Re: NQC programming guide
linmix <[email protected]> Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:13:27 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.hardware.lego.robotics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thanks for the link. As for which programming language to learn, I'm sure C (or C related) is a perfect choice. For one, as you say NQC is C based. Secondly, learning C should give me a better insight in some of the things that happen in my Linux machine. Java sounds interesting because it is used for quite a few cross platform applications and because of lejos, but let's take this a step at a time. Once I know my way around NQC I can always decide to learn something else. linmix Jordan Bradford wrote: > I think you need to learn to program in text-based languages in general, first. > Since NQC stands for "Not Quite C," you should learn the basics of programming > in C or C++. > > http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/ > > I'm sure someone will come in here and decry that approach and tell you to start > with a newer language such as Java, but I disagree. C is a procedural language, > and so is NQC. Java is an object-oriented language, a programming concept that > takes procedural programming a step farther but will require an additional > learning curve. C++ can do it both ways. > > But more importantly, NQC is a limited subset of C and C++, so it really makes > sense to learn to program in those languages anyway. > > By the way, if you just want to learn enough to get by in NQC, you can skip > everything from "pointers" onward in that C++ tutorial. If you find yourself > "getting it" and things are "clicking" for you, then by all means continue your > education in those advanced concepts. > > Caveat: I learned BASIC in elementary school, promptly forgot most of what I > learned, and then tried teaching myself C++ in junior high. That was a failure. > Later as a college freshman I re-learned programming in a formal computer > science setting, and that was much more helpful to me. What I'm saying is that > when I was starting out, having someone teaching me to program produced better > results than when I tried learning the basics on my own. Now I'm at a point > where self-education is equally useful, but each person is different, so good > luck! > >