VISUAL BASIC IS MOST DESPISED PROGRAMING ENVIRROMMENT!
=BORG=
[comp.unix.questions, comp.object and poor nyc.food deleted]
Cecil A. Galbraith wrote:
> Future Programer wrote:
> > Also I have been told that Unix and C++ will go away from the market
> > place and be replaced by Visual Basic and Windows 95 very soon. My
> > friend recruiter told me that within a year or so no one will ever
> > need these nerd Unix programers.
I heard a different rumour. Micro$oft is actually hiring trolls and
losers
like you to promote Visual Basic. Because, eventually, Micro$oft is
going to re-write their crappy DO$-based OS'es in Basic.
> > Now tell me WHY these losers who will soon be pushed out of the
> > programing market HATE visual basic? It is a great language!
> > It is the most economical environment for building Graphicall
> > Interfaces!
[..................]
> I like C++ because it, along with occasional assembly language routines
> gives me snappier performance and better control than Visual Basic does
> (I've used both). However, if someone waves a profitable project/job in
> front of me and insists that it be written in VB, then that's what I
> will do.
[....................]
I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
Lamic sucks.
Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
just another new variable. Consider this piece of
Visual Crazic code:
RugbyGames = 44
...
RudbyGames = RudbyGames + MoreGames
...
PRINT RugbyGames
Here, a programmer mistyped `Rugby..'. So, it wasn't
changed. But, instead, a new variable was created,
`Rudby..' And it apparently breaks no rules in Basic.
So, you'll have a helluva lot of fun debugging such
a program. However, it's not possible to make such a
stupid error in C++. I would have to declare all my
variables before I use 'em, like:
unsigned short int MoreGames, RugbyGames = 44;
RugbyGames = RugbyGames + MoreGames;
cout << RugbyGames;
Had I made a typo in `RugbyGames', my compiler
would have made a lot of noice (or, at least,
issued a warning ) about how stupid I am that I use
an undeclared variable, like:
char.cc: In function `int Games()':
char.cc:8: `RudbyGames' undeclared (first use this function)
char.cc:8: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
char.cc:8: for each function it appears in.)
If I add `-Wall' switch to my command line compiler statement,
I'll get even more debugging information.
Conclusion: C++ lets me write a better error-proof program
then Micro$uck Visual Gasic does.
--
*-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
*-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
*-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
Glenn Larkin
<snipped>
>
> I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
> Lamic sucks.
>
> Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
> a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> Visual Crazic code:
> Conclusion: C++ lets me write a better error-proof program
> then Micro$uck Visual Gasic does.
>
If you knew the slightest bit about VB, you'd know that there is a switch
that forces the programmer to declare all variables before use. Yes, it's
unfortunate that MS did not make it the default, but including it is no more
annoying than running into interdependant header files that must be included
in a particular order (perhaps written by someone who writes "a better
error-proof program" - the tool is no better _and no worse_ than the person
using it).
BTW, Microsoft and Visual Basic are the names adults use to discuss and
disagree about products. Name calling should be left to children and
politicians.
--
***************************************************************************
Glenn R. Larkin
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Lawrence Livermore National Labs
_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ 7000 East Ave. L-492
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Livermore, CA 94550-9516
_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ lar...@llnl.gov
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ (510) 424-2859 (VOICE)
(510) 422-2237 (FAX)
***************************************************************************
Steve Cheng
> I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
> Lamic sucks.
>
> Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
> a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> Visual Crazic code:
> [messy code continues...]
Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
software.
And this is not to mention nonportable code ("portable" in Microsoft
means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
either, something like JAva is better.
Phillip Folkler
First a disclaimer. I have never written any VB code. I never liked Basic on my 1st (cpm) machine. I have had
to read and attempt to make sense of VB code that 'sort of' worked however...
For me, if I am going to use a visual ide, I'll use Borlands Delphi. It is truly OO, has a decent debugger,
compiles to reasonably fast machine code, and pascal is not really that different from writing C. /* GASP! did
I just say that?!?!? */
No, I am not going to try and write a device drive in Delphi. But then, I am not going to try and write a
database front end in C (or C++) either. I can do it faster in Delphi. Why mess with the 4 billion windows
functions if the environment will do it for me...And therefore with less chance of error?
Just my $1.97 (inflation adjusted 2 cents...)
Phil
Patrick McNeill
=BORG= (vlad...@iceonline.com) wrote:
: Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
: a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
: the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
: just another new variable. Consider this piece of
: Visual Crazic code:
WRONG!!!
There is something called Option Explicit that will turn this feature off.
Try again.
Dave Schultz
=BORG= wrote:
>
> [comp.unix.questions, comp.object and poor nyc.food deleted]
>
> Cecil A. Galbraith wrote:
> > Future Programer wrote:
>
> > > Also I have been told that Unix and C++ will go away from the market
> > > place and be replaced by Visual Basic and Windows 95 very soon. My
> > > friend recruiter told me that within a year or so no one will ever
> > > need these nerd Unix programers.
