Maybe I’ll include that at the end of the workshop, as a sort of “congrats, you’ve finished a game project! you can make more professional games using these”.
However, for the purposes of the workshop, Lua is easiest. It’s logically sound to non-programmers (to a non-programmer, it’s hard to explain why the first item is 0 and not 1).
Well, once they know how to make one game they may want to make more. Now you have a bunch of potential options for game #2 they can pursue, should they feel so inclined.
…I just want to teach some middle/high schoolers how to make a game. I chose Lua because it’s easy to pick up. 1-indexing sounds terrible to actual programmers, but these are just kids. I just want to give them ANYTHING better than Scratch.
By “kids” are you referring to elementary, middle, or high schoolers? Depending on what they are willing to take on, I have a few other guides that may be fun:
There’s a little bit there for everyone. If they just want to make games and skip a lot of the cruft, they can always just download Unity and Blender and get right to it (and pick up C# along the way).
my goal is to teach some kids at my school how to code a real game (we did CS First but that was Scratch and Scratch isn’t real coding :P)
You can also follow this blog series for creating the game BYTEPATH in LOVE2D: https://github.com/adnzzzzZ/blog/issues/30
the hero we need
Life Hack Winner Of the Year :)
/dev/lawyer is a pretty decent FOSS law blog. SO, while he is writing about a license he helped write, it’s not surprising.
Headline is a bit clickbaity, though, to that I’ll agree.
He does point out some of the fundamental problems with the licenses he discusses.
Not sure how I feel about this… F5 hasn’t been particularly evil, as far as I know, but anytime a ginormous corporation purchases the organization behind a FOSS product, I get jittery.
Yeah, it is. He’s their Executive Director, which he mentions this at the end of his article advertisement.
I totally agree with you and @aewens that this is propaganda for Blue Oak.
However the author knows his stuff on MIT and BSD quite well.
As for Blue Oak, the only thing I like about it is its language.
It’s a permissive license designed to remove ANY burden on corporations that want to exploit the free labor of the open source developers.
It’s not designed to maximize the CREATION of Commons, but their exploitation and privatization. So I agree that avoiding Blue Oak is a good idea if it doesn’t align with your interests and values.
I was pretty disappointed by this. First, it’s a blatant ad for the license that this lawyer worked on, but also it shows a shocking lack of familiarity with MIT and BSD licenses, where they’ve been used in practice, where they’ve been reviewed in the courts, and exactly what things mean. In my opinion this piece crossed an ethical line. I’ll be aggressively avoiding Blue Oak as a result.
It looks like this might be an ad for Blue Oak, rather than reporting on MIT and BSD being deprecated. See also.
Interesting. I’ve used MIT before on small side projects. I’ll have to revisit that at some point.
Very professional looking, tomasino! Well done!
What could possibly go wrong?
Especially when it takes only one line to import someone else’s micro-OS as a base without needing to know anything about it or what is on it.
No way. It’s almost like having micro-OSs which are black boxes is bad for security or something…