Sheesh that was a joke. I Still think there should be a <sarcasm> tag that informs the readers of what is a joke and what isn't.
There is. It works like this:
<sarcasm>OMG, the sky is blue!</sarcasm>
=P
Vito Stolidus wrote:
There is. It works like this: <sarcasm>OMG, the sky is blue!</sarcasm> =P | |
Lummox JR wrote:
It only takes intermediate skill to make a good RPG, so if you were intermediate, those skills would be there. Patience is another story; that's one of the main things that's held me back from making one. I'm a newbie and I'm making an RPG. =D I'm going to make it with all aspects of the code by me. I'm even trying to make a very slimmed-down version of SwapMaps that would really only work with constant proportions of the map because that's really all I'd need. I'm stuck on the battle system and housing system though. I'm not sure how I should do it. But, housing can become a problem with the new client-side saving. Well, anyway, I don't even think you have to be intermediate to create an RPG. Depending on what aspects you plan on putting in, you might need to be intermediate, but not even then. Their are a lot of demos and libraries for this stuff. You just need a mild understanding of some DM and the DM Reference, Guide, and these forums of course. | |
It makes you a sad little man...
But really, just don't label yourself, let others do it for you. I don't know what "level" of programming I am at. I know that I know more than most people on BYOND(I am talking in general, not just the forum community), but that doesn't mean much. I leave it at that. I tell you what, I will label myself, I am "The Duke of Programming". There is a skill independent label. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
There needs to be some sort of test to define if a programmer in DM code is intermediate, beginner, or pro. I responded to this, but noticing that my post was off-topic in relation to your original question, chose to put the response in my blog instead (http://members.byond.com/?command=view_post&post=10501). Please write any responses to it there, not here. =P | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
<sarcasm>Wow, I guess there is one!</sarcasm> If you think of a better one, let me know. =) | |
The Naked Ninja wrote:
Now would that be intermediate, above average, I mean I've solved alot of people's questions... but at the same time I've asked my share of questions. I would say that that puts you below "intermediate," if it were such an existing label(Wizkidd0123 argues against such labels, and I agree with him). I only learn what I need to to make something work... If such a label were to exist, I'd think that an "intermediate" programmer would be one that needn't learn much, if anything, to make anything work. Maybe a formula, or some new structure, but nothing in particular about the language. Then, advancing from such a position in skill would likely entail being able to apply any concept you could imagine(such a concept must be language-applicable, of course), and setting it up in the most efficient way. Hiead | |
OneFishDown wrote:
if you think you're a pro, you're probably Fixed. Hiead | |
Well the way it works now is that I can make anything I'd need to into a game without any research. But the thing is, I'm not sure how far the programming language extends past what I know, because I have had no need to learn anything more than to make a game with some fun features.
I can go from the ground up and do savefiles, chains (for game play), very decent AI... I mean I could have an idea for a game and have it created with very little aid in the form of extending my knowledge. I'm just not sure what I'm classified as when it comes to labeling, as I stated I've only learned what I needed to create a game (including all possible features I'd need) and pretty efficiently. | |
The Naked Ninja wrote:
because I have had no need to learn anything more than to make a game with some fun features. when you're thinking of what to make, you're probably thinking in terms of what you're able to make. most people wouldn't consider making something that they aren't capable of making. not so coincidentally, most games end up being very simple. still fun, but simple. | |
Yeah - but then a lot of people I see on BYOND don't have the knowledge anywhere close my mine, but then I know of quite a few "pros" out there including yourself who still make me look bad (I mean hell, I'm a writer who's taught himself everything he knows about code). So by that analysis I consider myself intermediate, and by this I don't mean programming in general, just my ability to adapt to DM. Which is why I need a test...to confirm my suspicions. If I can handle associative lists, and some bitwise operations, that's intermediate at least, but the stuff that comes out for 4k challenges makes my stomach churn just looking at it.
| |
Rockinawsome wrote:
I need a test...to confirm my suspicions. Why do you need a test? Any such test would be faulty anyway because there is no clearly-defined line between "beginner," "intermediate," and "advanced." Don't worry so much about it. =P | |
Artemio wrote:
If used right, <i> is a decent indicator of sarcasm. Uh, maybe in the 90s. It's all about <em> today, yo. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
So by that analysis I consider myself intermediate, and by this I don't mean programming in general, just my ability to adapt to DM. A flawed idea. Your ability to adapt to each new problem/situation is your skill as a programmer. Since most languages share similar consistencies, being able to apply concepts in one language generally means being able to do so in other languages(after learning the syntax, mind you). Hiead | |
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
Rockinawsome wrote: its not that a test would tell you exactly how you rank. but, if you're able to do some particular things, you're not a total noob. if you're able to do some more things, you're up a little higher. if you find a lot of things that you can't do, then you might not be as high up as you thought. however, when you're teaching yourself there's the illusion that you know more than you do because you don't know all the things there are that you can't do. you're more likely to only be aware of the things that you know how to do, so it seems like you know a lot but there's still a lot out there left to discover. so, a self-appraisal doesn't always work, and for the same reason the opinions of others can't be relied upon. this test idea that people mention doesn't have to be a rigid scoring system like you'd find on a test in school, but just a checklist so you can see what you can and can't do, and give you some idea of what you might want to look into to improve. | |
I don't believe in the "uber programming god" - you will always make stupid mistakes. The only difference between an "expert" and a "beginner" in making stupid mistakes is frequency of mistakes and ability to locate these errors. (There are other differences too, I'm just focusing on stupid mistakes.)
Why do people always take jokes seriously? The "uber programming god" comment and the "requirements to be an uber programming god" comment were both jokes. (Yes, you may laugh now if you think it was funny. (no? Oh, well.))
--Vito