>
> I heard a different rumour. Micro$oft is actually hiring trolls and
> losers
> like you to promote Visual Basic. Because, eventually, Micro$oft is
> going to re-write their crappy DO$-based OS'es in Basic.
>
> > > Now tell me WHY these losers who will soon be pushed out of the
> > > programing market HATE visual basic? It is a great language!
> > > It is the most economical environment for building Graphicall
> > > Interfaces!
> [..................]
> > I like C++ because it, along with occasional assembly language routines
> > gives me snappier performance and better control than Visual Basic does
> > (I've used both). However, if someone waves a profitable project/job in
> > front of me and insists that it be written in VB, then that's what I
> > will do.
> [....................]
>
> Lamic sucks.
>
> a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> Visual Crazic code:
>
> then Micro$uck Visual Gasic does.
>
> *-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
> *-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
> *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
> *-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
that you don't know what you are so much against. VB does allow you to
require variable declarations just as C++ does. A professional
programmer would learn about the tool he/she is using and in the case of
VB(4) would go to Tool/Options and check Require Variable Declaration.
You need another example to flame VB.
Patrick Baird
To reply to your comments, in VB you can set preferences so that all variables must be explicitly declared. As for OOP
capabilities, it is possible to develop your own headers and classes and VB will act like a OOPL. How is switch difficult? And
using windows API, granted its DIFFERENT than C/C++, but only people with tunnel vision would limit their knowledge of numerous
programing languages.
* * * * Original Message * * * *
In article <3206AD...@ipoline.com> Steve Cheng <elm...@ipoline.com> writes:
> I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
> Lamic sucks.
>
> Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
> a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> Visual Crazic code:
> [messy code continues...]
Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
software.
And this is not to mention nonportable code ("portable" in Microsoft
means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
either, something like JAva is better.
* * * * End Original Message * * * *
Phil Semanchuk
> Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for
> production software.
Here at Glaxo Wellcome, our Drug Information department uses a VB system
to search through a full-text index of several thousand letters while on
the phone with health care professionals. The same system also generates
2000+ pages of printouts daily to be mailed to our customers. It saves
time for the 50 people in the Drug Info department while allowing us to
kep statistics on which letters get sent the most. You tell me, is this a
production system?
--
Phil
(pjs2...@glaxo.com or bo...@nando.net)
Save the Earth -- shoot yourself.
URL O' the Day: http://www.sleazefest.com/sleaze
Tiago Epifanio
=BORG= <<vlad...@iceonline.com>> wrote:
>Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
>a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
>the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
>just another new variable. Consider this piece of
>Visual Crazic code:
>RugbyGames = 44
>...
>RudbyGames = RudbyGames + MoreGames
>...
>PRINT RugbyGames
>Here, a programmer mistyped `Rugby..'. So, it wasn't
>changed. But, instead, a new variable was created,
>`Rudby..' And it apparently breaks no rules in Basic.
>So, you'll have a helluva lot of fun debugging such
>a program.
That's not completely true. Smart people use the following line
in the declarations section:
Option Explicit
with this, VB will show you a warning each time you use a variable
that wasn't declared.
There is another way to do this. You can go to the Environment Options
and turn the "Require Variable Declaration" option on. Now you don't
have to use the Option Explicit line.
See you.
--
Tiago Epifanio (Lisbon, Portugal)
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds;
the pessimist fears this is true." -James Cabell
doug r bailey
Phillip Folkler (phil...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Steve Cheng wrote:
: >
: > > I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
: > > Lamic sucks.
: > >
: > > Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
: > > a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
: > > the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
: > > just another new variable. Consider this piece of
: > > Visual Crazic code:
: > > [messy code continues...]
: >
Wrong, just add the line "Option Explicit" in the Declaration section
of each form/class/module and this problem is solved (Better still, in the
Options, check the Require variable declaration box
: Just my $1.97 (inflation adjusted 2 cents...)
: Phil
Ed Michalski
>Nice try. Your strawman that you so eloquently demolished only proves
>that you don't know what you are so much against. VB does allow you to
>require variable declarations just as C++ does. A professional
>programmer would learn about the tool he/she is using and in the case of
>VB(4) would go to Tool/Options and check Require Variable Declaration.
>
>You need another example to flame VB.
VB is used for GUI interfaces, it does have considerable power but not
the language of choice over C++ in most of its brand name forms. VB's power
and marketplace arise from its ease of use to newbies. I know about a dozen
programmers who program and VB and also VC++ and it is no argument that
VC++ is for the down and dirty and the VB is used for the interfaces. I can
list a number of CORPS that this is the method of choice.
What we are having is the BASIC vs C++ argument and yes both languages can
do the same job. C++ is closer to the machine than VB and C is closer than
C++. Each language is a tool, and when you have alot of tools you can get the
job done better and quicker.
