Game Development

Bogdan Marginean

00:23

"Our company needs c and c++ programmers and java. Our company is hard working and we need you for a secret project and please contact me our company is hard working and we guarantee we will work as hard as we can please join us Here email me at <email>"

his company may work hard, but does it also PARTY HARD? I bet not.

Almo

02:13

"Those of you who have never raised your hand... raise your hand." - Steve Martin

metredigm

04:23

hello world.

Kikaimaru

06:00

thats such an easy sentence to write

DaleyPaley

06:28

hello

Blue

07:01

Hello my lovelies!

Welcome to chat @DaleyPaley

DaleyPaley

hi there

this is my first time on this chat

Blue

Awesome well I hope you stay a while and enjoy the antics.

DaleyPaley

yeah, I am looking forward to chatting with other gamedevs

Blue

Eventually @ToddersLegrande, @Gajoo and @ShotgunNinja will arrive along with @William'MindWorX'Mariager and then we'll have a party!

DaleyPaley

cool. are you a developer?

Blue

07:11

I am indeed. Not for a games company but I try and code in my spare time to make my own game.

How about yourself?

DaleyPaley

I am a freelancer game developer, but currently working in a japanese company

Blue

Nice.

DaleyPaley

where are you from?

Blue

Edinburgh - Scotland

DaleyPaley

cool, my mum is scottish

Blue

07:26

Happy days!

DaleyPaley

so what kind of game are you working on now?

Blue

Simple turret defense game in Unity3d

DaleyPaley

I am working in unity too, but I'm not a big fan of it

Blue

For someone like me who isn't an expert in the low level game design, I just want to jump into the AI so it's a great tool to have.

DaleyPaley

yeah, it's great for that. our problem is that we are working on a HUGE project, bigger than unity can handle

Blue

07:33

I support, I have not got a project that huge though. Can't argue with a free tool as good as Unity :)

DaleyPaley

yeah, its a great tool for indies

Blue

08:00

wb @ClassicThunder

@Kikaimaru tips hat

Kikaimaru

08:16

@Blue hi

Gajoo

09:43

@Blue I'm here ...

Blue

@Gajoo WOO LET THE PARTY BEGIN!

Gajoo

still we should wait for @William'MindWorX'Mariager and @ToddersLegrande

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Someone called?

DaleyPaley

so what do you guys normally talk about?

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Oh mostly this and that.

We talk about our projects and help out each other or others who come in asking for help. :)

Blue

09:57

That and the other.

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

We're all amateur developers except for a few. :)

The tech spans widely too, so it's almost guaranteed that someone knows what you're working with.

DaleyPaley

cool. very glad to have found this

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

And remember this doesn't have the same rules as the site, so no QA requirements, we just talk.

Anyways, brunch time!

Gajoo

10:24

there is something wrong with my firefox...

it can only send a request for facebook.com

well, actually when I ask it to load google.com, it sends "GET facebook.com"; request instead :|

clearing it's cache solved the issue

Blue

@Gajoo That's bizzare, have you had that issue in Chrome or IE?

Gajoo

never

I'm only using FF to test my proxy bundle

I never liked FF, and the only reason I have it installed on my machine is it's ability to use a proxy setting other than IE's

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

10:57

I use firefox mainly because it works with high resolutions like mine.

I think it's silly Chrome can't handle that.

Gajoo

@William'MindWorX'Mariager any problems with IE10?

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Haven't tried it, but I don't like the layout much.

Gajoo

I'm using it for almost 2 months now, and I've been pretty pleased with what it offers

except I can't use ctrl+delete for some unknown reason

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Ctrl+Delete?

That shortcut does nothing in my Firefox either. Ctrl+Shift+Delete clears cache though.

Blue

Ctrl+Delete is meant to delete the proceeding word, much like Ctrl+Backspace clears the preceeding word. Pisses me off that I can't use that in IE. It's not just @gajoo that has noticed it. It's a common bug complaint.

