It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 13 years ago.
Out in the dev lang there are many many, frameworks for all types of languages. For instance, javascript has jQuery, which I use all the time without even thinking about it. Then for php there is Zend and CodeIgnitor, Ruby has rails, Python has django. That's just a few off the top of my head.
I have always been the type of person that was against a framework, especially for PHP. I was always under the impression that using a framework would make people conceive you as lazy developer or to have the inability to code in the raw format. However, for a while now I notice large projects are being made in these frameworks.
I am very curious as to what the opinions are of everyone. Does using a framework make you less of a developer then using raw code, also lets add in a variable and say that you don't already know all the ends and outs of the primary language?
I always lived by the idea that it's better to write everything yourself...
... just to see how it works, then throw it away and use stable frameworks :)
While this may sound like a joke, there's much truth here -- rolling up something yourself will teach you a lot. And what you learn will allow you to better utilize what is already available.
See Not Invented Here.
Using the right framework gives you the ability to get actual, real work done. This means, IMO, you're more of a programmer, not less.
A good framework is indispensable in Javascript, to tide you over all kinds of incompatibilities between browsers that would otherwise drive you crazy. In languages where you have more control over the runtime environment, it's not indispensable, but it can supply you with a lot of useful functionality and stop you from reinventing the wheel -- so using the right framework for the task (which may not necessarily be the most popular one, if what you're doing is a better match for a different framework, perhaps a lighter-weight or somewhat specialized one) doesn't make you a lesser programmer, it makes you an intelligent one;-).
Understanding what's going on at (at least) just below the layer of abstraction you're coding to is an excellent idea (partly due to Joel's "law of leaky abstractions"), but that's no reason not to use a lower level of abstraction than available and suitable, except in a "learning and experimenting way" (i.e. not in production work;-).
Not using one makes you sure hell of a lot less productive however!
The only way to use 'raw code' is to write your programs in 0s and 1s. Otherwise, you are using a 'framework' of some sort. C is a layer on top of assembly which is a layer on top of machine code. That doesn't make a C programmer any less or a programmer - she is just working at a different level. In the same way, using a framework on top of PHP means you are just working at a different level. There are good programmer who build Zend (and other frameworks), and there are good programmers who use those frameworks to build business applications. Being an application level programmer is nothing to be ashamed of - it is hard work to do it right, whether or not you use a framework.
Davidmoreen, does using ASCII make you less of a programmer? I say, go ahead and make your life easier.
alt text http://prontiso.com/images/hardcore_keyboard.jpg
No more than using a language instead of raw binary does.
As the complexity of the tasks we are trying to accomplish increase, our only choice is to build on the foundations that others create. The main goal of any programmer should be to solve a business problem in a cost effective manner. If you don't solve real problems in a cost effective way then you definately less of a programmer.
I beleive it's important to understand the fundamentals of your tools and know how they work. THere'll be times when you need to work on the framework itself or just understand and debug what it's doing.
That said do you really need to remember to call session_start() at the beginning of every page load, or include the config files, or establish a database connection, or any one of the other minuetae that a framework will do for you and leave you to get on with creating the "unique" portions of your application?
I disagree with learining and using a framework without understanding the undelying language and concepts, but choosing to use one gives your code structure and makes you a lot more productive.
Being entirely dependent upon a framework makes you less of a developer. Using one as part of your toolkit when the need is there does not.
There is zealotry on both sides of the argument. You have the ones so starry-eyed about one particular framework that they use it for /everything/ (I usually see them in the form of beginner Railers or PHP programmers). Then you have the ones that are "hardcore" and as such "don't need hand holding", which more or less translates to them using last generation's frameworks instead (beacuse, after all, it's turtles all the way down).
It really comes down to knowing your framework. I would posit that using a framework without knowing its strong and weak points does indeed make you less of a programmer (if you are the one in charge of the decision), and should be counted as a cardinal sin. Study the frameworks, study the problem domain, make the informed choice, not the biased one.
