called "get ready for school"

    get up,

    eat breakfast,

    brush teeth,

    get dressed,

    comb hair,

    get bookbag

    but we just explain that once and from now on we just tell construct to "get ready for school"

    you don't have to work those things out over and over again. it's useful, it's powerful, it's necessary in any powerful language. what would we call it? a tasklist? it's still the same thing no matter what it's called, and other than the first second where you say "ok, so what's a tasklist?", instead of "ok, so what's a function?", there's really no difference

    also, you'd be surprised by how much you can do without variables, functions, z-orders, exclusion, etc, anyway.

    one more example, this one is a simpler concept

    z-order is what's in front of what

    so if the tree and the guy are at the same spot, which one should be in front, and which one should be obscured by it? what's the order of all the objects?

    what should we call z-order, front-to-backness? I can't think of a word that will explain that sentence to someone. and as before, now you understand z-order, so it doesn't matter that it was called that.

    don't allow yourself to be intimidated by a few new words, you might be surprised by how easy things are in construct. also, kodu, is not nearly as flexible as construct. Other than the 3d aspect, you could create a program like kodu in construct. kodu is legos, construct is a factory. construct is a real development tool. kodu is like a fun toy that let's you play around with some programming concepts. know what I mean? it's like the difference between MTV music maker for playstation, and FL Studio, or the difference between sony eyetoy movie editor and adobe premiere.

    those other things are fun, and let you be a little creative, but they aren't serious tools.

  • change all of these cyptic, programmer specific terms into their "human readable" forms?

    Hehehe, you should try real programming!

    Seriously, though, I do think the terminology used in Construct is sufficiently simple. We have to strike a balancing act. On the one hand, beginners like you have to have a fighting chance. On the other hand, we aim Construct to design commercial quality 2D games, and if you're an experienced user, the "big colourful simple easy" approach of software like Kodu is nothing but a hindrance. By the way, I fired off an email to one of the guys on the Kodu project a while ago because I thought it was interesting. He described the project as aimed at children, and their site emphasises their young target audience. Construct isn't meant to be a kid's program and completely dumbed down.

    [quote:310po22e]Having downloaded the program and clicked around quite a bit, I can't say I find it to be totally as comprehensible as I had hoped.

    Did you try a tutorial like Ghost Shooter or Deadeye's excellent Platform School? They guide you through the basics step by step. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't figure out a fairly complicated bit of software like Construct just by "clicking around".

    [quote:310po22e]Another thing I noticed after studying the Wiki and such is that the tiny icons that are strung together in sequence, indicating the order of "events" and "functions" are not incredibly descriptive

    Are you in the right event sheet editor view? It sounds like you're in chronological view, which is designed to be compact and you have to hover over icons to see what they are. If you switch to List view in the Events tab of the ribbon, everything's laid out descriptively.

    [quote:310po22e]the obligatory "programmer speak" begins to emerge all over the place - words like "variables", "global variables", "functions", "z-order", "exclusion"

    Many of these terms are not programmer specific and are actually general to game design. If you want to design games, for example, you have to ultimately use variables, even if they're managed by something as simple as drag and drop blocks. You simply can't avoid it for game design with any tool, any programming language, any design system anywhere. It's like trying to do math without being able to count. Another tool might "simplify" it by calling them "numbers" or something, but that's misleading. For example, you can store text in variables as well as numbers, so it would be counterintuitive and confusing to call variables "numbers" in Construct. Ultimately, that's what they are - they really are variables - so it's correct and appropriate to name them so. If you want to get in to any specialised field, even in an amateur way, you have to learn a little bit of jargon.

    FYI the terms you mentioned mean:

    variable: a value that can be changed (varied, hence variable), such as your current speed

    global variable: a value that keeps its value over the whole application, between layouts, such as your score

    functions: this is in fact named after the programming equivalent, and is to do with a special plugin that can be very useful for intermediate/advanced users. However, beginners can get by just fine without ever having to use it, it's more a shortcut for experienced users.

    z-order: the front-to-back (depth, hence Z) order of objects, such as which object shows on top when two overlap

    exclusion: an effect which has the same name and appearance of the photoshop exclusion blend

    You can find much more on the wiki.

    In short you a) need to learn a few terms to give yourself a fair chance of succeeding in game design and b) can safely ignore anything you don't understand. With Construct a beginner can make a wide variety of simple games with very few plugins and features: sprites, tiled backgrounds, text and simple events. If you don't understand a plugin or term, you don't have to use it. But it's there for if you ever do need it, and for experienced users who need to take advantage of it.

