I agree with you Jeremy on the last point, if I where to start doing my games in C++ it is most likely I would start creating Blitz3D like "commands" as I needed them.
The reason I have not started doing that yet is because there is no need, everything I want to do with my games I already have Blitz3D commands for.
What Jeremy is saying here is what happens when you want to do something there is no command for in Blitz3D? You're stuck, because Blitz doesnt give you acess to it's C++ core.
That isn't strictly true though, because there are lots of expansions for Blitz3D via .dll's. In many cases the same .dll's you would use in your C++ programs.
Having said that, there aren't any Blitz specific .dll's to add functionality to the 3D core, such as shaders for example. This is a strong argument - if I wanted to write a program now that had shaders I just couldn't try to do it in Blitz.
Thankfully for Blitz shaders are still not commercially viable in an indie project, only 30-40% of the games playing public has a shader 2.0+ card - let alone the non-games types. This will change, but so will Blitz (although not Blitz3D, but for the future we must look to BlitzMax).
The only real limitation of Blitz3D is that it is an end of line product tied to DirectX 7. This isn't really a bad thing in itself, but in the wider scheme of things there is no DirectX 9 BASIC to fill the void, or at least, there isn't one which is widely compatable with end user systems (i'm well aware of *the other BASIC*, but also it's shortcomings).
It's a strong argument, if you want to be writting cutting edge software you cannot really do it in BASIC at the moment. Having said that, to write AAA standard software as a small time indie developer without large art departments and stuff is a bit of a no no anyway.
So for this reason I think Blitz3D is overall a far better choice for the independant programmer. Is it a be all and end all? No it isn't. Is Jeremy wrong to learn C++? No he isn't.
On the other hand, the original purpose of this thread: Are C++ programmers right to look down on the output of BASIC programmers and sneer? No they arn't, they're out right stupid for doing so - but it's their loss.
The reason I have not started doing that yet is because there is no need, everything I want to do with my games I already have Blitz3D commands for.
What Jeremy is saying here is what happens when you want to do something there is no command for in Blitz3D? You're stuck, because Blitz doesnt give you acess to it's C++ core.
That isn't strictly true though, because there are lots of expansions for Blitz3D via .dll's. In many cases the same .dll's you would use in your C++ programs.
Having said that, there aren't any Blitz specific .dll's to add functionality to the 3D core, such as shaders for example. This is a strong argument - if I wanted to write a program now that had shaders I just couldn't try to do it in Blitz.
Thankfully for Blitz shaders are still not commercially viable in an indie project, only 30-40% of the games playing public has a shader 2.0+ card - let alone the non-games types. This will change, but so will Blitz (although not Blitz3D, but for the future we must look to BlitzMax).
The only real limitation of Blitz3D is that it is an end of line product tied to DirectX 7. This isn't really a bad thing in itself, but in the wider scheme of things there is no DirectX 9 BASIC to fill the void, or at least, there isn't one which is widely compatable with end user systems (i'm well aware of *the other BASIC*, but also it's shortcomings).
It's a strong argument, if you want to be writting cutting edge software you cannot really do it in BASIC at the moment. Having said that, to write AAA standard software as a small time indie developer without large art departments and stuff is a bit of a no no anyway.
So for this reason I think Blitz3D is overall a far better choice for the independant programmer. Is it a be all and end all? No it isn't. Is Jeremy wrong to learn C++? No he isn't.
On the other hand, the original purpose of this thread: Are C++ programmers right to look down on the output of BASIC programmers and sneer? No they arn't, they're out right stupid for doing so - but it's their loss.