My thoughts on C#

[Mycroft Holmes]

Brian_TheLion wrote:

Will be pulled apart and put to geather so that it works under the more modern C# structure

It feels like your thinking is incorrect, don't consider pulling the old code apart and restructuring it. Only inspect the code to help you define the functionality of the application NOT how it should be put together. Seriously do not try and apply basic methodology and structures to c#, everything is now an object with properties and methods. Define your objects...

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP

[Brian_TheLion]

Hi Luc. One thing I did learn from reading your text and texts from some others is that the name of a class needs a noun word. I had thought that you could call the class any name. Strangely that is not taught in the books I have been reading (or I missed it). Thanks for your information, it was not a wasted effect. Brian

[Brian_TheLion]

Thanks phil for the example code, I'll study it. I find code examples useful in learning how C# works and can be applied to my own code. Brian

[Brian_TheLion]

Hi Dave. I have learn from yourself and from a few replies that the name of a class should be a noun. That presents a another problem is how do I get a message back to the player from the inventory class such as a condition where it was not possible pick up an item. I'd have a rich text message box on the form attached to a string called messages and hopefully there is a way to check for changes in the string so all I need to do is to change the text in the message string which would cause the rich text box to display the string as the string has changed. I'll study the OnPropertyChanged() command. Brian

[Brian_TheLion]

Hi Mycroft. I may have not used the best term when I said "pulled apart" I was meaning studying the original code to see how it worked to get ideas on how the adventure should work for the new code. Having used programs like Quick Basic over the years makes it more difficult to break free from the procedure programming method, but I don't give up that easierly. Brian

[Dave Kreskowiak]

The Inventory class isn't responsible for communicating with the user at all, nor is it responsible for picking up items. The Inventory class just manages what is already in inventory, adding items to it, and removing items from it. Nothing else. Think of as a bag of items. Can a bag pickup items from the room? No. The Player has to pickup the items and place them in the bag. Forget OnPropertyChanged until you learn the basics of OOP. It's not going to help you.

Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak

[Brian_TheLion]

In that case it looks like I need a Player class Dave. Brian

[Brian_TheLion]

Thanks jschell. Having an text adventure game waiting to be written does give me something to aim for. Some books and tutorials give you examples on how each of the C# commands can be used but it's when you bring everything together in a project then I find that you learn more. Step-by-step guilds in building a program are useful and I did one of those recently. Brian

[BillWoodruff]

Brian_TheLion wrote:

I have not completely given up on C#

You cannot "give up" on something you have not invested hard work in, something you have spent more time writing questions about than you have spent studying it.

«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot

[Lost User]

A static class is a very different animal.

[Lost User]

Brian_TheLion wrote:

I'm looking for is a way to use this programming language that suits my needs.

It will. C# is a rich language that can handle just about any problem you can think of. But, as I and others keep saying, you need to learn and understand the language, and its rules, first.

Brian_TheLion wrote:

I'm still trying to find a way of one class changing the variables in another class if that's possible.

That is what Properties and Methods are there for.

[F ES Sitecore]

#realJSOP wrote:

I don't understand (and have never seen) a global static class present problems

You've lived a very sheltered life :)

[F ES Sitecore]

I've knocked up this basic template to give you an idea what people are talking about. There is a "global" object you need to track like the player and also the current location, so you can either create these as an instance of a variable and keep a hold of them, passing them to functions\events as needed, or you could create a "static" class that will hold a reference to your player object and current location object. As I said, it's the basics, you'd need to tweak for things like containers as game objects also so you could pick up a bag, or put a small bag inside a big bag etc.

public class GameObject
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Weight { get; set; }
}

public abstract class Container
{
public int MaxWeight { get; set; }
public int MaxItems { get; set; }

public List Objects { get; private set; }

public Container() : this(0, 0)
{

}

public Container(int maxWeight, int maxItems)
{
    this.Objects = new List();
    this.MaxItems = maxItems;
    this.MaxWeight = maxWeight;
}

public GameObject Find(string name)
{
    return this.Objects.FirstOrDefault(o => o.Name.Equals(name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase));
}

public bool CanContain(GameObject gameObject)
{
    // if max items is set make sure we have room
    if (this.MaxItems > 0 && Objects.Count >= this.MaxItems)
    {
        return false;
    }

    // if max weight is set make sure we have capacity
    if (this.MaxWeight > 0 && Objects.Sum(o => o.Weight) + gameObject.Weight > this.MaxWeight)
    {
        return false;
    }

    return true;
}

}

public class Player : Container
{
public bool Get(Container container, string name)
{
// rather than returning true\false you can return an enum that is specific to
// why the get failed
GameObject targetObject = container.Find(name);

    if (targetObject == null)
    {
        return false;
    }

    if (!this.CanContain(targetObject))
    {
        return false;
    }

    container.Objects.Remove(targetObject);
    this.Objects.Add(targetObject);

    return true;
}

}

public class Room : Container
{
public string Name { get; set; }

public Dictionary Exits { get; set; }

public Room()
{
    this.Exits = new Dictionary

[realJSOP]

Or just maybe, I've never abused the construct. :) In all actuality, I was annoyed with the lack of support for global vars when I moved from C++ to .Net, but I adapted.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

[realJSOP]

I came from C++ to .Net, and I disagree. When used appropriately, global vars are a viable - and even necessary - part of C++.Simply replace the global vars with a static class that contains the vars, and you're off an running. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing, and will continue to use my static globals class for this kind of stuff...

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

[Dave Kreskowiak]

Is it weird that I rarely use global variables? I've used static classes with constants defined for "magic values" and objects that are required throughout the code, like a logger, but true global variables, not really.

Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak

[Dave Kreskowiak]

You're catching on.

Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak

[Dave Kreskowiak]

I've seen too many cases where other people have abused it, and it makes for some really nasty code. The better (not good, just better!) code ends up being more about convenience than it does about expressing a cohesive purpose. The worse stuff just screams "I can't figure out another way to do this." Compound that many times over the span of the entire app and the lack of comments or any documentation and, yeah, it gets ugly.

Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak

[Brian_TheLion]

Thanks for your support realUSOP. Brian

[Brian_TheLion]

Thanks very much F-ES Sitecore for taking the time to write the code. It will be very useful and I'll learn more by studying your code. Brian