|
The problem is that you aren't writing a C# program (German letter): you are trying to translate a VB program (English letter) into C# (German letter) by translating each line of code (using a dictionary)
Quote: You have an inventory class and a get/drop class
Why?
Do you do that in the "real world"? Or do you think "I'm wearing trousers. In this pocket I have a hanky and my small change. In this pocket I have my phone, in this one my wallet. My wallet contains my credit cards, store cards, and bank notes"?
In an object oriented design, you would have an abstract Container class (or possibly an IContainer Interface) which had Add, Remove, and List methods - because just like your trousers, they "know" where to put your phone - left pocket; wallet - back pocket; and so on. And if the Trousers class derives from Container and so does the Wallet class, you remove a card from your wallet (and it's gone from your trousers as well) pay for your sandwich, and put it back.
The idea is that the object knows how to do things that directly affect it: not that you have global functions that manipulate global objects, or a class of "actions" you can "apply" to objects.
Why should an inventory be a global variable? Is there only one in the entire game? Or should "monsters" have one as well so you can "Loot the body"? Think of Oblivion / Skyrim and loads of things have inventories: player, barrels, shops, chests, bags, boxes, bodies, npcs, ... and they are all handled the same way because they aren't globals - they are objects contained in the world.
As I said, translating doesn't produce good code - using the original as a specification does, because you then write good code in the target language. It doesn't matter which language pair you pick: blind translation isn't a good idea.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Griff.
I like the way you use examples.
The reason why I was thinking of having an inventory class was to keep track of objects that the player picked up, like the trousers that keeps a wallet and other things. If the player drops an object then the object is removed from the player and appears in the current room.
There would be a limit of either the number of objects the player can carry or the maximum weight the player could carry which would be handled by the inventory class. If the player picks up gold then the inventory class would increase the players score. Some objects can't be picked up such as a building, water, etc so the inventory class would need to check if the object is moveable. Also the inventory class checks to see if the player is already has the item to be picked up.
What I wanted to ask you if this is a good reason to have an inventory class? It tends to separate the code away from the main() class code.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: The original code was written in the BASIC language back in the 1980's
There's the problem. You're trying to force the old, non-OPP code way of doing things into an OOP world where it just doesn't work.
You cannot do a line-for-line conversion. You have to understand what the INTENT of the old code and rewrite using modern techniques. This is will result is radically different code because BASIC is NOT VB.NET, or C#, or Java, or C++.
You know that your app needs an inventory. How that's implemented in the new version is going to be done VERY differently from how your existing BASIC code implemented it.
Brian_TheLion wrote: Someone suggested that I should look at instances of classes
You create instances of classes all the time. Every time you "new up" a class. For example:
IInventory playerInventory = new InventoryManager();
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you Dave as I tried a few years ago to convert the Basic code program into Visual Basic code. I now have a good idea of how the code works so I don't need to copy the original code but will do a rewrite that fits into the structure of C#.
It seems that programs like C# make for a better programmer as you don't have the lazy ways of writing code like spaghetti with all its goto commands. The like the structure approach of languages like C#.
Maybe the next thing I need to do is to work out all classes I need and what code will be as methods in the main() class. I could write all of the code in the Main() class but in doing so I would gain any experience about using classes and the advanages of using classes.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Dave wrote
You have to understand what the INTENT of the old code and rewrite using modern technique
I agree with you Dave and that's what I'm aiming for at the moment.
I think if I was programming for the fist time then it might be easier for me as old programming habits take time to die.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: I have not completely given up on C#
You cannot "give up" on something you have not invested hard work in, something you have spent more time writing questions about than you have spent studying it.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill.
It might seem that I have not done much reading on C# but that is not the case. I've borrows 4 books on C# from the library and have been studying them. However it's difficult to find a good book on a on C# that explain it well and books such as "Beginning Visual C# 2015 Programming" don't do a good job at explaining how OOP works in C#.
Even after reading I still need to ask questions to get a better understanding on parts of C#. As well as this group I've also found Google useful for some of my questions on C#.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: you need to keep within certain rules to have the program compile
That is the same for all programming languages, even down to assembler and machine code.
Brian_TheLion wrote: There is no global variable allowed
As others have mentioned, global variables tend to cause more problems than they solve; don't use them.
Brian_TheLion wrote: Maybe some programs are better suited to C# than others.
Possibly, but you can use C# to write a wide range of different applications.
Brian_TheLion wrote: All programs seem to have a user interface as I've never come across a program that only runs under the DOS prompt.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Assuming you mean running in a command window, there are many console applications that do just that.
Brian_TheLion wrote: the program I have in mind that I want to write has many varables between classes.
And that is where C# makes it easy for you; it is specifically designed to support proper object oriented programming.
What this, and some of your other questions, suggests, is that you are blaming the language for your lack of understanding. Instead of trying to fit the language to your concept of the program, you need to stop coding and spend some good study time learning the language properly. Only when you have mastered that will you be able to see the best way forward in developing your application.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard.
No I'm not blaiming C# at all, all I'm looking for is a way to use this programming language that suits my needs.
