Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Why not Dark C?

Author
Message
Outcast
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 06:23
Why not base this suite on C, or make it an extension of the C programming language? It seems like it would be more powerful as an add-on. In fact, isn't it using C++ and direct X under the covers? Why not expose an interface to that and sell it as Dark C?

Outcast
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 08:04
Because the programming languages is based upon a compiled engine for the language itself is real and not based the extentions are C++/DirectX Based.

Perhaps the next version might be closer to C or C++, but i'm going to doubt it. For now it is what is says on the Box, a Basic languages ... and for some reason they like the name DarkBasic

Anata aru kowagaru no watashi!
Kangaroo2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 10:55
For me, the fact it was a BASIC language appealled to me more than a simple C r C++ add on - Basic is very simple, quick and enjoyable to work with, many of us remember programming old spectrums, amstrads or commodores with it, and its kinda quirky and cool to use the same language to make quality 3d games If you are going to learn C++ and Driect X - why not just use them? There are plenty of existing compilers out there

Coming Soon! Kangaroo2 Studio... wait and quiver with anticipation! lol
samjones@kangaroo2.com - http://www.kangaroo2.com - If the apocalypse comes, email me
Outcast
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 16:46
I think DarkBasic simplifies the creation of 3d content more so than Direct X. With both direct X and open gl, it takes so long to do anything, and it seems like a package like dark basic could cut this time down. If you want to load a model, you have to write your own importer. If you want a bones system, you have to write it. If you want a bsp engine, same thing.

It seems like a dll that would have this type of stuff built would be very useful. You could then hook it into C++, and then expand on it with the power that that language has.

For me, I'm viewing dark basic as more of a prototyping tool. I can put together game ideas very quickly, see if they work, then put together the real deal in C++/DirectX, since I will have more control over the graphic pipeline that way. I'm worried since this isn't a dll for C++, that I might be restricted by the grammar that is Basic. No classes, no inheritance, etc.

So far I've been impressed with DB, it's just curious that a C++ alternative was not also offered (Dark C: Dark Basic Enterprise edition or something).

Outcast

Martyn Pittuck
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 17:37
But the thing is, you do not have to do all the laborious task of learning DX and C++ so it is much faster.

Games can be spewed out in months with a small team, and even make the shelves.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Megaman X
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 17:43
I think they could make a version of DarkBASIC within a language more C like, but not using those brakets or semi-colons in the end of every statment. I would love it really, even if it should cost much more than the DBpro I would get it. Like Outcast proposed, a Dark C entreprise or something like that would do great.
Besides, no matter what, if someday you start to take game programming seriously, ur next step is C/C++. And those peoples will left DB behind sooner or later. With a Dark C... the next step after DB would be a Dark C... I think it's worthy thinking on it

"A true warrior fights with skill, not anger..."

Gif edited by Kangaroo2
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 20:12
More like "Dark SDK" I would have thought. Use C++ to call all the functions in our libraries. Much better than re-inventing the wheel on yet another language

Cheers,

Rich

"Gentlemen, we are about to short-circuit the Universe!"
DB Team / Atari ST / DarkForge / Retro Gaming
hexGEAR
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2002
Location: Naytonia
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 21:03
i wonder what the next Dark Basic is gonna be called (if there is gonna be one), maybe "Dark Basic Xpert, DBX"

your birth was a blessing, sent to live and die on earth as a lesson, we each have a star all you have to do is find it, once you do, everyone who sees it will be blinded - DMX
IanM
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 21:36
Rich: If you know what your doing, you can almost get that already If only I could get my butt in gear ...

Hexgear: Maybe go the microsoft route and release a "DarkBASIC Enterprise" edition?
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 5th Feb 2003 21:45
yeah the way its explained the second time is just like its an SDK/Engine ... which really when you look at DarkBasic, you could do if someone setup the headers - however what would the point be?

really if the point was more to make a Basic Front to C++ then no doubt the would've been made as a Visual Studio plugin. and this appears to be one of the people who want to put a basic language onto the front of C++ so he can use it quicker.

thing is don't be fooled by DarkBasic's ease ... it sure does take away alot from worry of the programmers, the most major thing actually giving you less control over the pipelines which are the hardest things to setup in any DirectX/OpenGL program. Especially the Render Cache.

however this doesn't mean the current functions are flawless in their design ... as many of the older users generally stick away from most of the formats with mesh deformation and bones - devising thier own small systems, which on occasion can be quicker and can be slower.
It is alot easier to think your way around when you only have a single track of thought you must run along.

which would beg the question, putting on a basic linear language ontop of C++'s Dynamic Structure ... somehow it makes little sense.
It could speed up development, but then again it'll just be another Engine ontop of DirectX.

you know what i've never understood, why it wasn't called DirectBasic? Lee's noted that the team is never gonna use any other APi

and Hex, hehee i wouldn't call the next one "DarkBasic Xpert" ... mainly because DBX to me is something interesting to do with DragonBall Z and secondly never thought it was vey good to name products in that fashion X's instead of Ex and such.
Kinda like if Xtom had named Hotcars... Hotcarz or evern Hotkarz... its just i dunno bleck!