Being able to make these kinds of decisions is what seperates good programmers from the... not-so-good ones.
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I am doing my dissertation project on NP-Hard Problems: I am going to implement various algorithms for problems such as the partition, the subset sum, the knapsack, etc and then compare the results, the running time, etc. Also, I am going to see what happens with the algorithms when you modify the problem (how does the algorithm behave on the reduced problem, etc).
Now I picked this topic as my project because I am interested in theoretical computer science but I am also not sure if I want to go on as an academic/researcher or join a company/startup and this project has both a theoretical and a practical (actual coding) side.
My question is, which programming language should I use? Should I stick to what I feel more familiar with (Java and maybe Python), or should I go with the web languages (HTML, CSS, PHP, RoR, etc), having in mind that web development skills are on high demand nowadays?
EDIT: HTML and CSS would be obviously used just for the UI.
I want my project to be something that will impress in an interview (for either a job or a masters course) and I am not confident that "yet another project in Java" can do that. I understand that as long as the work on it is good and the result is satisfactory I should be ok but if, let's say, using Ruby can give me some points I am totally going with that. In the same time, I understand that deciding which language to use is part of the project so I am not willing to complicate things just to try and look cool.
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: In case this changes any of the answers, this is a undergrad. dissertation project, not a PhD one.
First of all this is a subjective question, not perfectly suitable for SO, but we forgive you :)
Contrary to popular opinion here (looking at the previous answers), if you're trying to solve NP-Hard problems, I would definitely not write the programs in C or C++. Mainly because dynamic programming methods tend to look like absolute dog poop when written in low-level languages. For example, here's someone's dynamic programming solution to the knapsack problem: http://www.joshuarobinson.net/docs/knapsack.html.
It's well-written and well-formed, but barely readable simply due to the sheer amount of malloc, memcpy, and free you need to do. Go with Java or Python, no question about it. You want people to actually read (and maybe even enjoy?) your dissertation, I would assume.
Don't write it in PHP or Ruby because those languages aren't particularly applicable to computer science theory. With that said, if you're applying for a web-dev job and you're trying to impress your future employees with a knapsack problem or dynamic programming NP-Hard solvers, it's like shooting a sparrow with a cannonball.
If your project's subject is impressive, no one will care what language it's in. Do it in the language you feel is appropriate for the task. Knowing how to make the appropriate language choice and defending that choice should be more impressive than "OMG I used RoR XSL ActionScript CSS!!!"
Also, how long do anticipate this project will take? If you go with a language that's flashy and trendy today, do you know it will still be cool and popular when this project wraps up? Just saying in another way, popularity is not the reason to choose the language for something like this.
if you can invest effort and time, then i recommend c/c++. it will be an impressive add-on skill.
My language of preference would be Python. You could use Django and, in my opinion, it would be very applicable to things that are being done in the industry (especially with startups). Plus, you can't beat Python when it comes to readability and speed of development.
I would have thought that Python would be doing too much clever stuff under the hood to really be able to measure relative performance accurately.
Wouldn't it be better to use a lower-level language like C? Employers would respect you more for that than using something because it's "cool".
The languages you know look fine to me. The old saw is that a CS PhD makes you unemployable anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. :-)
The other ones you mentioned are mostly specialized web presentation languages. I'm not real sure how one even goes about implementing the knapsack problem using CSS...
Well, as much as this might look fine on the web page, it seems to me that Java would do a better job doing what you need.
PHP, HTML and CSS knowledge is good for job finding, but not applicable very much on the subject you picked.
Also, I noticed a bunch of answers, so I guess this is a question very much related to personal taste and opinion. Hm... You asked for it, anyways ;)
Since you're already familiar with Python, I'd recommend using it. You can use the popular scipy and numpy libraries for your project. You'll probably find something of use in them.
That would be the core, or backend part of your project. When this part is finished, you should think about polish and presentation. You don't want to have an impressive looking presentation with wrong calculations.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Can someone please explain me what a software framework is? Why do we need a framework? What does a framework do to make programming easier?
