Native Blitz Basic for AROS ever?

[bubblebobble]

Amiblitz3 has a nice API for system friendly Games, running on Classic, OS4 and MOS, but not natively on AROS.

See here: http://a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=320433&postcount=367

I plan to write something in the far future that shall target various AmigaOSes.

[bubblebobble]

I think "lean C!" is not really what one wants to hear if asking for a Basic dialect.

I program C/C++ and Java at work, and Amiblitz in my free time. This says something, doesnt it ;-)
On 68K, C is not faster than Amiblitz since you can always use very easy inline-asm for the ciritical parts. Also, the Amiblitz compiler generates fairly efficient code that does not fall behind GCC. But Amiblitz is not a BASIC dialect.

The biggest concern is anyway not the syntax of a programming language. Given enough training, you can get used to almost anything. It is the runtime that makes the difference. Amiblitz is not faster (to develop) or easier than C per se, if you need to implement everything via AmigaOS calls. It gets faster if you start using the runtime.
For C, you have, apart of the spartanic clib, a lot of "runtimes" in form of linker libs, like SDL. The problem here is, that they dont know each other, and you have to do a lot of dirty work to get them together. SDL is quite a complete runtime, so this is less of an issue here. But SDL can also be used in Amiblitz.

[bubblebobble]

Is there an Objective C compiler for the Amiga (AROS) at all?

Many aspects of a programming language depend on the degree of "being-used-to", so an objective comparism is very hard.
What counts at the end is how fast you can achive your goal, how stable/fast the result is and how maintainable the source code is.
This mainly depends on the IDE, Quality of Compiler, Runtime and how well the concept of the language matches the requirments. (e.g. Scripting vs. small vs. mid vs. large projects)

[bubblebobble]

just curious if people start bashing me, in A/A++, this would be:

Code: [Select]


[b]Struct[/b] Foo {
   [b]int[/b] bar
}

[b]Function[/b] [b]int[/b] Foo::getBar(Foo *this) {
   [b]Return[/b] this.bar
}


I think this is intuitively understandable for all C/C++/Java coders, a very smooth integration of OOP in procedural programming.
WTF, were are the ;'s ?? Eeek