Tsu'va Oni Ni Jyuuko Fiori Sei Tau!
One block follows the suit ... the whole suit of blocks is the path ... what have you found?
Outcast
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2003 03:32
Yes, Dark SDK would be more akin to what I'm talking about. Direct X has something similar (name escapes me), but is still not as useful as some of the functions I'm finding in DarkBasic or BlitzBasic. I'm talking about having C++ dlls that you can hook into your module so you don't have to be the 1,923,423 person to write a BSP tree. I want a library where I can say LoadTerrain( "mymap.bmp" ) and, walla, a terrain is loaded. In roughly a page of code, (following the tutorial) I've made an arena, a bumpy, textured ground, and a cube that I can navigate around the arena in 3rd person mode. This would take much more in DirectX or OpenGL.

I'm definately not talking about a Basic front end to C++. In fact this is one of the things that led me to this idea. C++ has a lot of nice things that aren't in Basic. Having a dll with C-stlye functions that could be called would allow for further prototyping before any brick wall is hit.

In the future, I hope there is a gaming platform similar to dark basic, that has all the standard BSP, ROAM, AI, and graphics type algorithms built in and packaged nice and easy to use. Then gaming can get faster, cheaper, and less buggy. I think Dark Basic is step in the right way, but fundamentally limited by it's choice of Basic as a front end. Let's have different packages for different skill levels. An SDK that simplifies DirectX even more would be a godsend.

Outcast

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 6th Feb 2003 04:11
DirectX is fine the way it is... the complexity of the language actually helps in the development, because it wasn't designed with Newbies in mind.

It's design atleast for the main Engine is to give users the basics whilst not taking away the fundimentals which makes it a truely powerful SDK to use.
Personally i'd love to see a C or C++ style front given to DarkBasic, and perhaps if i ever get to develop Ciyanna any futher Ciya might bridge this gap.

If all your after are the DirectX functions from within DarkBasic, then the DLLs are there and as i've mentioned to make them an SDK all you need to do is add the header files to make sure C++ recognises the syntax on compile and knows where the function lie.
So basically all you want is an engine so you don't have to keep retyping certain code ... but you see this is the reason many developers actually make thier own engines, and why there are so many on the market.

Personally i'd rather spend 3months making the same stuff as everyone else, however made from my own setup because i then know exactly how and why everything is working ... i'd then probably put it within cpp and headers or even a lib to use at a later date
You then go back and recreate something different if you need it for a purpose you never though of or could use the first version of it.

Most of the time you still base it heavily on the original verison of the function and structures and classes
This is how the Engines become ever expandable and complex.

i'm more likely to sit there play with a bsp format for a few days then think - "hold on, this isn't open enough for me" and i'll then take another week or month to redesign my own version.
there is also a great satisfaction that comes from knowing you have done all the work, or you have been a major influence on how this is played out - rather than simply extending someone elses stuff.

Tsu'va Oni Ni Jyuuko Fiori Sei Tau!
One block follows the suit ... the whole suit of blocks is the path ... what have you found?
Outcast
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2003 04:52
I agree with you Vegeta. In fact, I've got other side projects as well to concentrate on learning the actual way some of this stuff is put together. I'm working on a Rottger generated terrain engine, and after that I'm going to write my own BSP.

But, in the meanwhile, I'm designing games on paper. It could be some time before any of these engines are finished to the point where I can start testing out my ideas. It would be great if I could just jump in and give some of them a whirl. Think about professional game designers. Right now, they have to wait on programming to finish up complicated engines before they can even see if their ideas are fun. Wouldn't it be better if they had some sort of very simplistic toolkit for making the basics of the game. Even if it required a programmer, I can put together in a day with Dark Basic what would take a weeks or months if I were just using Direct X/Open GL (of course this depends on the complexity of what is asked).

I'm not looking for a "fastest way to make Quake IV" type language. I'm looking for a way to hook up the DB dlls into a, IMHO, superior language. I think I might take your advice and might look into making that header file. Thanks for the advice.

Outcast

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-18 23:36:27
Your offset time is: 2024-04-18 23:36:27