potential PPC Amiga REAL CHEAP

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

Actually its all really easy to confuse. In fact, when all this .Net stuff came into being, microsofts markiting department plastered .Net all over everything. For a good 2 years nobody even knew what i all really ment. Lots of people still dont know or care. After years of it being around, most people have discovered that it's really .VendorLockin and .NotPortable and in 10-15 years it will most likely become .abondoned for something .new

Actually, unlike VB 6.0, Vb.Net's code files (source code) makes reverse-engineering a compiler for an alternate platform ALOT easier.  Every property involved in creating forms and controls is exposed in the source code.  It would just be a matter of creating [insert platform of choice] libraries functionally equivalent to MS's .Net Runtime libraries and a compiler.

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

A better counter-point would be to show me something that can only be done in C and not VB.Net.

I dunno, how many OS kernels and core services are written in VB.net compared to those in C?

Or how about writing a graphics API for cross platform delivery?

Or how about simply writing stuff for a platform other than Windows?

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

Firmware for 8051 @ pic micros. Include an 8bit micro of your choosing. Bios code. Boot loader code. interrupt service routines.

But thats just things that have to be small and run on the hardware. Suppose i was writing a product, and one of the requirements was that it run on both a macintosh and windows. Ohno! Guess i cant pick .Net for that one.

Again, right f'n tool for the job. Your vb.net prong doesnt fit in every project hole, get over it.

I've known that but that's only because MS chooses to compile to an intermediate language that is executed by a Common Language Runtime executable that runs on Windows and not independent of it.  "Don't hate the player, hate the game."...as they say...

What I want to know is why "C programmers" think they are smarter instead of realizing that either they have ALOT more patience or are suckers for punishment?  When will they get over that?

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

What I want to know is why "C programmers" think they are smarter instead of realizing that either they have ALOT more patience or are suckers for punishment?  When will they get over that?

I'd like to know why you think that is a valid observation? There is nothing hard about developing software in C/C++. If you can develop in one high level language, you can do it in just about any. It's just a matter of learning the syntax, support services you require and any new paradigms. C/C++ come with an unrivalled level of support. You can find example source and library code for just about anything.

On the contrary, writing something in a language that is not remotely supported outside of MS domain to be the thankless task, unless of course that is as broad as your imagination goes.

Karlos wrote:

lou_dias wrote:

A better counter-point would be to show me something that can only be done in C and not VB.Net.

I dunno, how many OS kernels and core services are written in VB.net compared to those in C?

Or how about writing a graphics API for cross platform delivery?

Or how about simply writing stuff for a platform other than Windows?

I found this BASIC, which is more useful than VB.  Portable to 4 platforms.

Come on Lou, write us an OS in BASIC.  With all those RAD features at your fingertips you should be ready to demo a prototype in no time at all.

[Louis Dias]

Karlos wrote:

lou_dias wrote:

A better counter-point would be to show me something that can only be done in C and not VB.Net.

I dunno, how many OS kernels and core services are written in VB.net compared to those in C?

Or how about writing a graphics API for cross platform delivery?

Or how about simply writing stuff for a platform other than Windows?

Well, when VB.net has been around for 40 years, we can answer that question a bit better.  Like I said, .net source code is easily ported to other platforms because of it's open-ness.  It's one thing I give MS credit for and I'm really not a big fan of MS as a hole or I'd be touting the 360 as the bst solution for a PPC Amiga.  I'm just giving credit where credit is due (for once, when it comes to MS, that is).

Believe me, I'm not touting VB.Net because I love MS, if you've read the entire thread, you'd know that I am no MS fanboy.  I'm just saying that VB.net is a great platform from a developer's point of view.

Why not program for other platforms?  Because I went with the platform that gave me the best chance of making me money.  I could be a hobbiest coder for other platforms but I don't have the time or enthusiasm of youth to do that.  When I am not working, I am managing a small side business and rental property.

I would like to see the Amiga platform succeed.  That's why I proposed a "cheap" platform that anyone can afford to get OS 4 off the ground.

Update 4 of OS 4 was just released?  Has that expanded the market for the platform?  No, it's only for current owners of a board that is not in development and offers negative growth as the hardware deteriorates over time.  Everthing else (Ack, Olgeil, PowerVixxen) is so far vaporware.

I proposed targeting a platform that has a low cost and extremely high availability and is uniform. [Gamecube]  According to Nintendo, the Revolution is going to be 100% HARDWARE compatible with the GC.  There is the upgrade path.

