how much to study? :D
Pages: 12
Hii.. I just turned 16 this month and I have decided to become programmer(Would like to work on Os/gaming/sites and all the cool stuff later on)
So my question is simple
How much importance should I give to subjects like Physics,Maths and Chemistry in order to become a good programmer?
So my question is simple
How much importance should I give to subjects like Physics,Maths and Chemistry in order to become a good programmer?
Im currently studying programing in university, and this is just my take on it.
Maths : Important. But you have to know what is important exactly, that depends on what you want to do. Linear algebra is one that comes to mind.
Physics. If you want to make games with physics engines, then you'll know the answer to this one. How advanced however, Im not sure.
Chemistry: Non. I hate chemistry.
Note that I could be a bit wrong here and there, but this is as far as I know :)
Maths : Important. But you have to know what is important exactly, that depends on what you want to do. Linear algebra is one that comes to mind.
Physics. If you want to make games with physics engines, then you'll know the answer to this one. How advanced however, Im not sure.
Chemistry: Non. I hate chemistry.
Note that I could be a bit wrong here and there, but this is as far as I know :)
maths isnt necessary important. i havent needed any math for the code i write. ive never needed physics either. chemistry is only relevant if you are trying to implement something in chemistry. to be honest i wouldnt worry about that right now and focus on learning c++
What Bobby said is true, but I was talking more from the perspective of a game developer, should have probably mentioned that. Especially mid-Tripple A games.
So in order to become a gaming programmer you need to know maths and physics and for OS development you can just use your coding skills?
I wouldnt know anything about OS Development. But when it comes to games, you can obviously be succesful without knowing these stuff, if you wanna be a indie-developer and work with a small group of people and maybe open your own company etc.
I once spoke with someone that worked at a Tripple A company, and he told me there are 2 types of programmers there. People who know how to code, and people who knows whats going on behind all of it (The math, etc, pretty much experts). They obviously get more payed :p
So the gist of it is, you can definitely do more than well without any of the maths or physics, but I think they help atleast.
Like Bobby said. Focus on learning c++, then I would advice you to learn other languages. Its much easier to get a job if you know more languages and its a very important skill in the programming world.
I once spoke with someone that worked at a Tripple A company, and he told me there are 2 types of programmers there. People who know how to code, and people who knows whats going on behind all of it (The math, etc, pretty much experts). They obviously get more payed :p
So the gist of it is, you can definitely do more than well without any of the maths or physics, but I think they help atleast.
Like Bobby said. Focus on learning c++, then I would advice you to learn other languages. Its much easier to get a job if you know more languages and its a very important skill in the programming world.
| What Bobby said is true, but I was talking more from the perspective of a game developer, |
oh yes... games require lots and lots and lots of math.
| OS development you can just use your coding skills? |
no. it requires studying. lots and lots of studying of highly advanced theories.
just focus on learning c++ right now before you start to specialize in an area.
| Focus on learning c++, then I would advice you to learn other languages. Its much easier to get a job if you know more languages and its a very important skill in the programming world. |
eh... i would say get a tight grasp on a language that is used in buisness, then lightly learn other languages if you are wanting to get a job.
What would you use chemistry for?
@physics: most developers don'trewrite a physics engine every time. Everybody uses an available physics engine (Source engine uses an Havok and Quake3 derivate, Amnesia uses the Newton engine, some Warner Bros and GTA4 use the Bullet engine or a derivate...)
I personally use the Bullet engine, but it's a bit hard to add player control.
@physics: most developers don'trewrite a physics engine every time. Everybody uses an available physics engine (Source engine uses an Havok and Quake3 derivate, Amnesia uses the Newton engine, some Warner Bros and GTA4 use the Bullet engine or a derivate...)
I personally use the Bullet engine, but it's a bit hard to add player control.
Does this mean that there wont be any need fore more physics engine? I personally think that robots will need some new kind of physics engine and not the gaming ones beside don't the programmers constantly maintain and update their code?