I'm very late to answer it. But, I would like to share one example, which I only thought of today. If I told you to cut a piece of paper with dimensions 5m by 5m, then surely you would do that. But suppose I ask you to cut 1000 pieces of paper of the same dimensions. In this case, you won't do the measuring 1000 times; obviously, you would make a frame of 5m by 5m, and then with the help of it you would be able to cut 1000 pieces of paper in less time. So, what you did was make a framework which would do a specific type of task. Instead of performing the same type of task again and again for the same type of applications, you create a framework having all those facilities together in one nice packet, hence providing the abstraction for your application and more importantly many applications.
Technically, you don't need a framework. If you're making a really really simple site (think of the web back in 1992), you can just do it all with hard-coded HTML and some CSS.
And if you want to make a modern webapp, you don't actually need to use a framework for that, either.
You can instead choose to write all of the logic you need yourself, every time.
You can write your own data-persistence/storage layer, or - if you're too busy - just write custom SQL for every single database access.
You can write your own authentication and session handling layers.
And your own template rending logic.
And your own exception-handling logic.
And your own security functions.
And your own unit test framework to make sure it all works fine.
And your own... [goes on for quite a long time]
Then again, if you do use a framework, you'll be able to benefit from the good, usually peer-reviewed and very well tested work of dozens if not hundreds of other developers, who may well be better than you. You'll get to build what you want rapidly, without having to spend time building or worrying too much about the infrastructure items listed above.
You can get more done in less time, and know that the framework code you're using or extending is very likely to be done better than you doing it all yourself.
And the cost of this? Investing some time learning the framework. But - as virtually every web dev out there will attest - it's definitely worth the time spent learning to get massive (really, massive) benefits from using whatever framework you choose.
The summary at Wikipedia (Software Framework) (first google hit btw) explains it quite well:
A software framework, in computer programming, is an abstraction in which common code providing generic functionality can be selectively overridden or specialized by user code providing specific functionality. Frameworks are a special case of software libraries in that they are reusable abstractions of code wrapped in a well-defined Application programming interface (API), yet they contain some key distinguishing features that separate them from normal libraries.
Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them from libraries or normal user applications:
inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]
default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.
extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific functionality.
non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify its code.
You may "need" it because it may provide you with a great shortcut when developing applications, since it contains lots of already written and tested functionality. The reason is quite similar to the reason we use software libraries.
A lot of good answers already, but let me see if I can give you another viewpoint.
Simplifying things by quite a bit, you can view a framework as an application that is complete except for the actual functionality. You plug in the functionality and PRESTO! you have an application.
Consider, say, a GUI framework. The framework contains everything you need to make an application. Indeed you can often trivially make a minimal application with very few lines of source that does absolutely nothing -- but it does give you window management, sub-window management, menus, button bars, etc. That's the framework side of things. By adding your application functionality and "plugging it in" to the right places in the framework you turn this empty app that does nothing more than window management, etc. into a real, full-blown application.
There are similar types of frameworks for web apps, for server-side apps, etc. In each case the framework provides the bulk of the tedious, repetitive code (hopefully) while you provide the actual problem domain functionality. (This is the ideal. In reality, of course, the success of the framework is highly variable.)
I stress again that this is the simplified view of what a framework is. I'm not using scary terms like "Inversion of Control" and the like although most frameworks have such scary concepts built-in. Since you're a beginner, I thought I'd spare you the jargon and go with an easy simile.
I'm not sure there's a clear-cut definition of "framework". Sometimes a large set of libraries is called a framework, but I think the typical use of the word is closer to the definition aioobe brought.
This very nice article sums up the difference between just a set of libraries and a framework:
A framework can be defined as a set of libraries that say “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
How does a framework help you? Because instead of writing something from scratch, you basically just extend a given, working application. You get a lot of productivity this way - sometimes the resulting application can be far more elaborate than you could have done on your own in the same time frame - but you usually trade in a lot of flexibility.
