InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : House Escape -- an old-style Adventure Game? |
|
Answer» Hello, with more to come as I add more functions, fix problems I know exist, and do a final code check before I let the compiler spew errors at me. Waiting until the end for a compile can be overwhelming and very disheartening. If you write your program modularly, I suggest you compile after each function is complete and fix the errors as you go. One advantage is you can concentrate on the logic more and not the syntax so much. Just a thought. 8-) Trouble is, the only code I'm actually concerned about is the code that links up with other classes and their member functions. I'd have to make a mock class system just like the one I'm making, and that would be equally time-consuming. In a normal program I couldn't agree more. But a game, the way I have it, won't work with that very well. I wish it did. Oh well, good to know for next time. OK the impression I get is that you're writing code but have yet to test if it works? Please tell me that is not true... Also that seems like a very large amount of functions. I don't want to rain on your parade (I've never used that phrase before) but I have a feeling your code is too specific and not very modular Ask yourself this question: after completion, how easy would it be to add a new possible command, or a new room? If it would take hours of function writing and modification..... well at least you have learnt for next time I look forward to seeing your code!It is true, I'm afraid. As for adding new commands, or a new room, that would be easy enough. In fact, that's next on the agenda; a couple of new commands that hopefully add a little to the game. However, adding a new room is just a tad more time-consuming. Erring on the side of allotting too much time per task, setting up the class in the header with all the needed function prototypes would take about 15-30 minutes, depending on the number of objects. Implementing the room would take about 5 minutes per function. Getting other rooms to "hook up" to the room would take about 30 seconds per room that needs connection (copy-paste, change the target room). Assuming an average of two objects in a room, and one way to implement each, CREATING a new room should take, at most, an hour. Addressing the large number of functions: It's not as much as it seems. I can break it down: The first obstacle is leaving my room. The player needs to collect two items, after doing one thing, and use them, in order to leave it. There's also a function designated to an action that seems reasonable, but won't, in this game, work. That's two items to put in inventory (one func each), one func for the first action needed, one for the action that doesn't work, and two each to implement the items. That's 6 functions right there. Then, there's the one to leave my room, making 7. Finally, there's a "description" function for a "look around" command, private variable accessors, and the constructor and destructor. That makes 14 in the first room. However, not all the rooms are this intensive. The Guest Bathroom, for example, has only 7, including constructor, destructor, and all item or room-related functions. I think that one's got the fewest functions. Actually, I think [game detail hidden] is the room with the fewest functions; it's actually got 12 total, but 4 or 5 are, like any command-line game, red herrings. On average, I have about 9 functions per room, including every way to use an item, the constructors, etc.. However, I've got 11 rooms going, here. That makes appx. 99 functions, and let's not forget the parser which is the backbone of the whole thing. In the interest of making the code easier to read, it's one parser/room. No big deal, it just takes more space that way. (And also solves the problem of a command doing one thing in one room, and a totally different one in another room.) Sorry to rant, I got carried away. Anyway, I'm getting to it again. Oh dear.... I hate to break it to you, but your design sucks You have basically hard-coded all your rooms and actions and now you FACE the consquences. Never mind a function for each item, you should have one function for all items....I'm not quite following you, here. :-?I'll wait til I see your code, then see what I can suggest Sounds good. I am looking for help, here, so as soon as it's done I'll take all the help I can get. It probably does suck, though. Oookay, I knew that my code sucked, but this is ridiculous. I got a thousand errors, and I'm rewriting. EDIT: Before I go on, I should ask: If I have a member function of class X, how can I access the member variables of class Y? That seems to be a place it was hanging up the compiler.Neil is right Dilbert, when writing a program, you should perodically compile it, to make sure there are no errors, then fix any errors as you go along. Sorry I am a noob at C++ so I couldn't really help you with that, now Java on the other hand I could help you with.I found out one of the big problems. A little late, but I did. As it happens, I needed to access an accessor in another function in an if statement. Trouble is, I was doing this: Code: [Select]class X { public: //Other member functions bool getVar() const { return theVar; } //More stuff private: bool theVar; }; class Y { //Stuff void myFunc(); //Obviously, I wouldn't ever use these classes and function names. }; ... void Y::myFunc() { if(Ben.getVar()) { //Stuff } } ... int main() { X Ben; Y George; George.myFunc(); ... } Imagine my frustration when I found out that I only needed to do this: Code: [Select]class X { public: //Other member functions bool getVar() const { return theVar; } //More stuff private: bool theVar; }; class Y { //Stuff void myFunc(); //Obviously, I wouldn't ever use these classes and function names. }; ... void Y::myFunc(X Ben) { if(Ben.getVar()) { //Stuff } } ... int main() { X Ben; Y George; George.myFunc(Ben); ... } I was doing that originally, but I forgot why after a week-long break, so I removed them as I couldn't find a reference on it. However, I discovered this a little late: I'm sick and I was upset, so I ended up using Shift-Delete on the hpp and cpp. Smooth move, Dil-man. I have a backup from my flash drive (yay!) and I will have about 70% of what I wrote back. But I'm isolating and testing the tBedroom sequence now in a separate hpp/cpp combo. I think this one will compile. As it were, I lost a good chunk of my parser and int main(). This supports Scott Adams' theory: "People are idiots. That's everyone, not just the people with low SAT scores . . . idiocy is a condition that people slip into and out of every day. --Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle As it were, I've got the cold and the flu, so debugging my bedroom will wait for a while. I've got all day tomorrow... I'm staying home sick. You need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development |
|