I'm editing my favourite games wiki page, it really is awful at the moment

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

11:11

I never knew that. :P

Funky

IE 10 runs smoothly as well.

ToddersLegrande

11:33

@Blue I tend to Ctrl+Shift+Arrow key to highlight words and delete them. It's a smoother workflow for me even if it is an extra step to actually press the delete key and remove the word(s). I just like to validate I'm deleting what I want to before officially deleting it

Blue

I know how to work around it but I'm usually confident when deleting something, and after growing using VIM as a text editor I really like my shortcuts to work :P

ToddersLegrande

Also... now we can party :D

Gajoo

11:53

@ToddersLegrande nope the party is over your were late >:

Kikaimaru

0

A: HTML5 - Does it have the power to handle a large 2D game with a huge world?

You could definitely get any game to work using any framework, engine, or language. The question isn't "Can you?", the question is "Should you?" HTML5 would require quite a lot of solutions to problems that other languages would not have. Until HTML5 gets more powerful, I'd say "No, it is not" t...

what do people have against html5?

all games should run in browser!

Oliver Schöning

I would prefer if the code was compiled by the browser before start rather then doing it on the fly... Woulndt that improve performance vastly? Or maybe it's because I havent really read about JIT

Kikaimaru

12:08

theres no reason for javascript not running as fast as java, and i think that with V8 they are pretty close

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Only downside to native browser games is the fact that it's JavaScript.

Kikaimaru

@William'MindWorX'Mariager but javascript will be cool when it will look like typescript :)

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

But it doesn't right now.

Kikaimaru

@William'MindWorX'Mariager and thats what typescript is for

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Another thing is the whole HTML cross browser battleground.

Kikaimaru

12:14

i dont think thats so much an issue with modern browsers

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

I'm not saying HTML5 and JS isn't where we should be going. But some better support would really be preferred.

You can't expect people to have modern browsers.

Kikaimaru

and many games dont use html5 as gui (even though grindfest does :) )

ToddersLegrande

If everything should be able to run in a browser, I feel like you've just created a sandboxed OS within the OS

Kikaimaru

@William'MindWorX'Mariager why not, this is not baking system, if the game doesnt run upgrade browser :)

ToddersLegrande

With the only advantage being "code once" for cross platform

Kikaimaru

12:15

@ToddersLegrande yes and then we would start using browser based os!

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

While that may happen someday, it's not going to be soon.

Also, @Kikaimaru, you realize how many kids will play games on non-admin accounts?

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande i think thats a big advantage, and also being able to run game anywhere, since in javascript you have to load resources on demand (you dont have to, but most people do)

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

And how many don't have the knowhow to upgrade their browsers even if they were admin.

Kikaimaru

i acutally dont think that many people have < IE9

Gajoo

@Kikaimaru more than %40 of the IE world is using older versions

ToddersLegrande

12:17

I REALLY hope MS someday does automatic browser updates like the rest of them

Gajoo

there is even a group of people who still use IE6!

ToddersLegrande

BURN THEM

Gajoo

@ToddersLegrande with IE10 I think it's already done, there is a checkbox in the about window, asking if you want your browser to automatically update

Kikaimaru

@Gajoo thats like 10 percent of all internet users?

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Also, you have to remember, the people too stupid to upgrade their browser, is also the the people that likely throws the most money at you.

Kikaimaru

12:18

@Gajoo minus how much of them dont even have hardware to run a good game

:9159206

Blue

@William'MindWorX'Mariager Are they also the ones with this: computerrepairnorfolkva.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/…

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

Hehe

Blue

ToddersLegrande

OH GOD

That's like every firefox user I know

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

They'll be playing your game in the amazing resolution of 1000x8

3

Kikaimaru

12:20

@William'MindWorX'Mariager there would be fullscreen button :)

ToddersLegrande

lololol

Gajoo

@ToddersLegrande that's every IE6/7 instance I know and used to know

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

@Kikaimaru That was a joke.

