|
|
Post by Tinnus on Feb 26, 2008 1:35:49 GMT 1
I was just saying LJP used the functions he was describing, so he could have an usage example  There's always the official Palm SDK docs too. |
|
|
|
Post by samphex on Feb 26, 2008 1:49:31 GMT 1
Haha, this has been an amusing thread: icefire: I'm thinking of ripping the launcher out of LJP to use in LJX! tinnus: Ack! No, the code's horrible, start from scratch! icefire: Hmmm...gotta figure out how to do this and that and this.... tinnus: Just rip the code out of LJP! Hehe...I know that's not exactly what you guys meant or said, but it made me chuckle from my point of view. I thought the exact same thing. haha. |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 26, 2008 3:12:06 GMT 1
Yeah it has been kinda funny :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 27, 2008 23:06:44 GMT 1
I got SOMETHING to compile, will run on palm and show you a list that says "empty" and then random stuff that is symbols (like card. parentheses, etc.) for as many card files in the ljx dir as there are. So at least that works :-) BTW, the code is ripped from MyUAE (just because)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinnus on Feb 27, 2008 23:14:24 GMT 1
So what are you trying to do? |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 28, 2008 0:07:46 GMT 1
Make a LJX launcher :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinnus on Feb 28, 2008 0:59:59 GMT 1
To be honest, I have an UI done for the LJX launcher in Palm, but not a generic cool-looking one, which is where I wanted people to go creative... But I might end up using yours if it looks/works better than what I have now, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by vilmos on Feb 28, 2008 4:27:32 GMT 1
Well the idea is that it is modular right, so there could be a dozen front ends for LJX depending on what you are interested in.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 28, 2008 5:38:01 GMT 1
Just to get into palm programming...and to learn C :-) Probably not a great way to start, but so what... |
|
|
|
Post by vilmos on Feb 28, 2008 17:56:25 GMT 1
Whatever gets you interested in coding is the best way to start. There is no perfect starter language or project despite all the arguments about it. So whatever will get you to code is the right thing to work on.  |
|
|
|
Post by countbuggula on Feb 28, 2008 18:43:35 GMT 1
There are some that are worse than others though. Java for instance has never impressed me...which sucks because it's the only language they use for programming at my place of employment.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilmos on Feb 28, 2008 19:04:31 GMT 1
You missed the point. Any language will do, it just has to be what interests you. Since it does not interest you, it won't be an easy language to learn for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by _Em on Feb 28, 2008 19:14:45 GMT 1
That's fine as far as motivation goes, but there are some languages that are better teaching languages than others -- some languages are so informal that you can end up churning out really bad quality code, making mistakes that the teaching languages would never let you make in the first place.
This goes for learning any discipline -- there are many ways to do things, but there are certain methods that have been fine tuned over time by the sweat of those who came before you. You can choose to re-learn it all the hard way, but that adds an extra burden of time and effort to the learning process... as well as having to unlearn bad habits later on when you discover how bad they really are. Sometimes the un-learning curve is too steep, and you end up "making do" for the rest of your life, continually handicapped by doing things in a more difficult way because that's the way you view the universe and you can't change for one reason or another.
I generally recommend starting with a strongly typed language with no hardware interface. Then once you become proficient with that language, learn some ASM, either for a virtual machine or x86 or whatever -- just so that you get to work at the machine level. After that, learn C so you can see how it all fits together.
Pointers and memory management make much more sense once you've written some machine code, and they're much easier to deal with if your code constructs are uniform and predictable -- you can focus on the harder stuff and not worry about learning big-O for various looping methods etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilmos on Feb 28, 2008 19:58:10 GMT 1
I disagree entirely because in this case we are talking about programming as a hobby for fun. The key is to be interested and finish a project. If you want to go to school and learn to do things the "right" way then fine, but that is a different motivation. Advising someone to learn ASM before C is the strangest thing I've ever heard.  |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 29, 2008 3:23:53 GMT 1
I agree (with Vilmos) I actually know PHP, JavaScript, and some BASIC (I don't like it...). I just want to learn C. _Em is right though that the memory management is the most confusing part, but i am starting to get it. However, my launcher displays the list of files, but when i tap them, and it updates the list, they change to gibberish...