Put the flame out with a glass of water.
-Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Michalski
love...@infinet.com,
love...@safelite.com,
Programmer/Analyst http://www.infinet.com/~lovecraf
Safelite Glass Corp http://www.safelite.com
614-761-4920 Working with ANSI X12 EDI, GUI in C,C++,Assembly
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shekar Ramanathan
Patrick Baird (Patric...@Netmail.premierltd.com) wrote:
> In article <3206AD...@ipoline.com> Steve Cheng <elm...@ipoline.com> writes:
> > Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
> > VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
> > BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
> > Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
> > even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
> > And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
> > other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
> > software.
> To reply to your comments, in VB you can set preferences so that all
> variables must be explicitly declared. As for OOP
> capabilities, it is possible to develop your own headers and classes and
> VB will act like a OOPL.
Hello Patrick,
Thanks for correcting the wrong observations of the other poster.
I only hope that people participating in these language wars throw in some
"I think..." or "I believe..." or "IMO" if they are not 100% sure about
what they are saying. This will go a long way in not confusing bystanders
like me!
Thanks.
Shekar
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shekar Ramanathan | mailto:she...@CS.MsState.edu
Department of Computer Science | http://www.cs.msstate.edu/~shekar
Mississippi State University |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kennedy
<stuff deleted>
>
> I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
> Lamic sucks.
>
> Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
> a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> Visual Crazic code:
>
> ...
> RudbyGames = RudbyGames + MoreGames
> ...
> PRINT RugbyGames
>
> Here, a programmer mistyped `Rugby..'. So, it wasn't
> changed. But, instead, a new variable was created,
> `Rudby..' And it apparently breaks no rules in Basic.
> So, you'll have a helluva lot of fun debugging such
> stupid error in C++. I would have to declare all my
> variables before I use 'em, like:
>
> unsigned short int MoreGames, RugbyGames = 44;
> RugbyGames = RugbyGames + MoreGames;
> cout << RugbyGames;
>
> Had I made a typo in `RugbyGames', my compiler
> would have made a lot of noice (or, at least,
> issued a warning ) about how stupid I am that I use
> an undeclared variable, like:
>
> char.cc: In function `int Games()':
> char.cc:8: `RudbyGames' undeclared (first use this function)
> char.cc:8: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> char.cc:8: for each function it appears in.)
>
> If I add `-Wall' switch to my command line compiler statement,
> I'll get even more debugging information.
>
> Conclusion: C++ lets me write a better error-proof program
> then Micro$uck Visual Gasic does.
>
Alternativly, you could just set the 'Require variable declaration'
switch and have VB work the same way as C++. It's only been in the
language for the last three releases.
Never mind...
Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kennedy Internet : k...@drl.ox.ac.uk
Applications Programmer/Network Manager Phone : (+44) (0)1865 224149
Diabetes Research, RI, Oxford, England Fax : (+44) (0)1865 723884
Steve Hilton
Steve Cheng wrote:
>
> > I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
> > Lamic sucks.
> >
> > Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
> > a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> > the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> > just another new variable. Consider this piece of
> > Visual Crazic code:
>
>
> Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
> VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
> BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
> Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
> even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
> And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
> other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
> software.
>
> means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
least it catches it at "run time".
And ANYONE who thinks that
for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
For I=1 to 40:Next
is seriously Brainwashed.
And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
"select" on Strings, variable, ANY Datatype - not just INTEGERS (duh!)
the Windows API is VERY easy to use in VB - just put a "declare"
statement in you "main module" - (just like your .hpp files), and then
"call" them whenever you want. How the hell is THAT harder than than C -
and the lack of pointers it a BENEFIT! - the single biggest thing that C
Hackers screw up is POINTERs! POINTERS SUCK - and even though they are a
necessary evil - it's REAL nice to be able to avoid it.
I use C, VB, and about 10 other languages and if I had a a choice I'd
use VB every time - unfortunately I don't always have a choice.
Now having said all that - OF COURSE "C" is a more "powerful" language,
just like a PORSCHE is more powerful than a Ford - but in a race
between a great driver in a Ford and a "Hacker" in a Porsche - guess
who'll win.
Point is - use the right tool for the JOB - and get over yourself!
So - enough FLAMES -
fr...@tornado.be
=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>I thought I might add a real life example why Visual
>Lamic sucks.
>Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
>a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
>the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
>just another new variable. Consider this piece of
>Visual Crazic code:
>RugbyGames = 44
EVER HEARD OF -----> OPTION EXPLICIT <--------
No?
Well, using it requires the programmer to declare every variable he
uses.
Got any real arguments against VB?
Ever worked on a large project?
Try getting the bugs out of someone elses C++ code.
I'm the first person to admit that we need languages like C++ to
create the stuff that needs performance, but the time of a programmer
is too valuable to waste on making him write stuff in C++ that can
easily be done in VB in a 10th of the time.