ToddersLegrande

@Gajoo Wut?

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

I swear, I hate endusers sometimes.

That includes my mother and sister.

I recently fixed my sisters computer.

ToddersLegrande

12:21

@Gajoo Your edit makes much more sense :)

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

I returned two days later to the Ask toolbar and some free internet security thing.

Gajoo

@ToddersLegrande I don't really know how to put it in one sane English sentence :|

ToddersLegrande

I recently told my dad that every time he reads "Jimmy Bob has invited you to play Farmville!" he should read it as "Jimmy Bob has invited you to download a VIRUS"

Oliver Schöning

@Kikaimaru I still don't agree that the syntax of ECMA6 looks good...

Gajoo

@William'MindWorX'Mariager your sister's is a saint, it took her two whole days before installing those toolbars.

William 'MindWorX' Mariager

12:23

Hehe

Kikaimaru

@OliverSchöning why?

ToddersLegrande

@Gajoo the edit makes a lot more sense... I'm not sure how I would phrase it either

So you're good now :D

Gajoo

@ToddersLegrande seriously, I don't know how people can get viruses? I've lived more than 3 years with windows XP without any AV software.

ToddersLegrande

I haven't looked at ECMA6 - is that more or less what TypeScript is / Unity uses?

Oliver Schöning

@Kikaimaru The parts I have seen look ... "simplified" I actually like my code to look like code. And most of my conclusions are drawn from this article nczonline.net/blog/2012/07/24/…

Gajoo

12:25

and even without trying to be careful I didn't get any.

Kikaimaru

@OliverSchöning you mean you are against arrow functions => ? or the cool string formating?

@OliverSchöning i dont think that in that article there is something that c# doesnt have

Oliver Schöning

yes I think that => looks absolutely idiotic. That is how I type stuff when I am on a Chatroom or try to do very very very simple pseudocode

Blue

@ToddersLegrande Unity uses mainly C# and Monoscript

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande and Boo nad Javascript

visDEVion

how can i make my program split procceses, so it would use all cores of cpu

Kikaimaru

12:29

@ToddersLegrande yes typescript should be what ecmascript 6 is

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru cool. That's definitely an improvement.

Kikaimaru

@OliverSchöning this is probably one of the coolest thing in C# and i cant really imagine writing code without it :)

ToddersLegrande

I made the reference to Unity because I believe that the "JavaScript" Unity uses kind of reminded me of TypeScript

but I've really only worked with the C# stuff and thought I had seen JavaScript examples

Blue

@ToddersLegrande That makes a lot more sense, it is a lot like typescritp

TypeScript*

Kikaimaru

function test(value: number ) {
return value * 2;
}

how can anyone prefer this, to this:
(value: number) => value * 2;

Blue

12:31

I could easily prefer it

ToddersLegrande

^

value * 2 is too simple of an example

Kikaimaru

i really dont want to see a function keyword nowhere in block of code...

Blue

I can see the keyword "Function" so now if I want to search for the function "test" I know I can press F3 and search it with "function test" otherwise its hidden from view.

Oliver Schöning

@Kikaimaru I think we have to agree to disagree I think (value: number) :> value *2 looks abbysmal and I hope there are options to do the old style aswell

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru I guess I don't know where it gets implemented. Looks like a getter that would be inside a class

In which case, the getter should be in a function

Though the syntax is goofy to me

Blue

12:34

In that link posted earlier it makes no sense to over load an already standard syntax: [quote]Then if you want to do more than one thing in the function body, you need to wrap it in braces and use a return Like you would in a regular function:[/quote]

Kikaimaru

what? this is full code

void doSomething() {
var names = this.list.select((item) => item.getName() );
}

void doSomething() {
var names = this.list.select(function (item) { return item.getName(); });
}

btw its not only shorter, but it preserves reference to "this"

ToddersLegrande

I guess I have no clue what this code is doing

Oliver Schöning

That code just makes me think that the developers think I am a retard unable to cope with returning a value

ToddersLegrande

but anywhere I see "function(){}" I would put that in a real function

not inside a code block

Kikaimaru

has anyone of you ever developed something in c#?

