I''m 13 and I''m currently learning C++ (started pretty recently). As for the creative side, I already know photoshop VERY well, and flash a bit

I''m 13 as well, am learning C++, and have 3D Modeling and Animation down pretty well. I''m learning all the stuff the web provides before I buy a book, (I use all my money for Swing dancing workshops and dances.) An my parents almost shun my interest in the cyber world.

/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/\-/-\
Hurry! We must stop the forces of evil!

WHAT FORCES OF EVIL?

"It is a very high level programming language. Don''t comment on software you have not used please."

It''s such a high level that you lose any hope of actually learning even the basic concepts of programming. Nothing you learn using "Klick N Play" will help you later on. It''s not worth paying money for. QB is a high level language but not to the point where what you learn using it is worthless when you try to learn a new language.

I''ve yet to find anything I''ve done in QB that couldn''t be applied to every other language I''ve used which is reaching the dozen point now.

C++ is a three course meal of programming. QB is the bread and water of programming. Klik N Play is a twinkie.

Flash might be nice but it''s expensive. Same with Macromedia. I think the biggest hurdle to learning to program is thinking graphics matter. Just because your game looks cheap doesn''t mean it doesn''t have a high educational value which is what''s really important especially when just starting off.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

Most people generally agree that Java is easier to use than C++. Yes, Java is not the best environment to make games in, but it''s as good as Quick Basic is, and there are benefits to Quick Basic, but I wouldn''t suggest starting with it (not because of difficulty of course, but because of usefulness.) Also, there are two agruments here, I''m saying start with Java (or some kind of OO language) because it teaches you object oriented programming. Delphi would also probably be pretty good for this (I''m just recommending Java over Delphi because Java is more widely used.) I don''t want to get into a debate about the usefulness of OO coding, but starting with some kind of OO language will definitely make it easier for you to move into C++. Btw, any language that only builds DOS applications is at least "a little dated" simply because DOS itself is dated (feel free to flame me if there is a QB compiler that can build native windows apps.)

I had no problems moving to C++ from QuickBASIC. You don't need OO experience to use C++ effectivly. It's better to start with structured coding before going into the added complexity of OO coding.

C++ and Java just add way too much work to start off with that you don't need. They're burdens to learning. There are too many prerequisits to those languages that you have to know before you can even begin to do anything.

It doesn't matter that QB isn't Windows and is very old. It's just as great a tool for learning to program now as it was when I started.

Windows programming is not the place to start learning. You have to learn the basics first and the ideal language for doing that is QuickBASIC.

"any language that only builds DOS applications..."

You learn programming by building DOS applications anyway. Whether he uses QuickBASIC or C++ his programs are going to be DOS to begin with except C++ is going to force him to use typewriter text (which is useless if he wants to make games) unless he adds in Win32 which is an unncessary burden at the beginning.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

[edited by - KalvinB on August 20, 2002 2:41:32 AM]

Hey,

I just started a few courses at "gaminstitute.com". I took OpenGL/Direct3D and refreshening courses on C++/Game Maths. I found that the c++ course was very good, not only for an experienced programmer who just never got to gfx in C++, but also for a beginner. In 6 weeks time, he'll learn about the basics but in the end he'll touch a little bit (nothing spectacular, probably just a teaser) of Direct3D and DirectInput. This was really great about the course, in comparaison to what I've seen in other c++ courses... In the end you can really do something. Plus he gets tutoring if he wants, with 2 chat session with the teacher each week.

If you decide you'll teach him c++, then I suggest you learn him a bit of programming basics (what is a variable, a function,...) and then just send him to that course... it's a good start. (BTW: he won't be a mastermind programmer then, he'll have to find his way from there on, just as we all did)

just my 2 cents....

[edited by - jkeppens on August 20, 2002 2:43:08 AM]

quote: Original post by KalvinB
HTML and Java-Script are worthless for learning programming as they''re for the web and have very little to offer.

HTML is static so not much programming there, however, java-script has for loops, while loops, arrays and string objects so there''s plenty of programming there. And like java, the syntax is much closer to C/C++, if that''s the direction of interest. Further there''s nothing to down load to get started - notepad and a browser - and really a browser isn''t needed either - Windows Script Host recognizes JScript - take a look at any folder.htt file. All that said it''s still a script and it is dependent on html and there are better languages for a beginner.

QuickBASIC is fine - but does it still come with the OS? Why not use Windows Scripting Language or DOS batch files?

"QuickBASIC is fine - but does it still come with the OS? Why not use Windows Scripting Language or DOS batch files?"

You''ve never actually used QuickBASIC have you? It''s incredibly more powerful than batch files and WSL yet simpler to use. No, it doesn''t come with the OS, but as I posted earlier, you can download it for free. I''ve seen DooM clones written in QB. It''s an incredibly powerful language yet simple to learn.

"java-script has for loops, while loops, arrays and string objects so there''s plenty of programming there."

That''s all well and good except you can''t do much with them. You''re coding for a typewriter with those languages. Top to bottom only which cramps any sort of creativity you would like to express. QB can do all of that and more in an easier to learn fashion and doesn''t force you into typewriter mode when displaying graphics and text.

Java-script is worthless for learning how to program games which is this kid''s goal. As are batch files which makes it incredibly odd that you would even consider suggesting them.

Are you trying to be helpful or just trying to argue?

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

And the debate rages on.....

From all the previous posts, the three biggest suggestions are QuickBASIC, C++, and Java.

If you go with QuickBASIC, it is easier for most beginners at a young age to ease into. Also it allows for quick visual results, as getting graphics on the screen is easier.

Both C++ and Java have a lot larger learing curve. And if you want visual results in the form of graphics, it takes a bit more work. However, if your son has patience and can live with text for a little while, then I think one of these would be a better start.

Anyway, if you want to see a few books before making your decision, there is a site you can go to that offers a large number of free online books, such as, "Teach Yourself C++ in 21 days", "Teach Yourself Java in 21 days", etc... To check it out, follow this link.

---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

"I’m happy to share what I can, because I’m in it for the love of programming. The Ferraris are just gravy, honest!" --John Carmack: Forward to Graphics Programming Black Book

[edited by - CaptainJester on August 20, 2002 8:27:32 AM]

I would reccomend that any child be taught pseudo code first, so they can learn the concepts instead of the syntax =-) Once you understand how programming works, it takes no time at all to learn a normal programming language, since all you have to learn to is the syntax. If you already know how all the different types of constructs work (variables, conditionals, loops, branches, etc) it doesnt take much work to put what you are thinking into code as long as you have something specific in mind.

After pseudocode, I would recomend some form of basic (something simple like qbasic/quickbasic, not visual basic), and then after a while in there(make sure he tries some stuff that is too slow in basic, so he learns to optimize=-), then move on to C++ or VB.Net or something simmilar. After a while in that, I would recomend he learn assembly language. Most people dismiss it as "too hard" but its really quite simple and programming in it teaches one a lot (or at least I learned a lot from it). He will probablly end up programming in C++ or VB.Net or whatever language he learned before assembler, but its still good to have spent some time programming in it.