TIP: before you start crapping all over VB you should learn how it
works. The PRINT statement is a thing of the dark ages.
Chinedu Chip Opara
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 19:44:36 GMT, =BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com>
wrote:
>I heard a different rumour. Micro$oft is actually hiring trolls and
>losers
Really? Okay, are those "trolls" and "losers" going to make good
money? Pay their bills? Support their families? Did I hear a "yes"?
Then I WISH THOSE TROLLS THE BEST OF EVERYTHING. You're just jealous
because us Microsoft "lackeys" want to be taken care of.
>Basic creates a new variable whenever you type
>a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
>the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
>just another new variable.
Looks to me like you have been living in the dark ages. Ever heard of
OPTION EXPLICIT?
<jeez>
Phil Hargett
I agree with you that what you have at Glaxo is, yes, a production
system, but, sorry, it sounds like a shining example of office
automation--not a robust, large-scale, production system.
VB really IS NOT very good at complex client-server, for example. If
you have an application that involves, say, access to legacy data on an
IBM mainframe via LU 6.2, that will be used by 1,000 users 15 hours a
day, that must handle transactions in under 10 seconds (don't even think
about shooting for 5 second), then, I'm sorry, VB simply doesn't cut
it. It's performance cannot compare to C/C++ or other languages, it's
still too buggy for production systems, and since a typical VB
application uses so many third-party controls no software vendor in
their right mind (including M$) will support you, because too much of
the code simply isn't theirs.
VB really is good at office automation, especially for power users, but
it is not an enterprise player yet. I'm glad your situation worked out
for you at Glaxo, however.
Phil Hargett
us01...@interramp.com
Phil Semanchuk wrote:
>
> > Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for
> > production software.
>
Howard M. Swope III
Ed-
For the most part I agree with you. I think it is important to note that
nothing is black and white. One would be best served by using the
appropriate tool for the job. At present C++ is not ideal for rapid
development and is a little slow for the corporate world. Obviously VB is
going to restrict implementation in exchange for quicker, graphical
development.
Object technologies and graphical code development tools are developing for
C which will allow the versatility and integrity of C to be maintained and
at the same time to get the job done quickly. I want to be able to purchase
objects which allow me to quickly build database forms, but I still want
the power to tweak the third bit from the left. Visual C is evolving into
this tool. I don't think VB will ever be this tool, because it is not in
its nature.
One wouldn't use a wrench to screw in a screw, but it would be nice if
there was a tool which would screw in screws and tighten down a nut.
Ed Michalski <love...@infinet.com> wrote in article
G Ennis
=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> spewed forth :
>unsigned short int MoreGames, RugbyGames = 44;
that's not good style. put each variable on a seperate line.
>RugbyGames = RugbyGames + MoreGames;
use the "+=" operator.
>cout << RugbyGames;
How about some documentation, in-line comments, or revision
history here.
Carey Gregory
I've managed to stay out of this stupid flame war so far, but this is too much.
Steve Hilton wrote:
>
> I use C, VB, and about 10 other languages....
>
Then perhaps you could explain your C example:
>
> for (i;i++;i<40)
>
Yessir. That convinced me all right.
--
Carey Gregory
Gateway Technologies Corp.
cgre...@gw-tech.com
=BORG=
[comp.lang.perl, comp.unix.programming, comp.unix.questions
and comp.lang.java deleted from the list of newsgroups]
Patrick Baird wrote:
>
> To reply to your comments, in VB you can set preferences so that all variables must be explicitly declared. As for OOP
> capabilities, it is possible to develop your own headers and classes and VB will act like a OOPL. How is switch difficult? And
> using windows API, granted its DIFFERENT than C/C++, but only people with tunnel vision would limit their knowledge of numerous
> programing languages.
I'd say only people with tunnel vision do not know how:
1. to limit their lines to 80 characters.
2. to do without proprietary buggy bloated Dos-shells
(e.g. Windoze95/nNT)
3. to avoid non-portable crappy languages. (VB)
4. to crosspost VB crap to comp.lang.perl (do not compare
a rusty coughing family sedan with a monster truck)
[..........]
> Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
> VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
> BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
> Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
> even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
> And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
> other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
> software.
But it's very suitable for contaminating your HD with hundreds
of `vbrun's' and '*vbx's' files. Practically any VB-written
program that I installed, when I was a windoze user, put its
own version of those *vbx'es files in /windowz/system and dublicates
of these files in their own directories. Once I ran CleanSweep,
I found at least 3 copies of vbrun300.dll and about 30 copies
of the same damn conflicting VBX'es all over my HD. Whose fault
is it? Micro$oft's or VB programmers'? I am glad I switched
to Linux. No more junk files to clean and all the libraries
are more or less standard, at least. If some program needs
an older library, e.g. libjpeg.so.5, and I upgraded it
to libjpeg.so.6, all I do, I make a symbolic link, and
a newer library file is used by an older program without
problem. I'd like to see you trying to make your programs
use vbrun200.dll instead of vbrun300.dll by just making
a shortcut.