ToddersLegrande

12:36

Every day

Kikaimaru

and you dont use lambdas?

Blue

I do but I don't use them for declaring named functions in an anonymous code block

ToddersLegrande

I see...

@Kikaimaru the first code block you posted did not look anything like lambdas (that I've used) to me

Blue

It just seems counter intuitive to long term design to do so. Even when attempting to preserve the this static it just makes it messy to read.

ToddersLegrande

Rereading your second block its a little more clear

I've not done enough serious JavaScript for this to really matter

Blue

12:43

This bit is what gets me:

If you want to return an object literal from one of these functions, then you must enclose the object literal and parentheses:
 let key_maker = val => ({key: val});
Then if you want to do more than one thing in the function body, you need to wrap it in braces and use a return Like you would in a regular function:
 let sumIt = (val1, val2) => {
    var sum = val1 + val2;
    return sum;
};

Its adding more syntax onto an already solved syntax issue, just seems bloated.

I like a syntax to be consistent, not confusing depend on situation.

ToddersLegrande

I give up on JavaScript. I'll use it for basic AJAX / DOM stuff and that's it

I mean... what's wrong with:

//In class
function sumIt (val1, val2){
    var sum = val1 + val2;
    return sum;
};

//in code block
var myVal1 = 1;
var myVal2 = 1;
var sum = sumIt(myVal1, myVal2);

Oliver Schöning

\o/ who knows... Perhaps we are just being trolled

Kikaimaru

@Blue second thing is exactly like c#

you can write one line without { } since its lambda expression

and more lines with (since its no longer an expression)

ToddersLegrande

Yeah I guess I just don't use lambdas like this

Kikaimaru

but enumerable extensions

how do you select only names from list of persons

there is no sane way without lambdas

@Blue this is what entity framework, linq2sql, fluent hibernate does, this is what linq bringed to collections, so microsoft clearly disagrees

ToddersLegrande

12:54

@Kikaimaru that was the only example you provided that made any sense to me

The first example, and the bit that @Blue posted just seemed silly

Kikaimaru

and using
class Test {
public n: number;

public void doStuff() {

var stuff = function() {
console.log(this.n);
}
stuff();
}
}

i expect this code to write value of n, and not crash, like it would

Blue

True but wrapping it in syntax like this which changes the scope for the global variables available overcomplicates it when trying to access this with a shortened Lambda syntax. I can access a list of persons.names really easily by defining a simple and readable named function, not an anonymous code block that has no visible definition for reuse

ToddersLegrande

@Blue I was gonna say that about the list of names but I thought maybe I was a fool :P

Kikaimaru

@Blue why would you reuse it? do you have big storage of all variables so that you can reuse them? its local variable, its valid only in its scope

ToddersLegrande

But to be fair on @Kikaimaru, you could put the lambda inside a reusable, redable named function.

Blue

12:56

@ToddersLegrande Nope not a fool. Its cluttering a sytax definition to make coding "shorter" but in doing so adds too many overloadable definitions to an already simple function creating more opportunity for human error and bloated syntax highlighting.

ToddersLegrande

But people who chain lambdas drive me nuts

Blue

It's not human readable by any standard to chain them.

nor is it obvious the intent of code when you have to decypher the syntax behind a lambda syntax function before actually understanding what the function does.

Like the example I posted above.

ToddersLegrande

.Where(... Where(..)).ToList().Select(...ForEach());

Kikaimaru

let sumIt = (val1, val2) => {
var sum = val1 + val2;
return sum;
};

var sumIt = function sumIt (val1, val2){
var sum = val1 + val2;
return sum;
};

so why is the second version better?