    Hope that helps

  • If you've never used Photoshop, would you know what Adjustment Layers do? If you've never used Dreamweaver would you be able to create a CSS rule? If you were using Flash for the first time, would you know how to tween an object?

    Probably not. These are skills that need to be learned. Just as Construct needs to be learned.

    So... when faced with a blank document page, what needs to happen? Adding content, of course. Was the "Insert object" button (or the right-click / "Insert object" context menu option) not apparent enough? If you want to see something in the layout, you have to put something in the layout.

    As for getting started, that's what the beginner's Ghost Shooter tutorial is for. Take the tutorial. At the end you should have a basic understanding of how Construct works.

    Anyway, I fail to see how this Construct is any more complex than your average design program, whether it's a game maker, a spreadsheet maker, an HTML editor, or some sort of design layout program. It uses the same sort of standard program interface that many, many design programs use. It's a tool for making games, not a toy for snapping together pre-made game pieces (which is what Kodu appears to be).

    In regards to the technical terminology: The term "variable" isn't that difficult to figure out, even for a layman with no experience. And it's good in the long run, because if a layman starts off with Construct and later moves on to a "real" programming language, then they will at least be somewhat prepared.

    As for the "humanly readable" aspect: I would argue that yes, it is... again, as much as any other design software. Some of the more complex features may not be entirely accessible, but neither are they nearly as hard to decipher as, say, C++ code. And the learning curve is much shallower than that of a traditional programming language.

    Construct is middle-ware. It gives you much of the power and flexibility of programming without having to learn a programming language. But, to keep that flexibility, a certain amount of openness has to remain. The more closed a system is, the less flexible it is (such as with Kodu). By keeping the system open to more customization (such as variables, functions, loops, arrays, etc.) you have more power at your disposal. But these things need to be called something... why not call them by their proper programming counterparts, rather than make up some new term for them? It would alienate those with actual programming experience or at least a fundamental understanding of programming architecture.

    So, is it completely noob-friendly? No, probably not. But as I said before, it's a tool, not a toy. Noobs and laymen can click together some simple games with a little practice, but it's also powerful enough to create some truly complex games.

  • Kodu looks interesting but at the end of the day it's still a toy.

    If you were comparing Construct to something Microsoft, it would have to be XNA. And there's quite a lot of coding involved in XNA.

    The nice thing about Construct is that it speeds up the learning curve and the time needed to get results. It does not "relieve you from the burden of clarifying your ideas" (http://xkcd.com/568/). I think many people here are planning releasing commercial games made with this (amazing!) tool. It's simple enough to hit the ground running with your game (insert sprite, draw something on it, give platform behavior, then insert a box and make it solid, use as a floor. TADA!) but it's powerful enough to do the kind of stuff that makes people bail out from other game-making tools and learn programming.

    And no... construct's logic is nowhere NEAR as difficult as making games in C++

    I'd know. I spent quite some time trying

  • It always amazes me how programmers reply to reasonable questions like the ones I have posed.

    What can you call a thing other than "variable" that is more descriptive and more readily understandable to non-initiates? I'm sure you can find a better word or phrase if you cared to think about it for longer than a second or two. I know I can. For non-global variables, instead of a dead and indeterminate noun, why not use a verb like "remember". "Remember"(something) would hold whatever you wanted in its "memory" until it is replaced by something else. A global variable could be equally descriptive by using another active phrase that everyone can understand like "remember forever" (something). This is how we speak and this is how we think.

    Considering that something is "advanced" or "professional", simply because it is obscure is nonsense.

    It is quite alright that you have designed this engine for making professional quality 2D games, but that does not require you to make it difficult for non-professionals to do so. Games and game logic are incredibly simple if you care to be honest about it. There is no need to add layers of complexity just so those who consider themselves "professionals" don't feel let down.

    Actually, PhotoShop was one of those programs I learned to use quite proficiently by clicking around and not reading a single page of documentation or following a single tutorial. Any really professional application that claims to have even a fraction of PhotoShop's utility should provide the same facility.

    Oh yes . . . Deadeye - that avatar of yours speaks volumes, you know.

    'Good programming makes simple things simple, and complex things possible' (Alan Kay, more or less).

    � Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. � - (Abelson / Sussman)

    One of these days the Priesthood of the code will be thoroughly disbanded. Mark my words.