A simple explanation is: A framework is a scaffold that you can you build applications around.
A framework generally provides some base functionality which you can use and extend to make more complex applications from, there are frameworks for all sorts of things. Microsofts MVC framework is a good example of this. It provides everything you need to get off the ground building website using the MVC pattern, it handles web requests, routes and the like. All you have to do is implement "Controllers" and provide "Views" which are two constructs defined by the MVC framework. The MVC framework then handles calling your controllers and rendering your views.
Perhaps not the best wording but I hope it helps
at the lowest level, a framework is an environment, where you are given a set of tools to work with
this tools come in the form of libraries, configuration files, etc.
this so-called "environment" provides you with the basic setup (error reportings, log files, language settings, etc)...which can be modified,extended and built upon.
People actually do not need frameworks, it's just a matter of wanting to save time, and others just a matter of personal preferences.
People will justify that with a framework, you don't have to code from scratch. But those are just people confusing libraries with frameworks.
I'm not being biased here, I am actually using a framework right now.
In General, A frame Work is real or Conceptual structure of intended to serve as a support or Guide for the building some thing that expands the structure into something useful...
A framework provides functionalities/solution to the particular problem area.
Definition from wiki:
A software framework, in computer
programming, is an abstraction in
which common code providing generic
functionality can be selectively
overridden or specialized by user code
providing specific functionality.
Frameworks are a special case of
software libraries in that they are
reusable abstractions of code wrapped
in a well-defined Application
programming interface (API), yet they
contain some key distinguishing
features that separate them from
normal libraries.
A framework helps us about using the "already created", a metaphore can be like,
think that earth material is the programming language,
and for example "a camera" is the program, and you decided to create a notebook. You don't need to recreate the camera everytime, you just use the earth framework (for example to a technology store) take the camera and integrate it to your notebook.
A framework has some functions that you may need. you maybe need some sort of arrays that have inbuilt sorting mechanisms. Or maybe you need a window where you want to place some controls, all that you can find in a framework. it's a kind of WORK that spans a FRAME around your own work.
EDIT:
OK I m about to dig what you guys were trying to tell me ;) you perhaps havent noticed the information between the lines "WORK that spans a FRAME around ..."
before this is getting fallen deeper n deeper. I try to give a floor to it hoping you're gracfully:
a good explanation to the question "Difference between a Library and a Framework" I found here
http://ifacethoughts.net/2007/06/04/difference-between-a-library-and-a-framework/
Beyond definitions, which are sometimes understandable only if you already understand, an example helped me.
I think I got a glimmer of understanding when loooking at sorting a list in .Net; an example of a framework providing a functionality that's tailored by user code providing specific functionality. Take List.Sort(IComparer). The sort algorithm, which resides in the .Net framework in the Sort method, needs to do a series of compares; does object A come before or after object B? But Sort itself has no clue how to do the compare; only the type being sorted knows that. You couldn't write a comparison sort algorithm that can be reused by many users and anticipate all the various types you'd be called upon to sort. You've got to leave that bit of work up to the user itself. So here, sort, aka the framework, calls back to a method in the user code, the type being sorted so it can do the compare. (Or a delegate can be used; same point.)
Did I get this right?
I have inherited a broad, ill-designed web portfolio at my job. Most pages are written in Perl as most of the data ingested, processed, and displayed on the site comes in the form of flat-files which then have to be meticulously regexed and databased in our MySQL and Oracle databases.
As the first IT-trained manager of this environment, I am taking it upon myself to scrub the websites and lay down some structure to the development process. One of the choices I have been given is to choose whether or not to continue in Perl. There is substantial in-house talent for Java and PHP is rather easy to learn. I have considered taking the reins off the developers and letting them choose whatever language they want to use for their pages but that sounds like it might be trouble if the guy who chose PHP gets hit by a bus and no one else can fix it.
