Page 2 - A work in progress: Card game platform

But then you realized that if you're doing something to do it yourself, to learn from it, and to show other people what you've done, but instead you use someone else's premade crap, nobody cares and you learned nothing, right?

(Snippish, not rude. At least, not trying to be.)

You're writing the software, your name's tied to it, ... in a word "WRONG"

build it right, or don't bother ... I've gotten bitten in the ess (but you know what I mean) more than once (nice girl, small teeth, ... thankfully ), and one element of phraseology abounds in my mind ; "Fail to plan ... plan to fail" where '...' is a normalised subset of everything that could possibly go wrong, and has either been noticed, and/or ignored, and/or probably already has, but is not limited to the author and/or reader winning the lottery (if author wins, keeps all, all other cases 50:50)

By reading this you have accepted the terms set out above

Scary dilemma ...

gimp,

are you for real ... Perl sets you free, man, it's like seeing a square wheel and thinking "If I could just knock the rough edges off that, I wouldn't be eating cooked horse every second* night"

'second' implying the intermittancy between nights be held 'tween north of 1.9 and south of 2.1 twixt occupancies at said address.

Your advice is always good, and by always I mean when you're sober...

like now ...?

Gave the same arguments so many years ago. I wanted to learn to do it myself. But the modules (namely several of the Net:: modules) had been established long before I'd even heard of Perl, and were far from "crap". I wasn't trying to replicate a structure that a skrypt kidde had thrown together on a warez site, but some of the fundamental functionality of how Perl speaks to the internet.

Does every learning experience need to start from scratch? If that was the case, then learning would be a dreadfully slow and painful process. Sometimes you have to take what is already there, and learn from that. Maybe along the way you'll say "wtf did s/he do it that way? It would work better like this...", which is one nice thing about OSS--you're free to tinker to your heart's content. But then again you may say "how does that work?? Huh... that's cool." And you would then know a different approach that you may not have considered on your own*.

The basis of your project is something that nearly every CompSci student studying OOP has to grapple with: the card deck. Yes, there are certainly crappy versions out there, but surely there are some extensible OSS versions that you could tweak to your needs. That's all that was being suggested: use and abuse tools and templates available to you.

*That's one of the things I loved so much about tutoring--I got to see a variety of ways of approaching the exercises and projects. Occasionally I had to bop the kids on the head and say "wtf were you thinking?!", but overall it broadened my own perspective and problem-solving ability.

Sorry to take this so far off-topic... You can have your thread back.

Yeah, I'm already done with the card deck, and cards. That's the simple part. See that post I made a few hours ago?

To be perfectly honest, you're not at all helping. The project will be done, it will be done my way, and it will be done in a new way.

Reinventing the wheel is bad news in a commercial project, when the wheels out there are good. It's not the same story for a learning project. Here's an example:

There's a poster in the C/C++ forum trying to build a stack (in C++). He began, apparently, with no idea what a stack really was. He picked up few things from the responses.

Now, I would never write my own stack in C++; I'd just use an STL goodie. Nevertheless, I wrote a program showing how to build a stack. I haven't posted it yet, because I haven't seen enough sweat on the OP's part to justify giving him the answer.

The point is this: what goes into making an excellent stack, versus a merely functional stack? I wrote a merely functional stack. It's fixed length. How does one go about making an adaptable length? One doesn't think about it when one uses a preexisting tool. One's just happy it happens.

Sure, you add to it when it gets (or approaches) full. How much do you add? The original amount? Twice the previous amount? Half the previous amount?

What do you push? The object? A pointer? A reference? If you choose to push the object, that requires a copy. What if some of the members are const?

There's a lot of learning that goes into answering those questions. If you've never been faced with it, or wondered about it, you haven't learned enough. If you haven't thought about angular momentum, at least experientially, you don't know to knock the corner off the rock to make the wheel. You can just accept round wheels or you can find out, via you hemorrhoids, why it's a good deal.

This would be good in Game Development but maybe more responses in the Lounge.