Cheat Engine Forum Index Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Game Development
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1508

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:01 am    Post subject: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

I'm going to be learning both in college, but I must choose one to focus much more on, when I'm at home and such.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 71

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:04 am    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

konr wrote:
I'm going to be learning both in college, but I must choose one to focus much more on, when I'm at home and such.

In general, it's always smarter to focus on the more recent, stable standard of any language. Despite small initial overheads like AS3 possibly being more verbose for development in some ways, if you are serious about learning and perhaps seriously applying it in the future, you'd go for the later one. Especially considering AS3 has a different set of API, you'd have to think of what everyone else might be using in a few years time too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1508

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:53 am    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Slugsnack wrote:
konr wrote:
I'm going to be learning both in college, but I must choose one to focus much more on, when I'm at home and such.

In general, it's always smarter to focus on the more recent, stable standard of any language. Despite small initial overheads like AS3 possibly being more verbose for development in some ways, if you are serious about learning and perhaps seriously applying it in the future, you'd go for the later one. Especially considering AS3 has a different set of API, you'd have to think of what everyone else might be using in a few years time too.
You bring a fair point to the table. And I'm serious about learning it, because we have to for college anyway and the better I know it, the better I do at college. Also I enjoy it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Burningmace
Grandmaster Cheater
Reputation: 5

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 520
Location: Inside the Intel CET shadow stack

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's better if you stick with AS3, since at some point you're gonna have to move to it later. I found that from learning AS2 first I got into habits that meant I had problems with AS3 later.
_________________
It's not fun unless every exploit mitigation is enabled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cryoma
Member of the Year
Reputation: 198

Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 1819

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AS2 makes a ton more sense, they really should have stuck with OOP.
But yeah, if you want a job these days, you need to be pro at AS3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drkgodz
Flash moderator
Reputation: 2

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 2997
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stone wrote:
AS2 makes a ton more sense, they really should have stuck with OOP.
But yeah, if you want a job these days, you need to be pro at AS3.

You're confused. AS3 is the one that is OOP.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cryoma
Member of the Year
Reputation: 198

Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 1819

PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drkgodz wrote:
Stone wrote:
AS2 makes a ton more sense, they really should have stuck with OOP.
But yeah, if you want a job these days, you need to be pro at AS3.

You're confused. AS3 is the one that is OOP.


In AS3 you can't even place code on objects, hardly object oriented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flyte
Peanuts!!!!
Reputation: 6

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Slugsnack wrote:
In general, it's always smarter to focus on the more recent, stable standard of any language. Despite small initial overheads like AS3 possibly being more verbose for development in some ways, if you are serious about learning and perhaps seriously applying it in the future, you'd go for the later one. Especially considering AS3 has a different set of API, you'd have to think of what everyone else might be using in a few years time too.


It's worth noting that this isn't always the case. For example ANSI C vs C99. While C99 is the most recent standard, a lot of people don't even realize it exists, and Microsoft doesn't support it. ANSI C is the most commonly conformed to C standard, even though C99 is newer (and better).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 71

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857

PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Flyte wrote:
Slugsnack wrote:
In general, it's always smarter to focus on the more recent, stable standard of any language. Despite small initial overheads like AS3 possibly being more verbose for development in some ways, if you are serious about learning and perhaps seriously applying it in the future, you'd go for the later one. Especially considering AS3 has a different set of API, you'd have to think of what everyone else might be using in a few years time too.


It's worth noting that this isn't always the case. For example ANSI C vs C99. While C99 is the most recent standard, a lot of people don't even realize it exists, and Microsoft doesn't support it. ANSI C is the most commonly conformed to C standard, even though C99 is newer (and better).

So are you suggesting people learn ANSI C instead of C99 or C++0x ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flyte
Peanuts!!!!
Reputation: 6

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Slugsnack wrote:
So are you suggesting people learn ANSI C instead of C99 or C++0x ?