> And this is not to mention nonportable code ("portable" in Microsoft
> means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
> either, something like JAva is better.
--
Shekar Ramanathan
Why the heck is all this V-Basic discussion being so widely cross-posted
(esp. to all the unix newsgroups)? I have trimmed the followups. Let me
see if it helps....
Roger Smith
>VB really IS NOT very good at complex client-server, for example. If
>you have an application that involves, say, access to legacy data on an
>IBM mainframe via LU 6.2, that will be used by 1,000 users 15 hours a
>day, that must handle transactions in under 10 seconds (don't even think
>about shooting for 5 second), then, I'm sorry, VB simply doesn't cut
>it.
Huh? In a situation like that it is the server that's the bottleneck.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting writing a server in VB. VB
provides an excellent platform for development of client-side
programs.
-- Roger
* Harry Nilsson Home Page: http://www.magicnet.net/~rasmith/nilsson.html
Daniel P Hudson
ch...@chipset.com (Chinedu "Chip" Opara) wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 19:44:36 GMT, =BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com>
>wrote:
>>I heard a different rumour. Micro$oft is actually hiring trolls and
>>losers
>Really? Okay, are those "trolls" and "losers" going to make good
>money? Pay their bills? Support their families? Did I hear a "yes"?
>Then I WISH THOSE TROLLS THE BEST OF EVERYTHING. You're just jealous
>because us Microsoft "lackeys" want to be taken care of.
I'm sorry, but that answer is INCORRECT. What we REALLY want is for
these lame-brains to get a clue and keep this CRAP in thier newsgroups
namely comp.os.windows.programmer.* where it belongs, and not the
rest of the comp.lang hierarchy where it shows up.
Simon Culverhouse
Steve Hilton <shi...@webtex.com> wrote in article
<3208BF...@webtex.com>...
(snip)
> Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
> remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
> least it catches it at "run time".
> And ANYONE who thinks that
> for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
> For I=1 to 40:Next
> is seriously Brainwashed.
And you obviously haven't got a clue about C/C++ !! Try:
for (int i = 0; i < 40; i ++) // this is more likely to work !!
> And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
OK, in VB how do you:
switch (wParam)
{
case WM_FRED:
case WM_BERT:
case WM_HARRY:
// do something
case WM_SALLY:
case WM_SUE:
case WM_MARY:
// do something else
}
Can this be done in VB ?? Or do you have to repeat code ?
> "select" on Strings, variable, ANY Datatype - not just INTEGERS (duh!)
> the Windows API is VERY easy to use in VB - just put a "declare"
> statement in you "main module" - (just like your .hpp files), and then
> "call" them whenever you want.
Having over 8 years C/C++ eperience, and having just started using VB
(Basic again), I find it unnerving the way you can just assign an integer
to a float for example. In my experience, this leads to confusion and all
sorts of nasty little bugs, which while not fatal, can cause users and
developers alike a lot of unnecessay hassle. Note, I started development
life many years ago on CP/M MBasic (yes, Microsoft Basic) and therefore it
took some getting used to when converting to C, especially the inability to
assign accross types (automatic casting). But thak God that C/C++ does not
allow this 8*)
>How the hell is THAT harder than than C -
> and the lack of pointers it a BENEFIT! - the single biggest thing that C
> Hackers screw up is POINTERs! POINTERS SUCK - and even though they are a
> necessary evil - it's REAL nice to be able to avoid it.
Pointers can be confusing, and yes, HACKERS can screw them up, but then
again I would never get a HACKER to work for me. If you are an educated
and experienced developer, a professional software engineer, then pointers
are not a problem, just a huge benifit. After all, they are one of the
FUNDEMENTALS of software engineering.
> I use C, VB, and about 10 other languages and if I had a a choice I'd
Somehow I think you may be exagerating just a tiny bit, judging from your
example of C above <g>
> use VB every time - unfortunately I don't always have a choice.
> Now having said all that - OF COURSE "C" is a more "powerful" language,
> just like a PORSCHE is more powerful than a Ford - but in a race
> between a great driver in a Ford and a "Hacker" in a Porsche - guess
> who'll win.
> Point is - use the right tool for the JOB - and get over yourself!
I also like to use the right tools for the right job, and as a UI
prototyper, or as a front end to hook onto a DB or other service, VB is
great, but when you have worked on real-time, machine control systems of
any reasonable size, you realise that VB lacks structure, discipline and
the re-use that environments such as VC++ do offer.
Sub FinishedRanting_Click()
Unload Flame
End
End Sub
--
culv...@ltd.mhs.compuserve.com
Simon Culverhouse
Senior Software Engineer
Instron Ltd.
