Other Software > Developer's Corner

New Twist on Basic

<< < (4/4)

wraith808:
After just glancing at the OP sample code, I'm pretty sure I could do the same sample dialog in pure C with  less code ... *Shrug* ... So I'm lost on an advantage there.
-Stoic Joker (May 01, 2011, 10:28 AM)
--- End quote ---

Basic's keywords and syntax are generally considered a lot easier for new and novice programmers to follow?

Also, pure C makes it a lot easier for you to screw things up royally because there's nothing it won't let you do. Even badly.

 :)
-40hz (May 02, 2011, 07:47 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yeah... QFT.  Basic isn't made to be efficient, but to be carebear land, to borrow a term from MMOs.

40hz:
After just glancing at the OP sample code, I'm pretty sure I could do the same sample dialog in pure C with  less code ... *Shrug* ... So I'm lost on an advantage there.
-Stoic Joker (May 01, 2011, 10:28 AM)
--- End quote ---

Basic's keywords and syntax are generally considered a lot easier for new and novice programmers to follow?

Also, pure C makes it a lot easier for you to screw things up royally because there's nothing it won't let you do. Even badly.

 :)
-40hz (May 02, 2011, 07:47 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yeah... QFT.  Basic isn't made to be efficient, but to be carebear land, to borrow a term from MMOs.
-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 09:09 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think it's more BASIC was designed to be an application rather than a systems programming language. As such, there's very little need for many of the powerful capabilities and "bare metal" access C provides when you're doing apps. In many respects they do noting but add an additional layer of unnecessary risk and complexity.

Besides, where do they get off dissing BASIC as being CareBear country when 90% of what's being written for Windows uses .NET or some other collection of pre-canned routines or libraries? Half the time these "professional" programmers use C for nothing more than glue to hold a bunch of prewritten code together.
Which is why they're professionals!

It's mostly the clueless, the dilettante, the amateur, or (more rarely) someone who wants to learn how to build libraries and components who still writes from scratch even though they can avoid it.  
 :)

wraith808:
I think it's more BASIC was designed to be an application rather than a systems programming language. As such, there's very little need for many of the powerful capabilities and "bare metal" access C provides when you're doing apps. In many respects they do noting but add an additional layer of unnecessary risk and complexity.
-40hz (May 02, 2011, 09:49 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think that the original iterations of BASIC were designed to be an application programming language.

Besides, e do they get off dissing BASIC as being CareBear country when 90% of what's being written for Windows uses .NET or some other collection of pre-canned routines or libraries? Half the time these "professional" programmers use C for nothing more than glue to hold a bunch of stick code together.
-40hz (May 02, 2011, 09:49 AM)
--- End quote ---

Whoa there.  I applied the CareBear in the terms of it keeping you in a safer environment for beginners where catastrophic failures are less likely, and concepts are easier to grasp.  Not meaning anything negative about it in those terms- it is what it is.  And for better or worse, there are limitations on BASIC that aren't imposed in even .NET.  You can easily bridge the managed/unmanaged code barriers if you are of a mindset/have a need to do it.  And I don't even view Visual Basic as basic, truthfully.  It's similarities to basic ended quite a while ago, and in .NET it's just a preference, more than a real difference IME.  I think you're finding disparaging where there was none intended?

40hz:
@wraith - Don't get me wrong. I wasn't offended. My remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Which is why I added the smiley at the bottom.  :Thmbsup:

And I fully agree with you about VisualBasic. It stopped being what most people would consider BASIC a very long time ago.  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page