Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50982 > unrolled thread

Creating a maze game

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Creating a maze game Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 20:30 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 21:41 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:45 -0700
        Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 16:49 -0700
          Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-17 01:38 -0700
            Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:08 -0700
              Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 03:06 -0700
                Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-17 04:30 -0700
                  Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:09 -0700
                    Re: Creating a maze game "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-18 14:19 +1000
                      Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 00:18 -0700
                    Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-18 00:31 -0700
              Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-17 04:40 -0700
                Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-18 00:41 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-14 21:56 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 22:15 -0700
        Re: Creating a maze game Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-15 05:22 +0000
        Re: Creating a maze game Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-14 22:30 -0700
          Re: Creating a maze game lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 22:38 -0700
            Re: Creating a maze game Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-09-15 00:43 -0500
            Re: Creating a maze game Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-14 22:59 -0700
              Re: Creating a maze game Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-15 06:06 +0000
    Re: Creating a maze game Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@zxdehrnyya.cam> - 2016-09-15 01:47 -0400
    Re: Creating a maze game anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-15 07:34 +0000
    Re: Creating a maze game Andreas Wagner <andreas.wagner@lowfatcomputing.org> - 2016-09-15 01:04 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-15 10:18 +0200
        Re: Creating a maze game Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@zxdehrnyya.cam> - 2016-09-15 17:48 -0400
      Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:50 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-15 10:27 +0200
    Re: Creating a maze game Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 01:57 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 05:35 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:22 -0700
    Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 11:52 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 20:24 -0700
        Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 21:00 -0700
          Re: Creating a maze game hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 20:16 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 07:01 -0700
        Re: Creating a maze game hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:15 -0700
        Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-21 02:05 -0700
          Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 02:36 -0700
            Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:34 -0700
              Re: Creating a maze game anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-21 14:55 +0000
                Re: Creating a maze game Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:58 -0700
              Re: Creating a maze game Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 06:42 -0400
    Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:39 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 19:44 -0700
    Creating a maze game Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:16 -0700
      Re: Creating a maze game JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-17 02:21 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#50982 — Creating a maze game

I would like to create a game for some grandsons:  Something that would include typical maze elements (walls, barriers, traps, jumping platforms, etc) and would allow them to enter in "code" to create or modify some of the elements.

It would be hosted on a Windows 7+ platform (platform-agnostic would be better for me) and would be coded in Forth, a lisp-family language (CL, Scheme, Racket, Arc, Logo, etc), Unicon and/or JavaScript.  I have been learning CL and Scheme, know a bit of Arc and Logo and a bit more of Forth, Unicon and JavaScript.

While I have been a medical information systems programmer for most of my career, it has been focused on CRUD (create/retrieve/update/delete) applications and interfacing (HL7 and proprietary).  I have virtually no experience with GUI and audio applications.

Here are some questions that have occurred to me:
1.  Which languages would be best?
2.  Which toolkits would help?  OpenGL?
3.  Can this be done on a browser?
4.  How does one control scrolling in different directions?  Do you create the screen in memory and then instruct the system to scroll in the direction of the newly created portion?
5.  Could you interface with one of the available free game engines?

Obviously this would not have to be world-class.  Just something a 10 and 12 year old might like and perhaps from which they could learn how to do some elementary coding.

Regarding Forth, I would like the ability to put in code during the play of the game -- like eval() in other languages -- and assume that it is possible in Forth.

I would appreciate your input.


Thanks, Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50984

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 3:30:47 PM UTC+12, Steve Graham wrote:
> I would like to create a game for some grandsons:  Something that would
> include typical maze elements (walls, barriers, traps, jumping platforms,
> etc) and would allow them to enter in "code" to create or modify some of
> the elements.

For a first language for children to be exposed to, Python would be a better choice than Forth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51044

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:41:27 AM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 3:30:47 PM UTC+12, Steve Graham wrote:
> > I would like to create a game for some grandsons:  Something that would
> > include typical maze elements (walls, barriers, traps, jumping platforms,
> > etc) and would allow them to enter in "code" to create or modify some of
> > the elements.
> 
> For a first language for children to be exposed to, Python would be a better choice than Forth.