    Psmith

  • If you can't help yourself to understand and learn the program, then DO NOT use it.. go to your Doku or whatever shit software you want to compare with construct.

    Look how many beginners has learned much about the program by not being lazy of reading tutorials and stuff.

    We're not going to spoonfeed you, the program won't give descriiptions to every word in the program.. It's completely up to you, and I think the community is not being unfair in giving help to those who really need it. What do you really expect?

    EDIT:

    What layers of complexity are you talking about???

    the term variables and z-depth? research or ask to understand, if you're gonna complain cause you don't understand them, blame yourself.

  • This is such a strange argument...

    There is a learning curve with every new program that you try, but once you've gotten used to the layout and terms doesn't it seem much less mystifying? Isn't it better to use the same terms that other programs use, so if and when you decide to try a similar program you won't have to learn a whole new set of commands?

    I sort of understand where you're coming from, but it's not like Construct is using undocumented terms. Just give it some time and patience and I'm sure it won't seem so alien before long.

  • It always amazes me how programmers reply to reasonable questions like the ones I have posed.

    First, a lot of us here aren't programmers. In fact, most of us are probably here because we're NOT programmers. I'm proficient with construct, but I can't even manage to get through a basic javascript tutorial.

    What can you call a thing other than "variable" that is more descriptive and more readily understandable to non-initiates? I'm sure you can find a better word or phrase if you cared to think about it for longer than a second or two.

    This isn't a good argument. Think about it. Imagine you enounter something you've never encountered before - like an animal. You don't know what it's called. This type of thing happens all the time for scientists exploring the world. Therefore, to differentiate it from all the other animals, it needs a name.

    Now, you may want to call it what you want, but the rest of the world already has a name for it. Going around referring to it by something else would only confuse people and no one would understand what you're talking about.

    One of the great things about construct is it gives the power of a lot of real programming principles and makes them simple to understand and use. If you got over your reluctance to try to learn it, it probably wouldn't take you longer than a second or two to understand them, because they really are easy concepts to learn.

    The other benefit of doing it this way is that even though I can't code the most basic thing in javascript, I can hold conversations with professional programmers about coding, and they can make suggestions to me that actually work in construct even though they've never used it. Calling it something like 'remember' would stunt your development as a coder and make it harder for you to jump from one dev environment to another.

    I know I can. For non-global variables, instead of a dead and indeterminate noun, why not use a verb like "remember". "Remember"(something) would hold whatever you wanted in its "memory" until it is replaced by something else. A global variable could be equally descriptive by using another active phrase that everyone can understand like "remember forever" (something). This is how we speak and this is how we think.

    A variable is a thing, which is referred to via a noun, not a verb. You're suggesting a replacement for the word variable, but the place remember would be used is in the action, instead of set variable. So remember what? What is the underlying part of the program you're working with? When you create new variables, what should they be called? Create a new remember? Referring to a thing with a verb doesn't work. What you're actually suggesting here is replacing the words "set variable" with remember. You'd still have to make a name for it. And what do you know, there already is one.

    It really is quite logical. A variable is a number or text that can be modified - i.e. it can vary. You can give them names. So sprite('speed') will retrieve the speed. Is set variable 'speed' really that much harder?

    Considering that something is "advanced" or "professional", simply because it is obscure is nonsense.

    It is not advanced, nor is it obscure. It's what everyone in the entire programming and mathematics world calls it. It's also one of the most basic parts of programming. You want advanced, look at anything quazi makes.

    It is quite alright that you have designed this engine for making professional quality 2D games, but that does not require you to make it difficult for non-professionals to do so. Games and game logic are incredibly simple if you care to be honest about it. There is no need to add layers of complexity just so those who consider themselves "professionals" don't feel let down.

    Games are as simple or as complex as they're made to be. Most of us here are not game industry professionals. I hope you don't feel let down by this. If you put as much effort into learning it as you're putting into trying to find some way to not have to, you'd have learned it already. This is about as simple as game logic gets while still having flexibility for more advanced stuff.

    If you're having trouble understanding any of the terms, all you need to do is ask. The people here are very helpful.

    Actually, PhotoShop was one of those programs I learned to use quite proficiently by clicking around and not reading a single page of documentation or following a single tutorial. Any really professional application that claims to have even a fraction of PhotoShop's utility should provide the same facility.

    Try that with Maya. And I did learn most of construct by clicking around.

    One of these days the Priesthood of the code will be thoroughly disbanded. Mark my words.