As the years go by hiring Perl programmers becomes more and more difficult and the complexity of maintaining legacy Perl code from previous developers whose main focus may have been just getting a page up and running is becoming very resource-consuming. Another, previous (non-IT) manager was more focused in on quick turnaround and immediate gratification of pages rather than ensuring that it was done right the first time (he has since been promoted outside our branch).
The production server is solaris. MySQL has most of our data but new projects have begun using Oracle more and more (for GIS data). Web servers are universally Apache. We live in an intranet disconnected from the regular internet. Our development is conducted in an Agile, iterative manner.
Whatever language is chosen to push forward into, there are resources to have the existing development staff re-trained. No matter what, the data that comes into our environment will have to be regexed to death so perl isn't going away anytime soon. My question to the community is, what are the pros and cons of the following languages for the above-defined web dev environment: Perl, PHP, Java, Python, and --insert your favorite language here--. If you had it to do all over again, which language set-up would you have chosen?
Edits and Clarifications:
Let me clarify a bit on my original post. I'm not throwing everything away. I've been given the opportunity to adjust the course of the ship to what I believe is a better heading. Even if I chose a new language, the perl code will be around for some time to come.
Hypothetically speaking, if I chose Assembly as my new language (haha) I would have to get the old developers up to speed probably by sending them to some basic assembly classes. New pages/projects would be in the new language and the old pages/projects would have to play nice with the new pages/projects. Some might one day be rewritten into the new language, some may never be changed.
What will likely always be in Perl will be the parsing scripts we wrote years ago to sift through and database information from the flat files. But that's okay because they don't interface with the webpages, they interface with the database.
Thank you all for your input, it has been very very helpful thus far.
It seems that your problem is more legacy code and informal development methodology than the language per se. So if you already have Perl developers on staff, why not start modernizing your methods and your code base, instead of switching to a new language, and creating an heterogeneous code base.
Modern Perl offers a lot in terms of good practices and powerful tools: testing is emphasized, with the Test::* modules and WWW::Mechanize, data base interaction can be done through plain DBI, but also using ORM modules like the excellent DBIx::Class, OO with Moose is now on par with more modern languages, mod_perl gives you access to a lot of power within Apache. There are also quite a few MVC frameworks for Perl. One that's getting a lot of attention is Catalyst.
Invest in a few copies of Perl Best Practices, bring in a proper trainer for a few classes on modern development methods, and start changing the culture of your group.
And if you have trouble finding developers that are already proficient in Perl, you can always hire good PHP people and train them, that shouldn't be too difficult. At least their willingness to learn a new language would be a good sign of their flexibility and will to improve.
It is always tempting to blame the state of your code on the language its written in, but in your case I am not sure that is the case. Lots of big companies seem to have no problem managing huge code bases in Perl, the list is long but the main Web companies are all there, along with a number of financial institutions.
I would bring in someone who is very good at Perl, to at least look at the current design. They would be able to tell you how bad the Perl code really is, and what needs to be done to get it into good shape.
At that point I would start considering my options. If the Perl code is salvageable, well than great, hire someone proficient in Perl. Also train some of your existing staff to help on the existing code-base. If you don't have someone proficient in Perl in charge of the Perl code, your code-base may become even worse than it already is.
Only if it was in terrible shape, would I consider abandoning it for another language. What that language is, that is something your going to have to think about that yourself.
p.s. I'm a bit biased, I prefer Perl
If regex is important I would choose a language with good support.
If you would use java, you will not be able to just copy paste your regex code from the perl code because the slashes have to be escaped. So I would vote against java.
I'm not familiar with php enough to know its regex features, but given your choices I would go for python. You can create cleaner code in python.
Would ruby also be an option? It also has good perl like regex support and rails supports agile web development out of the box.
first off let me point out that MySQL's spatial extensions work with GIS.
Second, if you have a bunch of Perl programmers that will need tow ork on the new sites then your best bet is to choose something they won't have too much trouble understanding. The obvious "something" there is PHP. When I learnt PHP I'd done some Perl years ago and picked up PHP in no time at all.