Note: My views do not necessarily reflect those of
my employer ! (So there !)
Matt Taylor
DISCRETE DATA-PINCHERS VERSUS MOUTH-BREATHING MOUSE SQUEEZERS
[mostly entertaining overstatement with some humor and a real (but somewhat
exaggerated point behind it]
Topic: Looking at VB as a living language, and finding it to be a messy
but popular standard for mid to high level languages which was pushed on us
by Mr. Gates:
Purpose: To have some honest fun in remembering that an established
commercial standard for programming languages is not much different from
having some sort of ugly street language be an international educational
standard (or, why the BBC would be very unhappy).
Intended Audience: Anyone who is interested in the idea of programming
languages as reflecting trends in the use of ordinary living languages like
the one I'm typing in, where social pressure is limited to
commercial/advertising influence, and the social environment is limited to
engineers, programmers/analysts, business "power users" (snicker), and
mouse-squeezers (not funny).
Conclusion about VB: Microsoft readily accepts, and uses it's huge
influence to push easy consumer (mouse-squeezer) language standards onto
everyone, including those with more complex jobs to do, much in the way
they would like us to use their inadequate, consumer-oriented desktop
systems (+ a little networking thrown in) for serious business and
engineering systems which have to be hugely network-wide.
Conclusion about Java: Java is not yet fast. Java is just now being used
with it's own SQL drivers for the better back ends (thank you WebLogic).
But Java is what almost anyone with any experience would call a serious
language, and it outstrips VB in it's basic syntax and functions so as to
not even be on the same level. There is some reason for comparing Java to
C++, and if you want to just talk about grammatical appearance and control
stuctures, you may compare it to C with lots of structs. But comparing
Java to VB when you are talking about flexible low-level programming
languages with well thought out design is like talking about a Winnebago
versus a moped for a cross country road trip.
I've used Visual Basic 4.0 (the DAO especially) and VBA (mostly for Excel).
For the small projects I was doing, Java would have been like taking a
laser cannon to go and shoot old bottles and cans off of posts. For my
part, I don't want to be stuck with VBA as my daily language. Java, on the
other hand, which is definitely not ready for prime-time as an interface to
OLTP databases and whatnot, is such a good language that I think it will
get there, and is worth the time, even if you're not just doing Applets.
Discussion: Computer languages are a bit like ordinary languages in that
even a single class of dialects which all serve a similar purpose may be
distinct from each other in being implemented by different groups for
different purposes.
That generic statement aside, it is readily apparent to anyone with
sufficient experience in high and low level programming languages that
Microsoft seems to have 2 intentions, and that these define Visual Basic.
The first is to have what one might call a koine, the Greek term for
"common", which was applied to the syntactically more simple and practical
version of Greek used in the New Testament (I'm not particularly religious,
and favour Taoist and Buddhists, so this isn't a religiously motivated
example).
The purpose of a common language is to have something which the
middle-of-the-road person may use. This language will not allow the kind
of control over the details expected of a highly technical language, but
will get the job done, and won't shut out people with less technical
ability. In this respect, it will be more accepted by the mainstream,
which, in this case, for Microsoft would seem to include business users who
have no intention of ever learning something as complex as Java or C++ (or
even C in most cases).
Remember that the origin of BASIC was to create an easy language. Mr.
Gates has always favoured BASIC as I'm sure he feels it is appealing to the
lowest common denominator (we all remember Quick BASIC, Object Basic, and
all of the other versions and names he played with).
If Mr. Gates has his way, BASIC will be to computer programming what
simpler versions of American English are to International Business - not
the best language, but popular. Like VB, English is an awful mix of
grammatical and phonetic rules from a number of very dissimilar languages.
If we wanted a more consistent standard, we'd use Spanish (I base this on
my undergraduate training in Greek and Latin syntax; and recall that Latin
- from which Spanish springs - is what helped to regularise English rules
of grammar). This is another sign of a standard he would like to impose, I
feel, similar to imposing OLE, COM, etc. In fact, VB was one of the
earliest signs of Microsoft's pushy sort of "our propietary standard should
be other's open standard" attitude, but most missed this, including me.
In any case, VB is, like Windows95, a patchwork of glitzy and neato
concepts layered over a simplistic, inefficient, and clunky language,
which, even in it's 4th version, won't compile and has no support for high
level access to database backends (i.e., going through the JET engine is
like towing a Ferrari behind a Honda 125 and bragging about how fast your
Ferrari goes, while having the RDO be the only way to get you past the JET
engine is simply making you pay for the $1,000 version of Visual Basic to
have access to a real back-end database).
As a result, you can do all of the things Microsoft thinks you should be
able to do given their vision of the world just prior to the release of VB
4.0 - which doesn't include having an Object-Oriented language, having real
access to databases with any power - minus the baggage of the old BASIC
syntax and keywords plus the baggage of having all of the new practical
stuff be cast into an "object" (let's just call it a GUI) model that a 14
year old won't be confused by.
