Bregalad wrote:
True, but in French we use the same word for both of them.
Here in Brazil most people use the word "assembler" to talk about the language, and that annoys me. Very few people I know/knew have used the correct terms.
Quote:
And once you've learned (and mastered) a programming language it is very easy to learn another one.
That is true. Although switching from high-level to assembly is a bit frustrating at first, if you know nothing about computer architecture. But in the case of the NES or the 2600, for example, even if you use some sort of high-level language, you have to be aware of some lower-level details. You can't really abstract everything.
Quote:
However, conventionnal assembly techniques aren't hard to learn, and you'll end up loving find those little tricks that makes your code more efficient that are unique to assembly language
I agree.
tepples wrote:
Not everyone wants to make Recca. Some people just want to make I Can Remember.
Sure, sure... I was just pointing out the limitations, that's all.
Quote:
Unless your code to blast a transfer buffer to VRAM is in a library written in assembly language and the rest is in BASIC.
Yes... In the case of batari Basic, because of how complex it is to output graphics with the 2600, they even coded a full graphics kernel that works for a few different types of games, so that the programmer doesn't need to worry about updating the screen, he just has to set up all the data necessary for this. That should be easy enough foe beginners.
Quote:
And Family BASIC.
How powerful is Family BASIC? Is it really possible to program a game with it? And I don't mean text games... I'm talking about games that are graphically nice, even if they are not very fast. And in order to make a standalone ROM, would you have to rip the interpreter and pack it along with your game?