Blue

@ToddersLegrande Shudder

ToddersLegrande

12:59

@Kikaimaru we are not advocating anonymous functions in the middle of code blocks

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande is this one line comparison to 50 lines of code with temporary lists nescessary for this?

@ToddersLegrande but thats what lambdas are for

class methods are defined in totaly different way

they are not now, but in ecma6 there are classes, and method visibility and stuff

and you cant actually defined class method by lambda

ToddersLegrande

Who would want to?

Kikaimaru

i dont know

then what is the problem with lambas?

ToddersLegrande

The same problem that functions within code blocks has

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande then its not really an issue with lambda, so why are we talking about this?

thats "issue" that javascript already has

ToddersLegrande

13:03

Because you seemed convinced that we were talking about functions within code blocks and not reusable class functions

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande but arrow functions cant be used to declare class methods

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru your originall post:

33 mins ago, by Kikaimaru

function test(value: number ) {
return value * 2;
}

how can anyone prefer this, to this:
(value: number) => value * 2;

Kikaimaru

but thats no a class method

Blue

I far prefer something readable like this :

function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
}

function main(){
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
var sumTwo = sumIt(3,4);
var sumOfSum = sumIt(sumOne ,sumTwo);
}

Than something more cluttered than my mothers pantry like this:

let sumIt = (val1a, val1b, val2a, val2b) => {
var sum = (val1a, val1b) => {var sum= val1a + val1b; return sum; } + (val2a, val2b) => { var sum= val2a + val2b; return sum; };
return sum;
};

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru your code has absolutely no context to tell us whether it was a class method or not

If you would just be clear with your questions and not make assumptions that we are in your brain this would work a lot better

Or maybe it does

and I just suck at Javascript

Kikaimaru

13:05

function main(){
var sumIt = (val1, val2) => {
return (val1+val2);
};
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
var sumTwo = sumIt(3,4);
var sumOfSum = sumIt(sumOne ,sumTwo);
}

ToddersLegrande

This is possible

Kikaimaru

class methods look like this:
class Test {
public test(): void {
}
}

in ecmascript6

Blue

but if sumIt is meant to act like a function, why not just name it a function?

Kikaimaru

@Blue because that function is usable only in that context, and if its usable in some other context then it should be on some class like MathUtisl.sumIt (as normal class method)

Blue

@ToddersLegrande considering its JavaScript I wouldn't have been able to tell without seeing the intent.

Well Sumit is a terrible example then becuase that's a pretty global mathematical method.

ToddersLegrande

13:08

Whatever. I'll just claim ignorance.

Kikaimaru

@Blue if its temporary method only used in one function, i would never pollute for example my Person class with it

ToddersLegrande

I'm a C# developer where things are consistent

Kikaimaru

just because i need to sort something in some method of that class

Blue

And its counterintuitive to called a function a variable like I mentioned before, it's giving dual definitions to something where you have to decypher the syntax before you decypher the code which just tells me its a bad syntax to use.

Kikaimaru

@Blue its not all javascript functions now are used as variables

since there are no classes in current javsacript

just functions with other functions

there should be only class methods and lambdas function () syntax should be removed

Oliver Schöning

13:10

What are the odds that the old syntax is kept too?

Blue

`:9160001
what stops them from literally putting this:

`
function main(){
function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
}
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
var sumTwo = sumIt(3,4);
var sumOfSum = sumIt(sumOne ,sumTwo);
}

Kikaimaru

@OliverSchöning 100%

Oliver Schöning

well, no worries then :)

Being a noob, for be it comes down to being more readable IMO with brackets

Kikaimaru

@Blue does that even work?

Oliver Schöning

on a very related note. What do you think of this red dog I made

Blue

13:12

@Kikaimaru No it's a proof of concept, solves each issue, defining a private enclosed function in another function whilst retaining the "this" static and defining the required returns.

melak47

@OliverSchöning it certainly is red

Blue

@OliverSchöning can't fault it's colour description being accurate

Oliver Schöning

Yes, it must be a communist dog!