This is not all bad, for if a 14 year old can get the picture, so can
anyone over 14 (mostly), and a lot of smart 35 year olds with no real
programming experience can actually code some pretty neat stuff with
practical business use. In fact, that is amazingly useful.
Better yet, a 28 year old with some programming experience and in a big
hurry to build something with a nice face on it that smarter database
administrators and programmers can hook up to a better language and system
for him can DO WONDERS WITH VB.
If you don't believe all of this, say "VBA" or "VBScript" out loud to
yourself and then breathe.
The drawbacks are (at least) that what is a great language for
non-programming 35 year olds or quick-and-dirty programmers is not such a
good idea for OLTP systems like databases with a large number of users, and
is simply an architectural and syntactical nightmare for an experienced
programmer trying to do more solid work.
Java is not yet fast. Java is just now being used with it's own SQL
drivers for the better back ends (thank you WebLogic). But Java is what
almost anyone with any experience would call a serious language, and it
outstrips VB in it's basic syntax and functions so as to not even be on the
same level. There is some reason for comparing Java to C++, and if you
want to just talk about grammatical appearance and control stuctures, you
may compare it to C with lots of structs. But comparing Java to VB when
you are talking about flexible low-level programming languages with well
thought out design is like talking about a Winnebago versus a moped for a
cross country road trip.
I've used Visual Basic 4.0 (the DAO especially) and VBA (mostly for Excel).
For the small projects I was doing, Java would have been like taking a
laser cannon to go and shoot old bottles and cans off of posts. For my
part, I don't want to be stuck with VBA as my daily language. Java, on the
other hand, which is definitely not ready for prime-time as an interface to
OLTP databases and whatnot, is such a good language that I think it will
get there, and is worth the time, even if you're not just doing Applets.
Matt Taylor
Robert Chafer
> > And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
> OK, in VB how do you:
> switch (wParam)
> {
> case WM_FRED:
> case WM_BERT:
> case WM_HARRY:
> // do something
>
> case WM_SALLY:
> case WM_SUE:
> case WM_MARY:
> // do something else
> }
>
> Can this be done in VB ?? Or do you have to repeat code ?
Select (wParam)
case WM_FRED,WM_BERT,WM_SALLY
...
case WM_SALLY,etc
--
Robert Chafer
Digital iD Picture Systems
Brian Hall
Here at Gulf Guaranty Life, we have used VB 3.0 (albeit with a HLLAPI
package from Attachmate) to interface with any of several mainframe
types/emulators. We can download information from the mainframe to
our loan package, eliminating time typing. We also take the finished,
booked loan, and send it to the mainframe. Note that this is *NOT* a
batch text upload.
I like VB for what it can do. If you compare it to C/C++, you can
always come up with cons (and pros, if you're honest). However, if
you keep your expectations realistic, and expect a simple, quick
development tool, it can be the best choice.
Brian Hall
Gulf Guaranty Life
br...@gulfpak.com
On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 21:32:49 +0800, Phil Hargett
<us01...@interramp.com> wrote:
>VB really IS NOT very good at complex client-server, for example. If
>you have an application that involves, say, access to legacy data on an
>IBM mainframe via LU 6.2, that will be used by 1,000 users 15 hours a
>day, that must handle transactions in under 10 seconds (don't even think
>about shooting for 5 second), then, I'm sorry, VB simply doesn't cut
>it. It's performance cannot compare to C/C++ or other languages, it's
>still too buggy for production systems, and since a typical VB
>application uses so many third-party controls no software vendor in
>their right mind (including M$) will support you, because too much of
>the code simply isn't theirs.
>
<cut out extraneous text...>
coolboy
Patrick Baird wrote:
>
> To reply to your comments, in VB you can set preferences so that all variables must be explicitly declared. As for OOP
> capabilities, it is possible to develop your own headers and classes and VB will act like a OOPL. How is switch difficult? And
> using windows API, granted its DIFFERENT than C/C++, but only people with tunnel vision would limit their knowledge of numerous
> programing languages.
>
> > Lamic sucks.
> >
> > a new name, without declaring it. But if you mistype
> > the name of a variable, VB compiler will think it's
> > Visual Crazic code:
>
>
> Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
> VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
> BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
> Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
> even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
> And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
> other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
> software.
>
> means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
> either, something like JAva is better.
>
VB offers a command known as OPTION EXPLICIT which makes variable
declaration imperative.
Mark R. Andrachek Jr.
Stuff VB. You wanna write GUI apps quick like? Use Tcl/Tk - now with
a plugin by sun that is 1) free 2) available on a shitload more
platforms than any VB plugin.
Hallow
hal...@erols.com
Stuff VB. You wanna write GUI apps quick like? Use Tcl/Tk - now with
a plugin by sun that is 1) free 2) available on a shitload more
platforms than any VB plugin.
