potential PPC Amiga REAL CHEAP

[Louis Dias]

VB.NET

[Louis Dias]

It's basic.  It's object-oriented.  It's straight-forward.

It's great!

I still miss control arrays from 6.0 though...

[Louis Dias]

@waccoon

it comes down to reading.
I can read basic to myself and it's closer to the english language where as C is not.

for instance:  Dim I as short
I read it as "dimension I as type short"

int i=0; while functionally the same doesn't READ well when scanning code.  Same with If THEN ELSE ENDIF vs. if () {} else {}

Again, we have the RAM.  We can use WHOLE words now.

C++ is just C with extensions.  C was developed what like in the 60's? and c compliers were fast because they didn't do alot of the same "error" checking such as out of bounds indexing that other languages did.  So for embedded, low resource systems, C was fine.  That's not an issue anymore.

And Waccoon, there you go bringing me into your own context again.  I was not comparing b+=1 to b++, I was comparing trying to do 2 things on one line using the ++ side-effect vs. making it more readable and doing it on 2 lines and less prone to logic errors.  Once again you try to put words in my mouth.  Nice try.  NOT!

[Louis Dias]

Karlos wrote:

The size of syntax is absolutely naff all to do with RAM consumption, C was developed on Unix systems where even then this was far less of an issue than you seem to imply.

When you only an 80x25 text screen, C let you cram the most code into one screen.  Ever try scrolling on some of those old dumb terminals?

That's why it's ugly.  It's a moot point and if you've ever used the Visual Studio.Net IDE for VB, you see exactly how readable the IDE makes your VB code.  I'm sure it does the same for VC++ but when every line is filled with combinations of {}, @, ->, (), . and ; - it's still fugly.

Now mind you - alot of that is so you wouldn't have to scroll back up to see how you declare a function/variable.  Again, trivial by today's standards but an issue in a VT100 300BAUD dumb terminal.

It was a language reflective of the times back then.  JAVA is a cleaner rendition.

[Louis Dias]

Hattig wrote:
First, until you actually use C, or Java, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

BASIC is an ass-backwards language, it teaches poor programming techniques, it looks really ugly on screen, and really is a language for beginners. VisualBasic only looks good because it interfaces with the entire Windows API.

C, a late 70's language, is a very clean language that anyone with half a brain can pick up quickly. It was designed by intelligent people and not because it could fit a lot onto an 80x25 display - a remarkably uninformed viewpoint!

C++ is very different when you start using the additional features. I personally don't like C++ however.

Java has a quite nice language structure and if it wasn't for some poor decisions at the GUI library level it would be the application language of choice in many areas now. C# has forced it to evolve again though, which is good.

Any programmer who can't handle curly brackets for blocks of code should shoot themselves in my opinion. Indentation of code is the natural way to read block structure - indeed Python went as far as removing all block keywords/symbols and using the indentation directly.

I've always been comparing to Visual Basic (VB...VB.net), not BASIC... and why are curly brackets the definition of proper formatting?  Visual Studio has intelligent auto-indenting.  So I don't know where your complaints are coming from.

I've used alot of different languages.  That's why I AM complaining.

[Louis Dias]

Karlos wrote:

Take C/C++, take out pointer syntax, take out all preprocessor stuff

now you are starting to get the right idea

Like I said a cleanER rendition...

Again this is my opinion.  A million arguments that start with "but if ..." isn't going to change it.

[Louis Dias]

Well it amuses me to see people get all huffy about subjective material.

Developers has their favorite environment and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it unless mandated to change it by a superior or sheer curiosity.

Waccoon, you can run your mouth all you want.  So because I had 2 classes in C/C++ some 15 years ago, I'm supposed to remember every nuance?  Same with 6502/8502 assembly when I was 16 or 17 and 8088 assembly during a college course...again 15 years ago.  What I do remember is my impressions of using the language.  That's all I need.  I started using Visual Studio in 97/98 and haven't needed anything else ever since.  I have read a book on Java Certification Exams since then but I couldn't become comfortable in and IDE so I was turned off by it.  Even read a book on PHP/MySQL/Apache for Windows (WAMP) (C for the internet - oh joy) and didn't like that either.

I'm employed to develop in VB.net 2003 (soon 2005) with SQL Server.  I have no need nor desire to force myself to like a language that isn't going to pay my bills.