Blue

:P

Kikaimaru

@Blue ok, i guess thats possible to do? what is the point? its terribly ugly and you have to call new main(); to make it work ( i guess )

Oliver Schöning

13:15

It's because it's a 3D version of the "dog park" dogs
http://www.dr.dk/u/hundeparken/
(Sorry to interrupt the that monster argument I started) :p

Kikaimaru

@Blue "this" works in this case, since this is how you do "classes" in javascript now

Blue

@Kikaimaru main () is just there to give it a modular context rather than a class context. You call it ugly however I personally disagree and thats an opinion that shouldn't assertain to anything. However I can near guaruntee @ToddersLegrande would understand at a glance that the function nested sumIt() function in main() was within main() scope and can easily see it's a function instead of having to double check it's a variable.

ToddersLegrande

Yes. The names are bad examples but overall this is how I would do something in JavaScript

names being "main"

But I realize it was the example at hand :)

Oliver Schöning

oh, like that. nvm

ToddersLegrande

Object is an instance of a class?

Not sure I understand the question :)

Blue

13:19

Working in a multi developer environment - taking every measure to make intent and functionality as human readable as possible is a number one priority. Using unessaccary compression of existing syntax is just something I would tend to avoid if it isn't a consistent syntax to being with (in reference to the examples I gave earlier)

Kikaimaru

this is just crazy, you would do

function main(){
function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
}
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
var sumTwo = sumIt(3,4);
var sumOfSum = sumIt(sumOne ,sumTwo);
}

new main();

instead of

class Program {
void main() {
var sumIt = (val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
var sumTwo = sumIt(3,4);
var sumOfSum = sumIt(sumOne ,sumTwo);
}
}

new Program().main();

code at the top is so unintuitive, how can ANYONE expect that writing function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
} actualy creates member variable of function main

when if you write var a = infront of that code, it would do something totally different

Blue

My example wasn't class, just a module. So now you're putting it out of context assuming again.

why not:

class Program {
void main() {
function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
}
}

Kikaimaru

class Program {
public sumIt(val1, val2): number{
return (val1+val2);
}
void main() {
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
}
or you can do this

ToddersLegrande

This above one is what I would do

Kikaimaru

@Blue that wont work

ToddersLegrande

13:22

CLASS METHODS

xD

Blue

so now you're making sumIt globably available in the Program scope, completely negating the point of it

It was only meant to be available in main(){} so now it is available outside main(){}

@ToddersLegrande I know todders, right?

ToddersLegrande

Oh right... that rule

I forgot that was the main point of his argument

Oliver Schöning

Anyhow. Good Night

Blue

What's the point of your example if you are now putting sumIt() into a global scope, I thought your whole point was that it was only mean to be in the main() scope.

@OliverSchöning nn bro

Kikaimaru

@Blue you can write privite instead of public...

ToddersLegrande

13:24

I'd rather clutter up my class with readable private methods than clutter up a class method with complex lambdas. I can handle simple lambdas

2

Gajoo

working on network programs were never my thing

Blue

but it's still available in the scope of class Program and not only function main() You still haven't done that

Kikaimaru

void main() {
function sumIt(val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};
var sumOne = sumIt(1,2);
}

but this creates a new class variable (instance variable actually) on function main that wont go away after exectuin is done, wont it?

Gajoo

it's driving me nuts...

Blue

@Kikaimaru if you write it as a Var or a function it is still going to be there after execution, but with the "function" it still it is only in main() context and readable vs the lambda which is inconsitent syntax and less human readable.

Kikaimaru

13:27

"less human readable"
can you prove this?

Blue

:9160455

Kikaimaru

inconsitent syntax
what does this even mean, its inconsistent in c# too?

Blue

@ToddersLegrande @ToddersLegrande just agreed he prefers it readable like I do.

ToddersLegrande

Yes.