Switching to something like Java or .Net (or even Ruby on Rails) would be a far more dramatic shift in design.
Plus with Apache servers you already have your environment set up and you can probably stage any development as a mix of Perl and PHP reasonably easily.
As to the last part of your question: what would you do it in if you could do it over again? To me that's a seprate and basically irrelevant question. The fact is you're not rewinding and starting over, you're just... starting over. So legacy support, transition, skills development and all those other issues are far more important than any hypothetical question of what you'd choose in a perfect world if all other things were equal.
Love it or hate it, PHP is popular and is going nowhere anytime soon. Finding skiled people to do it is not too difficult (well, the dificulty is filtering them out from the self-taught cowboy script jockeys who think they can code but can't) and it's not a far step from Web-based Perl.
If your developers are any good, they'll be able to handle anything thrown at them. Deciding what language to use is quite a tricky strategic position, but I recommend you think very carefully before introducing any MORE (i.e. don't).
Unless of course, there is something that you absolutely cannot do (or cannot do sanely) with what you've got.
I think choosing a single language is key and if your database is primarily MySQL, then PHP seems like the obvious choice. It naturally works with your database, it's open source and there is tons of documentation, source code, doesn't require compiling, etc.
People come and go through positions and any website will evolve over time. If you have the ability to set some guidelines and rules, I would choose something that is forgiving, common-place, and easy(er) to learn.
I'd also suggest writing it down so people in the future don't re-invent the wheel.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
With the interest of creating a roguelike RPG (such as Nethack, Rogue, and ADOM), which programming language would be most suitable and why?
With the language that you choose, be sure to list any libraries or facets of the language that make it particularly well-suited.
Way back in the day I tried to write Roguelike games using QuickBASIC out of all things (it was 1988.) Not the recommended approach...
There are still some development circles out there. Here's an FAQ on Roguelike Development and also a blog dedicated to the same.
My language of use (I'm trying to create roguelike too) is Python, because:
It's high level programming language, I don't need to think about memory allocation all the time, etc, but keep my mind on algorithms.
There's tons of useful libraries for almost everything. Recently I've found TDL/libtcod which can be useful for roguelike development.
With bindings you can easily use C/C++ libraries or even write few critical functions in C/C++, and use them.
It's the most readable programming language I've ever seen.
While programming in Python I've learned to use internal documentation. It's very helpful thing, I just read my code few months later and I still know what it's doing.
That's a very personal choice as always :-)
I wrote my Roguelike game (Tyrant) in Java for the following reasons:
Very portable (even with graphics)
Garbage collection / memory management
Lots of good free / open source libraries available (helpful for algorithms, data structures and manipulating save game files etc.)
It's a statically typed language - this has performance and robustness benefits which I judged to be worth the additional coding complexity
I wanted to hone my Java skills more generally for use in other projects
EDIT: For those interested it is open source, all code is available at SourceForge
Well I've made a couple roguelikes in C, spending a fair amount of time at roguebasin, which is a great site for anything related to roguelike development.
As for what language you should use, I don't really see it making a huge difference. I pick C because of the portability, and a lot of libraries work well with it.. But an object oriented language can clean up some things that you may not want to keep track of.
There aren't any languages that I would consider to be specifically greater than the rest for roguelikes. If you're making it graphical, you may prefer something that has that built-in, such as flash / silverlight. But even then there are libraries for any other languages that bring them to about the same degree of difficulty in that regard.
So I'd say take a language you know and like, or that you don't know and want to learn..
Most of these answers are great, but there's something to be said for the combined power of object-oriented stuff and low-level commands that can be abused in C++. If you're looking for some inspiration, the C sourcecode to NetHack is widely available and documented well enough that you can certainly poke around to learn some things. That said, it's a huge project that's been growing for decades, and not everything is as clean as you're going to want things for your own project - don't get roped into making poor design choices based off of what you find in NetHack.
Honestly, though, in terms of what you use it probably doesn't matter at all - though I'd highly recommend using an OO language. There's so much crap to handle in a roguelike (heck, any CRPG really) that OOP is the easiest way of staying sane.