I completely disagree, as I tried it, 
and only found out AFTER Compilation that there were a few capital or non capital typos. 
Forth is natural, you execute it on your desk every day, and funnily enough when Ford invented the T1 and conveyor belts there was no mention of normal or curley brackets, as they would not fit onto the belt - it was simply get  your sequence right or it will not work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51048

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 5:45:42 AM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:41:27 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> wrote:
>>
>> For a first language for children to be exposed to, Python would be a
>> better choice than Forth.
> 
> I completely disagree, as I tried it, 
> and only found out AFTER Compilation that there were a few capital or non
> capital typos. 

Still a better choice than Forth <https://www.raspberrypi.org/>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51066

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:49:16 AM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 5:45:42 AM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:41:27 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For a first language for children to be exposed to, Python would be a
> >> better choice than Forth.
> > 
> > I completely disagree, as I tried it, 
> > and only found out AFTER Compilation that there were a few capital or non
> > capital typos. 
> 
> Still a better choice than Forth <https://www.raspberrypi.org/>.

I do not have a clue why you post this link to RPI.
RPI   = HARDWARE
FORTH = SOFTWARE ( or including Chuck even HARDWARE )
90% plus use other languages than Forth
There was success through marketing in a parallel thread
For Forth it means the same: no success through no marketing, just fighting against each other on CLF - a brilliant and inviting welcome to the party.
For me Forth is the most natural language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51068

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:38:34 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:49:16 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> wrote:
>>
>> Still a better choice than Forth <https://www.raspberrypi.org/>.
> 
> I do not have a clue why you post this link to RPI.
> RPI   = HARDWARE
> FORTH = SOFTWARE ( or including Chuck even HARDWARE )

This is why, you do not understand that software and hardware have to work together, you cannot consider either one in isolation.

The Raspberry π is a small, incredibly cheap, yet general-purpose computer, running a fully general-purpose, versatile OS, which can be bought with a child’s saved-up pocket money, yet is quite capable of running much more powerful languages than Forth. Like Python.

And as the site should make clear, it has a massive amount of community support precisely focused on helping children of all ages get to grips with its power.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51072

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 4:08:56 AM UTC-5, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Raspberry <pi> is a small, incredibly cheap, yet general-purpose computer, running a fully general-purpose, versatile OS, which can be bought with a child’s saved-up pocket money,

Yes, it's a nice machine for an ARM-Linux Forth.  My Zaurus SL-3200
cost more than $500 in the early 2000s, by comparison.  I ran OpenBSD
on it and, mostly, Erlang and gforth.

> yet is quite capable of running much more powerful languages than Forth. Like Python.

Ah, there's a child around here for sure.  Like a twinkle in the eye,
there it is in you, this persistent notion that either the
implementation or the language of Python have anything to teach
anybody.  Your pet language is as exciting as crosswalk paint.

Python actually is a decent learning language, though; a good example
of "fake it until you make it".  It's a newbie language, so people
produce newbie friendly resources for it, which is the only reason
it's actually newbie friendly at all.  The historical language design
reasons of e.g. "it doesn't have += style operators because Guido
thinks that is too hard to understand" are obviously all deader than
the dinosaurs, whatever merit they even had in the first place.  And
Ren'Py is an OK game engine if you want to produce a game with some
children.


-- Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51073

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:06:59 AM UTC+1, Julian Fondren wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 4:08:56 AM UTC-5, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The Raspberry <pi> is a small, incredibly cheap, yet general-purpose computer, running a fully general-purpose, versatile OS, which can be bought with a child’s saved-up pocket money,
> 
> Yes, it's a nice machine for an ARM-Linux Forth.  My Zaurus SL-3200
> cost more than $500 in the early 2000s, by comparison.  I ran OpenBSD
> on it and, mostly, Erlang and gforth.
> 
> > yet is quite capable of running much more powerful languages than Forth. Like Python.
> 
> Ah, there's a child around here for sure.  Like a twinkle in the eye,
> there it is in you, this persistent notion that either the
> implementation or the language of Python have anything to teach
> anybody.  Your pet language is as exciting as crosswalk paint.
> 
> Python actually is a decent learning language, though; a good example
> of "fake it until you make it".  It's a newbie language, so people
> produce newbie friendly resources for it, which is the only reason
> it's actually newbie friendly at all.  The historical language design
> reasons of e.g. "it doesn't have += style operators because Guido
> thinks that is too hard to understand" are obviously all deader than
> the dinosaurs, whatever merit they even had in the first place.  And
> Ren'Py is an OK game engine if you want to produce a game with some
> children.
> 
> 
> -- Julian