Blue

nczonline.net/blog/2012/07/24/… says it after "Avoid typing parentheses, braces – Once again, the syntax seems to be the issue. And once again, I just don’t get it."

ToddersLegrande

13:29

I can handle the simple examples like this one @Kikaimaru provided:

void doSomething() {
var names = this.list.select((item) => item.getName() );
}

Kikaimaru

so is class less readable then function, because someone can write extremly long class which would be less readable then same amount of functions separated into more files?

ToddersLegrande

Even then, I would put this in its own private, reusable method with a name that makes sense so that anyone can use it without having to figure out what the lambda is doing

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande so you would write something like NameSelector on person?

do you also create constants like EIGHTEEN = 18? :)

Blue

Separating it into more files just segregates your work and means you have to monitor more files, I deal with huge classes every day but the fact that I can search "function sumIt" and find any and all functions with that definition is invaluable.

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru that's just rude

Blue

13:31

@Kikaimaru I would find that insulting

Separating it into more files just segregates your work and means you have to monitor more files, I deal with huge classes every day but the fact that I can search "function sumIt" and find any and all functions with that definition is invaluable.

ToddersLegrande

Debates can exist without name calling / insult throwing

Kikaimaru

but there are no other uses of that function, its local variable
no one ever needs to reuse code that sums two numbers

Blue

So define it in the function as a nested function.

Creating a separate instance of SumIt which might have separate behaviours but quickly searching it as a function shows that, as with the pure definition of the word, it is a function.

Kikaimaru

@Blue but why? no other language does this, its not intuitive at all that you can use that function in that scope

@Blue and seeing => doesnt tell you its a function? or seeing it called like sumIt() ?

@ToddersLegrande but its the same thing, you need to name function to understand its function, why you dont need to name number to understand its number?

Blue

Why call something that gives "functionality" a variable when its actually storing a function... in other words functionality...

Kikaimaru

13:33

@Blue because its storing something? its variable

ToddersLegrande

@Kikaimaru hardly

18 is english. its a natural part of language

.Where(... Where(..)).ToList().Select(...ForEach()); is not a natural part of language

Blue

Also you tend to assume that the people in this chat are stupid or not programmers with years of experience:

"do you also create constants like EIGHTEEN = 18? :)"

That sentence would have insulted the worst of us let alone the best of us.

And its "storing" the definition of the function, not a value, so by defition it is not a variable.

Kikaimaru

and classes are natural part of language?

this is programming not english

Blue

natural to programmers understanding yes.

ToddersLegrande

Then write your code in binary. Have fun

Kikaimaru

13:35

@Blue definition of a function is a value

especialy in javascript

Blue

I would say only in javascript.

Kikaimaru

@ToddersLegrande no you do that since you want to throw lambdas because they are not part of english language

Blue

A function is a method that ALSO returns a value.

Kikaimaru

@Blue and c#

delegates, events, lambdas

Blue

I don't think you understand some basic english terminology with regards to programming.

Kikaimaru

13:37

so this
Type t = person.GetType();

should be invalid? since its a class (type in c#) and not a value?

Blue

t stores a value.

person.GetType() evaluates a function

Kikaimaru

var a = () => {};
stores value too

Blue

which is void GetType(){return this.Type;}

Subroutine

In computer programming, a subroutine is a sequence of program instructions that perform a specific task, packaged as a unit. This unit can then be used in programs wherever that particular task should be performed. Subprograms may be defined within programs, or separately in libraries that can be used by multiple programs. In different programming languages a subroutine may be called a procedure, a function, a routine, a method, or a subprogram. The generic term callable unit is sometimes used. As the name subprogram suggests, a subroutine behaves in much the same way as a computer ...

That's a function. note how it is not a value.

Kikaimaru

() => {};
this is function

Blue

so why are you calling it a value...

Kikaimaru

13:39

var a = eval("() => {}");

is it value now?

Blue

a stores the value of that lambda function.