JLF65, my "homeboy" who I never met before this thread and is serious in his endeavor, is the only one with the technical ability AND desire to attempt to make this happen.  I've done my part by securing some of the tools required in doing this.  I've stocked up on SD Geckos and 5" disc capable replacement cases and gamebit screw drivers.  I've offered a deal to any Amigan to sell those at almost cost.

I've sold to a couple of people on this forum but only JLF65 is actually trying to develop anything.

The way things are looking, it seems that AROS is the future of Amiga.  In the meantime, I'll pay the bills with Windows.

[Karlos]

Clash of the titans



lou: Bjarne, it's time to think of something new, you know.

bjarne: Yeah, I know.

lou: Listen Bjarne, I think that you should stop this C++ cuffuffle! VB is the one for you to go on with..

bjarne: I don't want it!

[Louis Dias]

mdma wrote:

I found this BASIC, which is more useful than VB.  Portable to 4 platforms.

Come on Lou, write us an OS in BASIC.  With all those RAD features at your fingertips you should be ready to demo a prototype in no time at all.

I think that's great.  It doesn't mention being object-oriented though.

If you read my last post, and many before that, you already know why I will never write an OS.  I've never claimed to be an expert in such a thing.  I've never put myself on a pedastal in the face of all the "credible experts" (I love keyboard warriors) that like to diss me.  Funny, with that link you counter some of the things your fellow BASIC-antagonists have been trying to drive down my throat.

Yes, PureBASIC is interesting, but unless my boss pays me to code in it, I won't be.  It's simple economics that some people here will never understand until they get older.

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Yes, PureBASIC is interesting, but unless my boss pays me to code in it, I won't be.  It's simple economics that some people here will never understand until they get older.

LOL! I get paid to develop stuff in PHP/MySQL/Javascript/Java etc. That doesn't mean I go around extolling how great they are over all other languages and making brash claims that they can do anything worth doing. I recognise the difference between tools suitable for different purposes.

VB has its place. It's a handy RAD tool for quick and dirty programs. C has its place too, it's a massively portable language suitable for all levels of development.

Syntactically there is absolutely next to nothing that can touch C. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that but if you look at how many languages have adopted C's style of syntax over BASIC, you will be forced to conclude that they all just are too snobby and up themselves for your keyword rich language :-D

[Louis Dias]

Karlos wrote:

keyword rich language :-D

So because a language replaces things like for(){} with For/Next, it's keyword rich?  ...and a compiler almost cares...

The defense rests...

[GadgetMaster]

lou_dias wrote:

Karlos wrote:

rich language :-D

So because a language replaces things like for(){} with For/Next, it's keyword rich?

The defense rests...

clearly lou_dias you have no clue. AMOS is the greatest programming language in the world. and nothing else can touch it.

[Louis Dias]

GadgetMaster wrote:

clearly lou_dias you have no clue. AMOS is the greatest programming language in the world. and nothing else can touch it.

LOL, Blitz is the shiznit!

[koaftder]

lou_dias wrote:

koaftder wrote:

Actually its all really easy to confuse. In fact, when all this .Net stuff came into being, microsofts markiting department plastered .Net all over everything. For a good 2 years nobody even knew what i all really ment. Lots of people still dont know or care. After years of it being around, most people have discovered that it's really .VendorLockin and .NotPortable and in 10-15 years it will most likely become .abondoned for something .new

Actually, unlike VB 6.0, Vb.Net's code files (source code) makes reverse-engineering a compiler for an alternate platform ALOT easier.  Every property involved in creating forms and controls is exposed in the source code.  It would just be a matter of creating [insert platform of choice] libraries functionally equivalent to MS's .Net Runtime libraries and a compiler.

/me smacks forehead. Man why didnt i think of that. VB.Net is portable, as in, i'm free to reverse engineer .Net framework and reimpliment it on another platform. Duh, and it would be easy too, after all, it's just a bunch of function calls id have to re impliment. Its not like it would hard like writing code in c. It's all so clear and simple now.

Just switch out the functions from .Net code to local sys libs and blam compile.

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Karlos wrote:

keyword rich language :-D

So because a language replaces things like for(){} with For/Next, it's keyword rich?  ...and a compiler almost cares...

The defense rests...

Hey, I didn't make C syntax more popular and easier to read than basic syntax. It just is :-P

/*
# In the beginning God created the cpu and the opcode.
# And the coder was without sense, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the coder. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the coder.
# And God said, Let there be C, and there was.....
*/

#include

int main (void) {

printf("Hello World \n");

}

:-P