My answer is a lot simpler - I want Forth, and I do not have to justify it.
If people want Python - there is a lot of support around - but I do not like Python.
If you like Chinese food there are restaurants, the same applies to other tastes.
The next time you go the a Chinese restaurant, tell them when you order that you actually do not like Chinese food ...
This group here is called Comp Lang Forth 
and yes I have an RPI and Yes I have a MicroBit, and yes I have an Arduino.
And yes, I would like to have Forth available with a graphic GUI like Scratch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51084

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> My answer is a lot simpler - I want Forth, and I do not have to justify it.

But you did try to justify it before: “...Forth is the answer. Why?
Most natural language ...” and so on. Are you backing away from that now?

> If people want Python - there is a lot of support around - but I do not like
> Python.

But it’s not about you, is it? It’s about the children. It’s about preparing them for the future. It’s about giving them a foundation they can build on and progress with, instead of forever bickering about basic features that other, younger languages have had for decades.

Remember the old Isaac Newton quote: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. Like it or not, many of those giants prefer Python.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51089

lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> > My answer is a lot simpler - I want Forth, and I do not have to justify it.
>
> But you did try to justify it before: "...Forth is the answer. Why?
> Most natural language ..." and so on. Are you backing away from that now?
>
> > If people want Python - there is a lot of support around - but I do not like
> > Python.
>
> But it's not about you, is it? It's about the children. It's about preparing them for
> the future.

Thankfully children will continue to make up their own mind when it comes
to their future :)

> It's about giving them a foundation they can build on and progress with,
> instead of forever bickering about basic features that other, younger languages have
> had for decades.

Forth - as with any language - is a choice between features.  Forth trades
'basic features' for the ability to create your own.  This requires Forth
programmers be self-reliant and to make intelligent decisions.  As c.l.f.
makes plain, this is not always the case hence the demand for standards
and all-too-willing gurus to organize Forth for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51090

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 4:18:57 PM UTC+12, HAA wrote:
>
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> But it's not about you, is it? It's about the children. It's about
>> preparing them for the future.
> 
> Thankfully children will continue to make up their own mind when it comes
> to their future :)

Children have to learn from the adults, don’t they? Who else will set an example for them to follow? They don’t magically become smart in a vacuum.

Gadgets nowadays are becoming increasingly locked down--you can’t just open them up and tinker with them. Instead, you see a bunch of surface-mounted VLSI chips and ROMs with locked bootloaders, digitally-signed firmware and nonsense like that. Even your Microsoft desktop PC OS forces you to agree to an EULA that says “you may not ... reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software, or attempt to do so”. You are supposed to own what you buy, don’t you? Yet nowadays it is full of “KEEP OUT--NO TRESPASSING” signs, and the words underneath say “THIS MEANS YOU, OWNER!”.

This is why Linux and the whole Free Software movement was started--to do away with this nonsense. And it’s why the Raspberry π hardware was created--to give you as far as possible the same tinkerability on the hardware side.

But Free Software/Open Source is very much a collaborative activity. It focuses more on building on the work of others, and less on continually reinventing the wheel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51091

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:09:55 PM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> > My answer is a lot simpler - I want Forth, and I do not have to justify it.
> 
> But you did try to justify it before: “...Forth is the answer. Why?
> Most natural language ...” and so on. Are you backing away from that now?
> 
> > If people want Python - there is a lot of support around - but I do not like
> > Python.
> 
> But it’s not about you, is it? It’s about the children. It’s about preparing them for the future. It’s about giving them a foundation they can build on and progress with, instead of forever bickering about basic features that other, younger languages have had for decades.
> 
> Remember the old Isaac Newton quote: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. Like it or not, many of those giants prefer Python.