I think it's because I'm use to older languages that had less rules such as quick basic.
As a hobby programmer I want to improve on any programming skills I have so I turned to C# and invested my time in trying to learn this language.
I understand it's the type of language that can't be learnt in a couple of weeks and slowly things that did not make sense at first are starting to make more sense now.
I'm still trying to find a way of one class changing the variables in another class if that's possible.
As for my message about almost all programs requiring a user interface...
You have a choice when writing a c# program of a console program that uses a dos window or a program that has buttons that the user can click on. I don't know of any program sold these days that is a console program.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: I'm looking for is a way to use this programming language that suits my needs
And there is another large problem. You are basing you "needs" on a legacy system written in basic and hoping to convert it to a modern language and development style. You should really accept that you are up for a rewrite.
Look only at the functionality of the original game NOT the code that does the work in basic. If you are going to use a modern OOP language you will need to understand OOP principles BEFORE you begin trying to design the application.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mycroft.
I'm doing my best to try and understand OOP from reading and studying examples.
The code that was originally written in BASiC Will be pulled apart and put to geather so that it works under the more modern C# structure, so it is like you say a rewrite. I have a good knowledge of how the code works to do a rewrite.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: Will be pulled apart and put to geather so that it works under the more modern C# structure
It feels like your thinking is incorrect, don't consider pulling the old code apart and restructuring it. Only inspect the code to help you define the functionality of the application NOT how it should be put together.
Seriously do not try and apply basic methodology and structures to c#, everything is now an object with properties and methods. Define your objects...
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mycroft.
I may have not used the best term when I said "pulled apart" I was meaning studying the original code to see how it worked to get ideas on how the adventure should work for the new code.
Having used programs like Quick Basic over the years makes it more difficult to break free from the procedure programming method, but I don't give up that easierly.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: Having used programs like Quick Basic over the years makes it more difficult to break free from the procedure programming method
I, too, started on procedural languages like FORTRAN, COBOL and BASIC and initially found the Object Oriented way seemed artificial, clunky and back-to-front. Now, having spent several years in an OO environment, I can see the benefits and would never go back to the old ways. It can be hard to unlearn things that work and to undo your mental images of how things interact, but it is worth it in the long run.
I'd suggest that you park your adventure game and write something from scratch, forcing yourself to use the OO paradigm (horrible word) and then evaluate what worked well and what seem odd. Then revisit your adventure game looking at the objects (players, inventory items, rooms) and seeing how they map onto classes and then look at their properties (inventory items are-in rooms, players -have- inventory items, players are-in rooms, rooms are-adjacent-to- other rooms) then look at methods that change the properties (players move-to rooms).
|
|
|
|
|
Good advice thanks jsc42.
My Text adventure program is more involved than a simple game so it might be better to try writing some less challenging programs first such as a number guessing program to get some practice.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mycroft.
I'm considering everything at the moment which is why I have not started to write my program in C#.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: I'm looking for is a way to use this programming language that suits my needs.
It will. C# is a rich language that can handle just about any problem you can think of. But, as I and others keep saying, you need to learn and understand the language, and its rules, first.
Brian_TheLion wrote: I'm still trying to find a way of one class changing the variables in another class if that's possible.
That is what Properties and Methods are there for.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard.
That's what I'm trying to do by reading books on the subject and asking questions.
I read somewhere that C# is starting to spread to programming apps on tablets.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
What you really need to do is to stop coding, stop posting questions, and work through some solid study guides to get a full understanding of the basics of the language, classes and structs, value types and reference types, generics, etc, etc. I started by working through .NET Book Zero by Charles Petzold[^] a couple of times, before I attempted to write my first (very simple) C# application.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard.
It's more of understanding what I have read. so if I still don't understand it then I ask questions. You can't ask a book questions.
Not all books give a clear understanding on C#.
Lets take an example:
A book will tell you that the 'set' command is to set a value and the 'get' command is to get a value, but it fails to tell me why I need to use the set and get commands. Why not just have Name = "Peter" like some programming languages, so I'm thinking when and why should I use these commands; some C# code does not use the get set commands.
After doing some research on the internet and studying example code I now have a better idea on how these commands are used.
It's also sometimes the way something is explained that makes it easier to understand.
I downloaded and started to read Net book zero a few weeks ago, I must take another looks at this book. Thanks for the reminder.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_TheLion wrote: Why not just have Name = "Peter"
That is exactly what it now has.
As I said before, repeated studying will help to make things clear. But you also need to understand that programming languages are continually evolving, so some older guides may not include the latest changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: As others have mentioned, global variables tend to cause more problems than they solve; don't use them.
He can get his "global" accessibility by creating a static class. I don't understand (and have never seen) a global static class present problems.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
A static class is a very different animal.
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: I don't understand (and have never seen) a global static class present problems
You've lived a very sheltered life 
|
|
|
|
|
Or just maybe, I've never abused the construct.
In all actuality, I was annoyed with the lack of support for global vars when I moved from C++ to .Net, but I adapted.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
