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!
>
>