By ooc, do you mean the programming language? [1]
if so, can you share any thoughts on how that affected the development process? Any quirks? Any features that made it much easier?
Thanks!
if so, can you share any thoughts on how that affected the development process? Any quirks? Any features that made it much easier?
Thanks!
Well, it's interesting that ooc returned to its roots, because when I first started working on it, it was for a small simulation game project at university.
I'll try to be as unbiased as can be, though.
Here are the reasons I liked writing it in ooc:
- I find it hard to write bad ooc. The language is smart,
but not too smart, so you can write code that's concise
yet not too confusing.
- Moving up from C, having a single tool manage the build
of your whole project is really cool. I recently added
cross-compilation support, so I produce the Windows, Mac,
Linux 32-bit & 64-bit builds from the same machine.
I have a simple Makefile for tasks like packaging so
releasing a new build is a 'make deploy' away!
- Recent versions of rock have gotten relatively good at
error checking (there's still plenty of room for
improvement), but it's often a lot more helpful than
well, most compilers I've seen. (Clang isn't bad, but
it's C, so it can only help you on a low-signal level).
- Most of the libs I wanted to use (SDL2, SDL2_mixer,
OpenGL 3.x) already had bindings, and for the others
(stb_image, etc.), well, I wrote'em. It's usually a
matter of neatly organizing C functions into an
object-oriented-ish interface.
As for the downsides, well, there are things I know to work around, language features I know I'd better avoid, and the occasional compiler blips. But for a project of that scope, I got away with "using my toy language" relatively scot-free!
I still remember the very harsh comments when I first presented ooc to HN a few years back. Forunately I was in a high at that point so I didn't care. Had I listened to them, I would never have gotten where I am now. So: stay positive, everyone!