GM's Data Structures

[RetroX]

I'm writing a Qt project right now, and I assure you that C++ data structures are WAY more difficult to learn and use than the GM's counterpart.

Um.

I literally see no difference.  Instead of:

Code: [Select]

var l = list_create();
list_add(l, 1);you have:

Code: [Select]

vector<variant> l;
l.add(1);Which is a whole lot easier to understand, in my opinion.  The only difference is an OO API versus a functional API, and an OO API makes a whole lot more sense in this instance.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

Actually, you don't need the <variant>. You can use vector, vector<>, or vector<variant>; they're all the same.

But I can see how functions, technically using no types, could be easier for the GM crowd to understand. Even if they're far too verbose for the rest of us.

I will keep that in mind, though, plague.

[The 11th plague of Egypt]

I'm just saying I can handle both GML and C++ synthax, but a mix of the two could be tricky and counter-intuitive if rushed through.

Thank you for caring.

[RetroX]

But I can see how functions, technically using no types, could be easier for the GM crowd to understand. Even if they're far too verbose for the rest of us.

In all honesty, I think that they're easier for the advanced GM users, who know how to use them well, but not as much for the newer users that haven't used data structures before.  Either way, I suppose that it's good to have a functional API as well as an OO one.

[Rusky]

It's really not very functional when you update the data structures in-place. I'd call it procedural.