BTW, does anyone know where the code of menu_inform(); is? I want to use it :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by samphex on Feb 29, 2008 3:33:15 GMT 1
If only they made an ultimate language to cover it all....(I know some java, basic, the turtle language thingy, and some lego mindstorms coding)
edit:and a bit of html
|
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Feb 29, 2008 6:28:58 GMT 1
Turtle language?
|
|
|
|
Post by _Em on Feb 29, 2008 7:32:43 GMT 1
logo, pascal, and a number of other languages make use of "turtle graphics" which involve picking a starting point and telling the "turtle" where to move to draw the lines on the screen. Think of it as simplified vector graphics. By the way... the one language to cover it all is called LISP  Either that or ASM, depending on what you consider "all" to be. After all, C is really just a bunch of macros sitting on top of an ASM compiler. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinnus on Feb 29, 2008 14:31:30 GMT 1
I believe C is a "little" more than that Assembly doesn't have structured commands like functions, loops, etc. Only branches. And it's completely linear, while high-level languages like C, Java, BASIC, Python and such have nested blocks. OK, you can do that just as well in assembly, but... you get the idea. You might get a little into compiler theory to see it's not "just a bunch of macros" |
|
|
|
Post by countbuggula on Feb 29, 2008 17:31:17 GMT 1
I wasn't a CompSci major, and the only programming class available to the rest of us was Visual Basic. So that's what I know (and not much of it). That and BASIC, some javascript, um...HTML...
But hey, it's come in handy when doing Excel Macros!
|
|
|
|
Post by _Em on Feb 29, 2008 17:35:59 GMT 1
Well, I was looking at it on a more abstract layer -- c gets parsed, optimized and then downconverted to machine code. Java, Python, Perl, LISP and some BASIC implementations even go one step further and run a virtual machine on top of everything (which is why I wouldn't call them macro languages, as they actually do a lot more under the hood).
ANSI C, however, is just a human readable language that eventually compiles right down to the machine level (although it makes heavy use of structured libraries). Sure, we're talking complex macros, but other than compilers that do some extra hardware-specific operations on the source and/or object code, it would be possible to build a set of macros in ASM that would take a C construct and convert it into machine code.
C doesn't make use of garbage collection, hardware abstraction (except in libraries), recursion optimization etc. -- that is all left to the individual compiler implementation or isn't done at all. I wouldn't call MPC or GCC "just a bunch of macros", but the conversion they do can certainly be described in that way. That's why, the higher-level a language you use, the more you have to understand the compiler if you're worried about big-O efficiency. All those structured commands are expanded by the compiler and then broken down into branches. Eventually, everything is machine code.
|
|
|
|
Post by samphex on Mar 1, 2008 15:29:30 GMT 1
Well, I was looking at it on a more abstract layer -- c gets parsed, optimized and then downconverted to machine code. Java, Python, Perl, LISP and some BASIC implementations even go one step further and run a virtual machine on top of everything--- Which explains why BASIC is so slow sometimes. . . ;D It is? Its pretty fast for me(at least on my ti84+SE) |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Mar 1, 2008 16:22:46 GMT 1
LJX launcher is almost done, but i need an ini parser. Do you have one tinnus?
|
|
|
|
Post by samphex on Mar 1, 2008 17:52:58 GMT 1
LJX launcher is almost done, but i need an ini parser. Do you have one tinnus? are u doing it with the pic u showed a while back? |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Mar 1, 2008 18:30:32 GMT 1
No just like a simple form. This is my first time programming in C and for palm so it won't be amazing. But it will work (I hope  |
|
|
|
Post by Tinnus on Mar 1, 2008 22:34:13 GMT 1
Do it in PODS+gcc and stuff since that's free  You might look for libiniparser, that's what I use in LJX. Link: ndevilla.free.fr/iniparser/ |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Mar 2, 2008 0:03:04 GMT 1
How did you get it to actually load the files? Mine complains about the standard C file functions not working... or should i replace them with VFSFileOpen(); and such?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinnus on Mar 2, 2008 4:32:11 GMT 1
I used it in ARM, with a special implementation of libc. EIther you convert that to use the Palm functions, or implement the standard ones using them--if you get the code from that SourceForge SDL port someone posted here some time ago, it comes with a libc implementation, with source code, that cals VFS stuff to work. You may just get the f* functions and use them |
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Mar 2, 2008 20:41:59 GMT 1
Maybe ill try later today. But i think ill do categories first (i have an idea...)
|
|
|
|
Post by icefire on Mar 3, 2008 3:08:36 GMT 1
![]() Screenshot of the form rescource. categories ALMOST work (and are stable!) |
|