The original nethack was written in C, and the source is available if you want to get some ideas about how it was written, and the challenges you may find which might be a good way to start deciding on a language.
My first question would be whether the game is going to have a web based UI or be some kind of console/window affair like the original Rogue-like games? If the former I would say that any language you're comfortable with would be a good choice. Ruby on Rails, Python/Django, PHP/CakePHP, etc. would all be great.
But if the answer is the latter, this is a game that you want people to be able to download and install locally, I'm going to go with Java. It's a great language with no memory management for you to deal with. It achieves very high performance thanks to just-in-time compilation and optimization, and it has an extremely rich library to help you with data structures, Swing makes for some really beautiful UIs, and the 2D library allows for the most rich cross-platform rendering outside of PostScript. It also has the availability across Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux that you're not going to get from some other choices.
Finally, distribution of your application is easy via Java Web Start as well, so people can download and install the game with just a couple of clicks once they have Java and keep it on their machine to run as long as they like.
For making any game, any language will be right if :
you can use it (you are able to use it, by knowledge or if it's easy enough to learn right now for you or your team)
it produce applications that runs on your client's computer
it can easily produce applications that runs fast enough for your game's needs.
I think that for a Rogue-Like, any language you know will be right as far as it runs on you target. Performances are not really a problem in this kind of game. World generation can require high performance if your world generation is really complex though...
just go with something that will handle the low-level details for you. whatever you know should work.
hey, they can write one in javascript.
I recommend Actionscript for those games.
You could consider Silverlight.
It sits on top of C# and .Net so theres not much need to worry about memory management. With SL you'll get built in support for scene graph type rendering - culling of things not on screen, Key board, mouse events, clicks on objects etc.
There's an initial learning curve, but I find it's a great environment to work in.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 10 months ago.
Improve this question
I've never written functional specs, I prefer to jump into the code and design things as I go. So far its worked fine, but for a recent personal project I'm writing out some specs which describe all the features of the product, and how it should 'work' without going into details of how it will be implemented, and I'm finding it very valuable.
What are your thoughts, do you write specs or do you just start coding and plan as you go, and which practice is better?
If you're driving from your home to the nearest grocery store, you probably don't need a map. But...
If you're driving to a place you've never been before in another state, you probably do.
If you're driving around at random for the fun of driving, you probably don't need a map. But...
If you're trying to get somewhere in the most effective fashion (minimize distance, minimize time, make three specific stops along the way, etc.) you probably do.
If you're driving by yourself and can take as long as you like, stopping any time you see something interesting or to reconsider your destination or route, you may not need a map. But...
If you're driving as part of a convoy, and all need to make food and overnight lodging stops together, and need to arrive together, you probably do.
If you think I'm not talking about programming, you probably don't need a functional spec, story cards, narrative, CRCs, etc. But...
If you think I am, you might want to consider at least one of the above.
;-)
For someone who "jumps into the code" and "design[s] as they go", I would say writing anything including a functional spec is better than your current methods. A great deal of time and effort can be saved if you take the time to think it through and design it before you even start.
Requirements help define what you need to make.
Design helps define what you are planning on making.
User Documentation defines what you did make.
You'll find that most places will have some variation of these three documents. The functional spec can be lumped into the design document.
I'd recommend reading Rapid Development if you're not convinced. You truely can get work done faster if you take more time to plan and design.
Jumping "straight to code" for large software projects would almost surely lead to failure (as immediatley starting posing bricks to build a bridge would).
The guys at 37 Signals would say that is better to write a short document on paper than writing a complex spec. I'd say that this could be true for mocking up quickly new websites (where the design and the idea could lead better than a rigid schema), but not always acceptable in other real life situations.
Just think of the (legal, even) importance a spec document signed by your customer can have.
The morale probably is: be flexible, and plan with functional or technical specs as much as you need, according to your project's scenario.
For one-off hacks and small utilities, don't bother.