Is this your bullshit post number 2, 3, 4, 5 ...
I do what I like and you piss off out of my posts. 
Your posts do not contain any meaningful information - just hot air - what do you contribute: Killing trees so we can read it but definitely nothing that moves the case forward.
And you are completely right for once - The kids will be standing on the shoulders of giants - and I must be one of them as I help them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51074

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:08:56 AM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:38:34 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:49:16 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Still a better choice than Forth <https://www.raspberrypi.org/>.
> > 
> > I do not have a clue why you post this link to RPI.
> > RPI   = HARDWARE
> > FORTH = SOFTWARE ( or including Chuck even HARDWARE )
> 
> This is why, you do not understand that software and hardware have to work together, you cannot consider either one in isolation.
> 
> The Raspberry π is a small, incredibly cheap, yet general-purpose computer, running a fully general-purpose, versatile OS, which can be bought with a child’s saved-up pocket money, yet is quite capable of running much more powerful languages than Forth. Like Python.
> 
> And as the site should make clear, it has a massive amount of community support precisely focused on helping children of all ages get to grips with its power.

Lawrence D’Oliveiro - you are getting worse and insulting. 
I have probably designed Microprocessor systems before you were born.
Microprocessor Workshops across Europe between 1980 and 1984.  
Anybody on here knows probably what an RPI is - please do not insult us - most of us as well know the different versions - and have one
It is completely unclear what you are trying to achieve by answering my posts in that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51092

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:40:12 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:08:56 AM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:38:34 PM UTC+12, JUERGEN wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:49:16 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Still a better choice than Forth <https://www.raspberrypi.org/>.
> > > 
> > > I do not have a clue why you post this link to RPI.
> > > RPI   = HARDWARE
> > > FORTH = SOFTWARE ( or including Chuck even HARDWARE )
> > 
> > This is why, you do not understand that software and hardware have to work together, you cannot consider either one in isolation.
> > 
> > The Raspberry π is a small, incredibly cheap, yet general-purpose computer, running a fully general-purpose, versatile OS, which can be bought with a child’s saved-up pocket money, yet is quite capable of running much more powerful languages than Forth. Like Python.
> > 
> > And as the site should make clear, it has a massive amount of community support precisely focused on helping children of all ages get to grips with its power.
> 
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro - you are getting worse and insulting. 
> I have probably designed Microprocessor systems before you were born.
> Microprocessor Workshops across Europe between 1980 and 1984.  
> Anybody on here knows probably what an RPI is - please do not insult us - most of us as well know the different versions - and have one
> It is completely unclear what you are trying to achieve by answering my posts in that way.

And now it all makes sense - at least for me - these posts have nothing to do with Forth - Python - anything said
These are just Advertising Posts:
Who: Lawrence D’Oliveiro.
What: Programming-gun-for-hire, Linux and MacOS.
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/
HIRE ME - actually I would recommend as of what you posts  BETTER NOT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50985

Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> writes:
> Obviously this would not have to be world-class.  Just something a 10
> and 12 year old might like and perhaps from which they could learn how
> to do some elementary coding.

Get them a copy of Minecraft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50986

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:56:10 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Get them a copy of Minecraft.

But that would mean programming in Java...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50987

On 2016-09-15, lawrencedo99@gmail.com <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:56:10 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Get them a copy of Minecraft.
>
> But that would mean programming in Java...

What's wrong with that?

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50989

lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
> But that would mean programming in Java...

No, not at all.  Minecraft itself is written in Java but the in-game
scripting language is much different and simpler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50990

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:30:53 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
>
>> But that would mean programming in Java...
> 
> No, not at all.  Minecraft itself is written in Java but the in-game
> scripting language is much different and simpler.

But still a dead end as far as learning is concerned.

Better to invest in Python.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50991

On 9/15/2016 12:38 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:30:53 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
>>
>>> But that would mean programming in Java...
>>
>> No, not at all.  Minecraft itself is written in Java but the in-game
>> scripting language is much different and simpler.
>
> But still a dead end as far as learning is concerned.
>
> Better to invest in Python.
>
I agree with Python, it easy to learn, but the child could do useful 
programs with it. And the Raspberries and other small inexpensive CPU 
bards have Python, so he can have his own mini-computer.
-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web