Trevion's forum posts

  • 16 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

Same here; Firefox 12.0, Vista SP2.  Videos, like the Arma II Day Z thing, play fine in everything but 720.  720 just sits there.

#2 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

One-shot: probably not (although perhaps if you leveled high enough). 
Archery is a quite viable path tho.  As people have said, sneak helps.  I used some destruction magic early on, but at this point I can kite bosses in dungeons without too much trouble, and non-bosses rarely get close to me.

#3 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -
@Grumbel: I guess as long as your goal is doing things somebody else already figured out, sure, you can just slap existing components together.  I sure as hell wouldn't set out on a career with that as my only goal, though, and I don't think you'd get much respect in the field.  I mean, even in the Rails community, which is about as "slap some components together" as you can get, the people who are respected are the people like DHH and _why who did more than that.
#4 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

I'm a PL grad student, and I mostly approve of this post.  I think programming well is half algorithmic thinking, and half abstraction.  While you can go a while without creating your own abstractions, at some point you're going to reach the limit of your own ability to keep everything in mind at once.
This is why I'm confused by saying that you don't need to be good at math to be good at programming.  You probably don't need to know a whole bunch of math (I couldn't tell you squat about quaternions, for instance), but I think you need to be fairly comfortable with understanding and manipulating abstract systems.  In my experience, that's what most math is about.  It's more obvious if you look at something like algebra, but even when you're dealing with much more concrete subjects (like number theory or probability) what you're really doing is learning how to avoid doing everything from the ground up for each problem.
The whole language question is kind of silly.  Pick a tool you find interesting (Processing, Unity, Unreal, idTech, whatever) and use whatever language it uses.  Just remember that a language provides a particular viewpoint on a particular set of problems; just like anything else, the more viewpoints you have, the more understanding of the underlying problem you'll gain.  If you really want to understand game engines, you probably want to learn more than one; similarly, if you really want to understand programming, you probably want more experience than just your off-the-shelf "OO" languages.

#5 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

This isn't a bug, but I wasn't sure where else to report it.  When I attempt to visit on my Android device (either by providing the URL or clicking the Whiskey Media link at the bottom of the mobile GiantBomb website), I get an endless recursion of redirects between and  Android 2.3/stock browser/HTC Vision (T-Mobile G2)

#6 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

Very occasionally, it shows the number 126377 as the number of followed events; this is somewhat curious as I don't follow anyone.  Firefox 6.0.2/Windows Vista SP2.

#7 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

Greatly appreciated. 
For what it's worth, my experience interacting with the new editor itself (as opposed to its effect on Firefox) was quite positive.  Were I happy with the options integrate Chrome and Emacs, I'd switch to Chrome and (probably) be quite happy with the new editor.

#8 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

I'm wondering if it would be possible to add an option to disable the new editor, as a work-around for the issues it introduces with keyboard scrolling in Firefox?  I realize this isn't the preferred solution, but for the time being having to disable the new editor each time I open GiantBomb in a new browser (which, of course, is many times a day) is somewhat frustrating.

#9 Edited by Trevion (16 posts) -
@Fobwashed: I think you've found a much more high-minded conclusion than I intended... I didn't meant to suggest that the journey of programming was particularly rewarding (although hopefully you find it so), but that you're confusing the tool with the goal.  Your goal isn't to have written a particular piece of code, it's to have solved a particular problem.  This, I guess, was my point about databases or what-not: the problems that arise in writing a database engine are almost totally unrelated to the problems that arise in writing a game engine or writing a compiler.  The solutions may all end up expressed in the same formal structure, but that doesn't imply the expertise required to get there is the same, or even very closely related.
I think the reason this is all relevant is that the way I'm reading your original post isn't that you're actually disappointed with programming.  You're disappointed (I think) that the problems you've set out to solve aren't very interesting.  This isn't really surprising, and it doesn't mean that the solutions won't be part of something interesting, but it also leaves me feeling like you're really just scratching the surface of what programming's really about.
I just ran across some decent articles on learning to program.   If you're really interested in getting better at programming, check out Becoming a Good Programmer in Six Really Hard Steps, and  the classic article along those lines Teach Yourself Programming in 10 Years.  The point here isn't "oh god this is really hard" but to say that there's so much more to learn.
#10 Posted by Trevion (16 posts) -

@BombKareshi: @Fobwashed: I think BombKareshi's basically right here, although I'd come at it from a slightly different angle.

First, and this is mostly an aside, I was mildly amused by your comment about 90% of programming being basic arithmetic. The only thing that computers do is basic arithmetic. Look at a block diagram for any processor you want to mention (this diagram for a Bulldozer module is pretty typical) and all you'll find is a bunch of silicon that adds numbers in registers, a bunch of silicon that sets the instruction pointer (i.e., adds numbers in registers) and a bunch of silicon that attempts to make memory access not slow (i.e., stores values in registers). Look at a GPU, and you'll find a bunch of things that add numbers in registers, but they're next to each other. The only difference between your code and John Carmack's code is that he's got a bunch more experience knowing which numbers to add in which registers.

Second, and this is more my point, programming is as much about writing code as astronomy is about looking through telescopes or filmmaking is about hanging lights. Sure, if you're bad at looking through telescopes, you'll probably have a harder time being an astronomer... but the point isn't the telescope, it's the thing you're looking at. By the same token, programming isn't about the code, it's about why you write the code; this is why some programmers are better at writing game engines, or databases, or compilers, and it's got nothing to do with which of them are better coders.

That all isn't to say that you won't actually find programming disappointing; I figured out that I didn't want to fix cars pretty quickly, without having actually fixed any cars. But you might want to give it more of a chance.

  • 16 results
  • 1
  • 2