But if you're writing a serious, large application, and have demanding customers and has to run for a long time, it's a MUST. Read Joel's great articles on the subject - they're a good start.
I do it both ways, but I've learned something from Test Driven Development...
If you go into coding with a roadmap you will get to the end of the trip a helluva lot faster than you will if you just start walking down the road without having any idea of how it is going to fork in the middle.
You don't have to write down every detail of what every function is going to do, but define you basics so that way you know what you should get done to make everything work well together.
All that being said, I needed to write a series of exception handlers yesterday and I just dove right in without trying to architect it out at all. Maybe I should reread my own advice ;)
What a lot of people don't want to admit or realize is that software development is an engineering discipline. A lot can be learned as to how they approach things. Mapping out what your going to do in an application isn't necessarily vital on small projects as it is normally easier to quickly go back and fix your mistakes. You don't see how much time is wasted compared to writing down what the system is going to do first.
In reality in large projects its almost necessary to have road map of how the system works and what it does. Call it a Functional Spec if you will, but normally you have to have something that can show you why step b follows step a. We all think we can think it up on the fly (I am definitely guilty of this too), but in reality it causes us problems. Think back and ask yourself how many times you encountered something and said to yourself "Man I wish I would have thought of that earlier?" Or someone else see's what you've done, and showed you that you could have take 3 steps to accomplish a task where you took 10.
Putting it down on paper really forces you to think about what your going to do. Once it's on paper it's not a nebulous thought anymore and then you can look at it and evaluate if what you were thinking really makes sense. Changing a one page document is easier than changing 5000 lines of code.
If you are working in an XP (or similar) environment, you'll use stories to guide development along with lots of unit and hallway useability testing (I've drunk the Kool-Aid, I guess).
However, there is one area where a spec is absolutely required: when coordinating with an external team. I had a project with a large insurance company where we needed to have an agreement on certain program behaviors, some aspects of database design and a number of file layouts. Without the spec, I was wide open to a creative interpretation of what we had promised. These were good people - I trusted them and liked working with them. But still, without that spec it would have been a death march. With the spec, I could always point out where they had deviated from the agreed-to layout or where they were asking for additional custom work ($$!). If working with a semi-antagonistic relationship, the spec can save you from even worse: a lawsuit.
Oh yes, and I agree with Kieveli: "jumping right to code" is almost never a good idea.
I would say it totally "depends" on the type of problem. I tend to ask myself am I writing it for the sake of it or for the layers above you. I also had debated this and my personal experience says, you should since it keeps the project on track with the expectations (rather than going off course).
I like to decompose any non trivial problems loosely on paper first, rather than jumping in to code, for a number of reasons;
The stuff i write on paper doesn't have to compile or make any sense to a computer
I can work at arbitrary levels of abstraction on paper
I can add pictures and diagrams really easily
I can think through and debug a concept very quickly
If the problem I'm dealing with is likely to involve either a significant amount of time, or a number of other people, I'll write it up as an outline functional spec. If I'm being paid by someone else to develop the software, and there is any potential for ambiguity, I will add enough extra detail to remove this ambiguity. I also like to use this documentation as a starting point for developing automated test cases, once the software has been written.
Put another way, I write enough of a functional specification to properly understand the software I am writing myself, and to resolve any possibile ambiguities for anyone else involved.
I rarely feel the need for a functional spec. OTOH I always have the user responsible for the feature a phone call away, so I can always query them for functional requirements as I go.
To me a functional spec is more of a political tool than technical. I guess once you have a spec you can always blame the spec if you later discover problems with the implementation. But who to blame is really of no interest to me, the problem will still be there even if you find a scapegoat, better then to revisit the implementation and try to do it right.
It's virtually impossible to write a good spec, because you really don't know enough of either the problem or the tools or future changes in the environment to do it right.
Thus I think it's much more important to adapt an agile approach to development and dedicate enough resources and time to revisit and refactor as you go.
It's important not to write them: There's Nothing Functional about a Functional Spec