    This isn't elitist nonsense. This variable thing has been around for hundreds/thousands of years and is quite thoroughly entrenched in both programming and mathematics. From wikipedia: "Much of the basic theory for which we use variables today, such as school geometry and algebra, was developed thousands of years ago, but the use of symbolic formulae and variables is only several hundreds of years old."

    You're not going to win this argument. No one's trying to bash you down, but your suggestion is both impractical and not better than the way it is. Seriously, this stuff really isn't that hard to learn and it will help you in the long run.

  • lol, I bet its a fake account of LIJI's or something.

  • It always amazes me how programmers reply to reasonable questions like the ones I have posed.

    That right there, speaks volumes.

    [quote:2venf2qu]� Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. � - (Abelson / Sussman)

    Funny. This is from a book that leads into the design of Scheme. Which looks like this (from wikipedia)

    (define a 10)
    (define eval-aplus2 (delay (+ a 2)))
    (define a 20)
    (force eval-aplus2)
    => 22
    [/code:2venf2qu]
    I spy variables. 
    
    If we talk merely nomenclature, have fun explaining why your 'memories' have been 'forgotten' when objects disappear.
    
    [quote:2venf2qu]One of these days the Priesthood of the code will be thoroughly disbanded.  Mark my words.
    
    You make it sound like code was an elitist thing, when all you have to do is STUDY the subject.
    
    Someone's just being lazy, methinks. I shall pay no more attention, as there are users who are actually interested in doing things and learning how to do them (among them, me!).
  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • It always amazes me how programmers reply to reasonable questions like the ones I have posed.

    no one's reacting any way. you stated your case, and we disagreed

    [quote:2vk7gjd3]

    What can you call a thing other than "variable" that is more descriptive and more readily understandable to non-initiates? I'm sure you can find a better word or phrase if you cared to think about it for longer than a second or two. I know I can. For non-global variables, instead of a dead and indeterminate noun, why not use a verb like "remember". "Remember"(something) would hold whatever you wanted in its "memory" until it is replaced by something else. A global variable could be equally descriptive by using another active phrase that everyone can understand like "remember forever" (something). This is how we speak and this is how we think.

    you can't call a noun a verb, because you are describing a thing not an action

    that would be like calling a car, a drive

    a variable is something remembered, not the action of remembering

    I want to remember the health left for a character

    so I make a variable called "health"

    from now on "health"=10 makes health equal 10,

    to me that's easier than remember 10 for health

    I can't just say "remember 10",

    because I want to be able to have many variables that I can keep separate and manipulate in whatever way I'd like , for instance,

    if "health" is less than 10 [/code:2vk7gjd3](also the way you say that in construct), and [code:2vk7gjd3]character "lives left" = true[/code:2vk7gjd3], then do so and so
    imagine if we're saying remember.  it would only be annoying
    
    [code:2vk7gjd3]recall memory of health, and if less than 10, recall memory of lives left, and if that's true, then do so and so[/code:2vk7gjd3]
    and you can't call it a memory, because memory already has a meaning in computers and programming
    
    "remember forever" is also misleading.  a global variable can remember something for less than a 60th of a second if so needed, the amount of time has nothing to do with it.  it's the fact that variable can be used globally that makes it global. "globally" meaning throughout every part of the program.  we could call "all around variable", "always ready memory" and it's still going to need explanation. 
    
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]
    Considering that something is "advanced" or "professional", simply because it is obscure is nonsense.
    
    first of all, it's not obscure.  you're like a kid walking into french class, saying the teacher sucks because you can't understand what anyone's saying yet.
    it's not written in plain english because no one has invented Synthetic Intelligence yet and it's impossible to do that.  besides, if you want to create something reasonably complex, meeting the computer halfway makes it easier to describe your problem.  
    [code:2vk7gjd3]I want the x coordinate of my character calculated by interpolating the values of the x coordinate remembered from the last checkpoint he touched, and the x coordinate of the enemy he just clicked on, and I want it to be closer to the enemy based on the amount of power we remember he has left in his magic pouch.[/code:2vk7gjd3]
    this is not a complex problem, however it is arbitrary, it's something I might want in my game, that no one will ever need in their game again.  there can't be a little button with an icon on it that describes that.  it's a math problem, based on parameters that are decided by the game creator
    in construct that would be something like
    [code:2vk7gjd3]character.x=lerp(lastcheckpoint.x,enemyclicked.x,powerleft/fullpower)[/code:2vk7gjd3]
    now of course you have to first learn that something.x, tells you the x coordinate.
    you have to know or care what linear interpolation is,  which is just the mathematical way to solve the problem, and then you have to look in the wiki to find out that LERP means linear interpolation...i'd prefer to look that up once than to type in linear interpolate every time, btw. photoshop doesn't involve complex problems of logic,  it's just visuals, of course it can be visually intuitive.  you can't just draw logic to a screen, or actually you can,  and construct does it quite nicely. 
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]
    It is quite alright that you have designed this engine for making professional quality 2D games, but that does not require you to make it difficult for non-professionals to do so.  Games and game logic are incredibly simple if you care to be honest about it.  There is no need to add layers of complexity just so those who consider themselves "professionals" don't feel let down.
    