This doesn't mean there's nomore need for physics engine, but you'd better leave that job to people who know physics better than yourself... and you'd rather mantain the least code, leaving maintenance, bugtracking/bugfixing to said experienced developers. Already quoted engines aged very well and can be extended easily (Bullet allows you build a custom MotionState to allow body animation/kinematics).
(what do you mean with robots tho?)
(what do you mean with robots tho?)
Robots may also need to know a bit about physics if they want to survive the world don't they? It will be the duty of programmers to teach them (or code them) but they should know it themselves..
Simple robots just execute a sequence of motor commands based on user inputs, like a wireless keyboard, unless you really want to use Inverse Kinematics... which is a known method and Half Life 2 (Source Engine) makes use of it for foot placement.
So, no, it's not really a real-life-only scenario. Physics engines aren't all that simple not even for games, games simply keep an internally low update rate (1/66th of a second for the Source Engine by default, if I recall correctly) just so they can also render a frame.
You can safely increase their rate to approximate a more accurate world.
So, no, it's not really a real-life-only scenario. Physics engines aren't all that simple not even for games, games simply keep an internally low update rate (1/66th of a second for the Source Engine by default, if I recall correctly) just so they can also render a frame.
You can safely increase their rate to approximate a more accurate world.
Yes, the rate at which the world is updated. An update rate of 1/66th of a second means an object can only change position 66 times a second (it gets interpolated so it may still look better on 120hz monitors).
You can increase the rate (1/200hz) so an object can virtually change his position up to 200 times a second, as an example.
This depends also on which engine you use: Bullet supports it, as an example.
You can increase the rate (1/200hz) so an object can virtually change his position up to 200 times a second, as an example.
This depends also on which engine you use: Bullet supports it, as an example.
Depending on the game you make, a lot of math might not be required.
If you're making a card game or top down zelda-type RPG, then all you'll probably need is basic collision detection and simple damage calculation based off of stats.
If you're making anything truly 3D however, you should definitely learn as much as you can about linear algebra and trigonometry amongst other things.
If you're making a card game or top down zelda-type RPG, then all you'll probably need is basic collision detection and simple damage calculation based off of stats.
If you're making anything truly 3D however, you should definitely learn as much as you can about linear algebra and trigonometry amongst other things.
trigonometry??? but why??? (I am not that great at trigonometry.... )
Edit- I removed solved button as I didn't knew we also had to deal with trigonometry in programming #NIGHTMARE
Edit- I removed solved button as I didn't knew we also had to deal with trigonometry in programming #NIGHTMARE
Last edited on
closed account (2LzbRXSz)
Alright, I remembering hearing I had to learn trigonometry in order to really understand 3D, and letting out a really loud, bummed sigh... But let me just tell you it's really worth it.
I haven't messed around with 3D much since learning Trig, but personally I really loved it. I was pretty bummed out when my course in Trigonometry was over. THAT's how much I enjoyed it.
I can't remember the name of the course I used to learn it, and I'm not telling you that you HAVE to love trig, but you probably have trouble with it because of the way it was taught to you. The trig course I took was extremely simple. I actually plan on looking into more advanced Trig whenever I have some free time.
So I say embrace learning Trig and enjoy the ride.
(It probably works in my favor though that I'm a mathemagician... 123, more Trigonometry for me! Abracadabra, algebrazam!)
I haven't messed around with 3D much since learning Trig, but personally I really loved it. I was pretty bummed out when my course in Trigonometry was over. THAT's how much I enjoyed it.
I can't remember the name of the course I used to learn it, and I'm not telling you that you HAVE to love trig, but you probably have trouble with it because of the way it was taught to you. The trig course I took was extremely simple. I actually plan on looking into more advanced Trig whenever I have some free time.
So I say embrace learning Trig and enjoy the ride.
Pages: 12