Unless one of YOU are going to pay me to say that I like C or C++, it's not going to happen.  Deal with it.

ps,
About 8502 vs. 8088, I forget the instruction, but I remember an 6502/8502 instruction that was the equivalent of 2 8088 instructions in sequence.  Other than the lack of registers, I enjoyed 8502 assembly alot more than 8088 assembly and that also helped me perceive the entire x86 line of CPUs less favorably, not that I've kept up with it...but none the less, a lasting impression was left on me.  Now please, someone ramble on about why I should love x86 assembly... :roll:

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

Your oppinion about a language that you used briefly 15 years ago means nothing to anybody. And thats what everybody is saying, so why do you feel the need to keep repeating it?

Because they keep expecting me to change it as if I should worship the keyboard they type on.

[Louis Dias]

AmiGR wrote:
And let me tell you MY opinion. I'd been trying to learn Basic ever since I was a  child and I kept doing so until I was 13-14 or so. Then, I tried C and not only did I get it straight away but I found it to be incredibly logical. More than that, you can read Basic code loudly all you want but it doesn't make the damn awful IF, THEN BS more followable code. I CANNOT follow a Basic program if it's more than a few lines long, it has no clear structure.

Stop looking @ Microsoft's Commodore 64 Basic 2.0! :roflmao:

[Louis Dias]

Nor is it the place to ask for an Amiga OS on Nintendo hardware...  But I did it anyway.

What is interesting is that some who don't agree have also not ever used Visual Studio...atleast I've used C/C++.

[Louis Dias]

uncharted wrote:

lou_dias wrote:
Nor is it the place to ask for an Amiga OS on Nintendo hardware...  But I did it anyway.

What is interesting is that some who don't agree have also not ever used Visual Studio...atleast I've used C/C++.

So after 32 pages of comments we've established that:-

*You are a fanatical Nintendo fanboy
*You won't listen to arguments presented to you
*You like to spout on about things you don't know/understand
*And you're a shyte programmer.

Groovy!

Well, your sig says all we need to know about you.

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:
I may be one of the strange ones here. I'd like to see a hardcore blend of c and basic. Ive many times set out to impliment this, but never finished up on it. Why not have a basic that has pointers as a datatype?

If you knew anything about VB.net, you'd realize it is a fully object-oriented language.  You can define parameters in function calls as being passed by reference or by value.  You can create structures as well as classes.  Their is inheritance and polymorphism.  It's event-driven.

It's excellent.  But because I don't like C, I'm a shyte programmer as 'unchated' likes to point out.  Maybe it's just that I've had a taste of everything already and have come to realize that MICROSOFT actually made an EXCELLENT product and that some of you zealots/geeks are too proud to admit that.

FYI, alot of linux programmers use Visual Studio's IDE to write the code then compile it on their native platform's compiler.

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

yup i was in that boat for quite a while. But msvc doesnt put together a skeleton for your make files. kDevelop does this nice and proper, and a whole lot more, so i've moved over to that for the linux platform.

I tried using Eclipse a couple of times for JAVA and PHP.  The problem I have with JAVA and C/C++ IDE's is that I just want to go in a do a "Hello world." and they make you spend a half hour configuring your project.  I just want to start typing and then hit Compile & Run!

...ah the beauty of VB...

[Louis Dias]

AmiGR wrote:

I tried using Eclipse a couple of times for JAVA and PHP. The problem I have with JAVA and C/C++ IDE's is that I just want to go in a do a "Hello world." and they make you spend a half hour configuring your project. I just want to start typing and then hit Compile & Run!
...ah the beauty of VB...

File>New Project>C++ Tool>
Double click main.cpp
Type in your hello world.
Click compile&run.

...ah, the beauty of XCode...

Last time I checked it wasn't any more complicated in VC++, either.

I don't own a Mac.

[Louis Dias]

adolescent wrote:

That is really attributed to Visual Studio, not VB.  You can just as easily make and run a VC++, VC++ .NET, C#, etc. "Hello World" in about 30 seconds going through the same project wizard.

Other than setting up the project folder and creating the install package, I don't use a wizard for anything.  Once in a while I'll use one to create a simple data entry form with alot of fields from an SQL table...but it never remains a simple data entry form.

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

Failure wrote:

adolescent wrote:
Sorry, you forgot the quotes which made quite a difference.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Quotes are useless crap which take up space in source code files.  I suppose you'll be wanting to throw semicolons and braces in there too?  My implementation is much cleaner and easy to read, whereas your implementation leads to confusion.

My point remains uncontested!

 :lol:

and you need that extra space in your source files too when half of your statements look like:

blah = system.IO.omg.wtf.somewhereinhereforsure.openfile

if you hade put a:

imports System.IO.omg.wtf.somwhereinhereforsure

at the top of the module, you could have just typeD:

blah = openfile

from then on and any other function contained withing the library "System.IO.omg.wtf.somwhereinhereforsure"