    games and game logic are as simple or as complex as you'd like them to be, if I want to be able to able to move character1 to object2
    [code:2vk7gjd3]"position character1 to object2" [/code:2vk7gjd3][i]<---this is how you tell construct to do this[/i]
    seems pretty simple and self-explanatory to me,  however, if you wanted to make a game that calculates the most realistic animations for the legs of a fully customizable creature so that no matter how weird you make it, it still moves in a way that makes sense(like spore, for instance).  I challenge you to describe that solution in simple terms.  and yes, things like that are possible in construct
    there are no additional layers of complexity.  there are layers of complexity removed for you actually, the behaviors in construct take care of a ridiculous amount of logic for you.  it sounds like you're not interested in making games, you're interested in someone making them for you,  which is what a game designer does, not a game developer.  I think construct takes as many layers out of the middle of that as possible.  I can think of a complex problem, and have a working model in minutes with construct.  something totally unheard of in any other platform with this level of power. 
     It really can't get much simpler than this without sacrificing ridiculous amounts of power and making it an RPG Maker or something, where you're not making your own game, you're just plugging your characters and story into a premade game.  you can make any type of 2d game or app with construct.  mario, legend of zelda, lemmings, tetris, paintshop, world of goo, braid, a calculator.   of course with this amount of flexibility you're going to need to learn the tool, instead of just clicking around
    actually, after reading through the basic tutorials, and asking a few questions, I learned quite a bit by clicking around,  but you get my point.  this is not the little big planet level editor.  the little big planet level editor is fun and awesome and you can do amazing things with it,  but you couldn't make a little big planet level editor with it.  with construct you have the ability to create anything, that additional power comes with additional things to learn and get used to
    
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]
    Actually, PhotoShop was one of those programs I learned to use quite proficiently by clicking around and not reading a single page of documentation or following a single tutorial.  Any really professional application that claims to have even a fraction of PhotoShop's utility should provide the same facility.
    
    that's a silly comparison,  that's like me saying that because I can sit down and a drafter's table and draw something, but I can't sit down in a mechanic's shop, and fix a car, that the tools at the shop are poorly designed.  photoshop is used for making [i]visuals[/i]. you're looking at the screen.  it's an analogue to a piece of paper.  There's all kinds of functionality in photoshop you can't learn to use correctly by "clicking around".  
    you can't just draw logic on the screen. 
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]
    Oh yes . . . Deadeye - that avatar of yours speaks volumes, you know.
    
    that's mature
    
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]'Good programming makes simple things simple, and complex things possible' (Alan Kay, more or less).
    
    if you're going to quote computer scientists, you should quote them in context.  he's discussing the way you write programs, not the languages you're writing them in.  object oriented design is a way to design programs so that it's easy to break down things into manageable chunks of information and logic, so as your program grows, it's easy to conceptualize what you are doing, and btw
    just curious, what looks simpler, construct? , or alan kay's current project ?:
    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edit_Source_Code.jpeg[/url]
    
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]� Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. � - (Abelson / Sussman)
    
    abelson is a little closer to the mark, but I think construct exemplifies this concept to the fullest, construct makes it completely simple to see what I'm doing.  I can see
    [code:2vk7gjd3] in the event Bullet Collides with Guy1,[/code:2vk7gjd3] this list of things should happen to both of them.   
    anything unreadable about someone's construct software is a result of poor planning, or poor documentation within their program (comments and such)
    
    [quote:2vk7gjd3]One of these days the Priesthood of the code will be thoroughly disbanded.  Mark my words.
    
    Psmith
    
    so basically, you're annoyed with automobile engineers with their well designed CAD software, because you couldn't pick it up and design a ferrari by clicking around?
  • Gee.

    Dan Brown called. He wants his novel back.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)