It really depends on what you want to accomplish, as programming languages are just tools. You need to pick the right tool for the job. For example you could put a screw in with a hammer (just like you could write a AAA game engine in x86 ASM), but I wouldn't recommend it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 71

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857

PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:34 am    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Flyte wrote:
Slugsnack wrote:
So are you suggesting people learn ANSI C instead of C99 or C++0x ?


It really depends on what you want to accomplish, as programming languages are just tools. You need to pick the right tool for the job. For example you could put a screw in with a hammer (just like you could write a AAA game engine in x86 ASM), but I wouldn't recommend it.

So in what circumstance would one want to learn C89 or C90 instead of C99 ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flyte
Peanuts!!!!
Reputation: 6

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Actionscript 2.0 or Actionscript 3.0? Reply with quote

Slugsnack wrote:
So in what circumstance would one want to learn C89 or C90 instead of C99 ?


Almost every circumstance. C is really only used (in the commercial sense) in this day and age for microprocessors and drivers; both areas don't touch C99. C99 isn't even useful as a stepping stone to C++ in some regards, as it isn't backwards compatible (i.e. - C99 has variable length arrays).

Where would you use it? Nothing wrong with using it for a personal project or something.

It's unfortunate that it never really took off, as stuff like variable length arrays and being able to declare variables outside the start of a function are quite handy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slugsnack
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 71

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1857

PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You brought up the valid point that VC++ does not fully support C99. In fact, even the 2010 version does not fully support it ( apparently efforts were made to add features from C++0x rather than C99 ). However in the particular case you brought up, it could be argued learning C99 is more than useful. Although some features are not supported ( yes, variable length arrays, for example ), Microsoft did make efforts to support a lot of the other features. For the most part, C99 is backwards compatible with C90.

IMO, in the case you discuss, there are little drawbacks of learning the more recent standard if your only argument is a few of the features are not supported. I would personally rather learn the new standard, but be aware of which features are not supported with the compiler you use.

Especially if you are a serious developer, you may well be using other compilers at some point like GCC, Open Watcom C, etc. which do have extensive support for C99. It does not seem smart to shoot oneself in the foot by restricting your skillset and knowledge for the sake of a single compiler.

If I were to advise someone beginning C, I would certainly not tell them to learn an older standard for any of the reasons you've stated above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flyte
Peanuts!!!!
Reputation: 6

Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slugsnack wrote:
For the most part, C99 is backwards compatible with C90.


While this is true, it is worth noting that int is no longer the implicit type for variables. This ends up breaking (poor) code, and as a C programmer most of your time is going to be spent maintaining and extending old code (most likely not written by you).

Slugsnack wrote:
IMO, in the case you discuss, there are little drawbacks of learning the more recent standard if your only argument is a few of the features are not supported. I would personally rather learn the new standard, but be aware of which features are not supported with the compiler you use.


I agree with this, however in our case we both know C. Expanding our skill set to include C99 can't hurt as we know the difference. This isn't the case for people who are starting out.

Slugsnack wrote:
Especially if you are a serious developer, you may well be using other compilers at some point like GCC, Open Watcom C, etc. which do have extensive support for C99. It does not seem smart to shoot oneself in the foot by restricting your skillset and knowledge for the sake of a single compiler.


If you are a serious developer, and your current job involves you programming in C, it will most likely be maintaining old code not starting a new project from scratch. This limits what compiler you will use.

Again I stress the fact that you will be probably be using C for either:
  • Micro-controllers, which generally have additional keywords and some obscure syntax depending on the chip, which no standard will help with.
  • Drivers/os related stuff, which is generally maintaining old code, and it is bound to whatever compiler the company favors.


Slugsnack wrote:
If I were to advise someone beginning C, I would certainly not tell them to learn an older standard for any of the reasons you've stated above.


It may be the older standard, but it is the most popular standard, which is very important. I'm not saying to disregard C99 all together, I just believe it to be better to stick to what is commercially successful before branching out into language features that are rarely used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Game Development All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

CE Wiki   IRC (#CEF)   Twitter
Third party websites