>Thank you, this sounds very exciting
Y/W. Yes, I agree. I've spent quite a bit of time making things this 'simple', heh. :^)
>I just wonder how hard it will be to understand how it works.
Well, if we do our jobs perfectly
, then the software's complexity will exactly
mirror the complexity of the real-world problem itself whatever that may prove to be in the end. However, in my studied opinion that's not how things actually work out. I'd suggest a good, working solution will probably end up being ~150% the complexity of the real problemspace?
Ofc if you really
want to understand it, you'll need proficiency in C++ as well. I'd suggest working your way through the college freshman textbook known as 'PPP2', written by the inventor of the language himself, if you decide to become serious about it (>>4895
Good luck Anon.
>as it is rather efficient for an object oriented programming language.
I agree it certainly is. But it's also a kind of 'Swiss Army Knife' of a programming language. And in it's modern incarnation handles basically every important programming style out there. But yes I agree, it does OOP particularly well.
>but, have wanted to try C++.
See my last advice above.
>Hopefully this project fixes that problem by providing anons with clarity on how robotic minds actually work.
If we do our jobs well on this, then yes, I'd say that's a real possibility Anon. Let us hope for good success!
Message too long. Click
to view full text.