Kikaimaru

its stores that lambda function

Blue

var sumIt = (val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};

you are treating sumIt later on in the function as a callable function so why are you calling it a variable. it is not a value, its a function.

This is what I don't get.

Kikaimaru

so its a variable without value?

Object m = (Object)(() => {});
c#

what is the value of variable m?

Blue

nothing.

its storing functionality

Kikaimaru

13:42

no its storing reference to delegate...

Blue

It's not a value its a function.

So it should look like a delegate then, call a delegate function and write it down in a readable format. this is what I am saying, sumIt doesn't have a value in that code:
var sumIt = (val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};
it evaluates input and provides output, without the input it gives nothing so it can't be a "value"

but you're saying it is a value.

I'm saying it should be written in a more readable format, that is quite literally all I have been saying

Kikaimaru

no its not a return value

but its a value

Person p = new Person();

p is also a value

Blue

Its a stored function. Even if that's routed via a delegate that is a function, not a value, you use it later in code like a function.

so writing it as a function sumIt(){} is preferable as it is easier to read, understand, interpret

Kikaimaru

even though its store encapsulated functionality of Person

Blue

p is an object not a value.

Kikaimaru

13:44

value and function are not disjunctive

wtf

define value

Blue

object encapsulates class functionality which is a separate terminology.

In computer science, a value is an expression which cannot be evaluated any further (a normal form).[1] The members of a type are the values of that type.[2] For example, the expression "1 + 2" is not a value as it can be reduced to the expression "3". This expression cannot be reduced any further (and is a member of the type Nat) and therefore is a value.

there you go, textbook definition which essentially says exactly what I have been saying for the past 20 minutse.

Value (computer science)

In computer science, a value is an expression which cannot be evaluated any further (a normal form). The members of a type are the values of that type. For example, the expression "1 + 2" is not a value as it can be reduced to the expression "3". This expression cannot be reduced any further (and is a member of the type Nat) and therefore is a value. The "value of a variable" is given by the corresponding mapping in the environment. In languages with assignable variables it becomes necessary to distinguish between the R-value (or contents) and the L-value (or location) of a variable. In ...

var sumIt = (val1, val2){
return (val1+val2);
};

is not a value.

as it can be reduced.

Kikaimaru

how can () => {} be reduced?

Blue

just as eval("() => {}"); is not a value,

as it can be reduced to the result but only after the evalutation of the stored delegate or function.

Kikaimaru

"() => {}"
()=>{}
i really dont think any definition of value that treats these two values in context of javascript as something different is correct

and i dont think that there can be variable without value (not counting undefined) in c# or javascript

var a = () => {};

if (a == b)

what are you doing? dont you compare values of those variables? (disregarding you are comparing references)

and this

var a = () => {};
in c# can actually be converted to expression tree, and object that you can look at and see parts of the code, so why is it function?

Blue

Yes and no, you are comparing the end calculations of the delegates, it calls functions first and a itself is then passed back the value, but until it is evaluated it does not have a value, especially as with the link I just posted and you seem to have ignored it is not by definition a value if the underlying delegate is a function.

You know I see people here every day who are able to take on information with ease, take criticism and critical thinking and learn from it. You seem completely unwilling to learn from others and seem to assume to know the scope of our knowledge.

Classic example was how you seemed to insult @ToddersLegrande and have yet to say sorry or apologise in any form - even though he has openly state that it was rude as have I.

I tend not to like talking to people who are closed minded in their definitions, opinions or assume things they do not know.

@ToddersLegrande excuse my wall of text.

Going afk for coffee.

Kikaimaru

13:58

delegate is a value, the function as a piece of functionality is not a value.
function as a value in javascript is a value and function as a piece of functionality is not a value

even with wikis definition of value,
you telling that some piece of code cant be treating as a value is entirely your opinion. If its in a file, loaded as as string its a value. if there is an interpreter interpreting that stirng it siezes to be a value?

Transcript for