Hallow
bio...@atlas.vcu.edu
Chinedu Chip Opara
>Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
>remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
>least it catches it at "run time".
>for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
>For I=1 to 40:Next
>is seriously Brainwashed.
Don't worry, the fool has probably not even SEEN VB 4.0 in action. If
he did, he'd have known about the OPTION EXPLICIT statement.
Tell me, why do many C++ -only users think that VB is something more
like GW-BASIC? Let me tell all you C++ people something... VB 5.0 will
have a NATIVE compiler. It only gets better.
Deal with it.
Daniel P Hudson
Don't know, but the FOOL isn't intelligent enough to realize VB
discussions are down the hall in comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
and not in *ANY* of the newsgroups he cross-posted it too.
Tyler Barnes
BR>I like VB for what it can do. If you compare it to C/C++, you can
BR>always come up with cons (and pros, if you're honest). However, if
BR>you keep your expectations realistic, and expect a simple, quick
BR>development tool, it can be the best choice.
Well, honestly the only PROs I see for VB is, as you said quick program
development, and ease of use. I would sacrifice both those benefits any
day of the week for the power that low level languages provide.
Daisy
Look, this has to be troll, for christ's sake!
Let's stop wasting bandwidth, eh?
--
Chris Reece
http://sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk/~daisy/
'72 Beetle 1200 - Pray for torque...
Kwyxta
You're just asking for a flame, AREN'T YOU?
Kwyxta.
James O'shea
da...@sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk (Daisy) wrote:
>
>Look, this has to be troll, for christ's sake!
>
>Let's stop wasting bandwidth, eh?
>
>--
>Chris Reece
>http://sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk/~daisy/
>'72 Beetle 1200 - Pray for torque...
It may be even more off topic but all 1972 Beetles had a 1600cc
engine and had plenty of torque thanks to their 18 lb flywheel.
<Holding back tears> I miss my 1972 Super Beetle.
James
Sang Le
Kwyxta (time...@blaze.net.au) wrote:
: da...@sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk (Daisy) writes:
: > Look, this has to be troll, for christ's sake!
: >
: > Let's stop wasting bandwidth, eh?
: >
: > --
: > Chris Reece
: > http://sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk/~daisy/
: > '72 Beetle 1200 - Pray for torque...
: You're just asking for a flame, AREN'T YOU?
:
: Kwyxta.
All this because of some guy named Bill Gates :-)
Language is language. It's free country. Use what you like!
Sang.
John McTaggart
MMX...@prodigy.com (James O'shea) wrote:
>da...@sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk (Daisy) wrote:
>>
>>Look, this has to be troll, for christ's sake!
>>
>>Let's stop wasting bandwidth, eh?
>>
>>--
>>Chris Reece
>>http://sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk/~daisy/
>>'72 Beetle 1200 - Pray for torque...
> It may be even more off topic but all 1972 Beetles had a 1600cc
>engine and had plenty of torque thanks to their 18 lb flywheel.
><Holding back tears> I miss my 1972 Super Beetle.
They also float . . . for a while . . . <G>
Had a friend that just had to see if the commercial was true.
JE McTaggart
t...@iguana.ruralnet.net
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Chinedu Chip Opara wrote:
> Let me tell all you C++ people something... VB 5.0 will have a NATIVE
> compiler.
ooooooh... ahhhhhh... a NATIVE compiler... and we're supposed to be *impressed* by
this..?
> Deal with it.
We already *are* dealing with it--by continuing to use the right tool for the right
job.
Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
mus...@henge.com
Matt Taylor
In article <3208BF...@webtex.com>, shi...@webtex.com says...
>Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
>remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
>least it catches it at "run time".
Easy there. Almost everyone knows about the "option explicit" switch
forcing you to declare variables, but it is an indication of the
"softness" of the language. It's similar to the way that in Access you
"can" type in SQL (but only with the stupid brackets - how do I turn
those off?; just kidding).
VB is great given the fact that it's a lower common denominator language,
but let's not pretend it compares to Java. Look at the way you still
have to call the C functions for ODBC to get to an ODBC data source
unless you spend $1,000 to get RDO.
If VB was a truly wonderful low level language, then Windows would have
been re-written component by component in it, but notice Microsoft
continues to code their stuff in C/C++, and you still have to use these
where VB can't do the job. Almost everyone who knows anything about
general programming languages is aware of the different between them and
application programming languages with some lower level functions.
>And ANYONE who thinks that
>for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
>For I=1 to 40:Next
>is seriously Brainwashed.
Here's all you have to learn: for(declaration/assignment; loop
condition; incrementing)
(I'm not sure why you have declaration without assignment, incrementing,
and then loop condition). I don't see all that much difference, and
small improvements in the syntax like that don't do much for me.
If you don't like i++, then just use i = i + 1. It's another case of not
really gaining much in economy, but engineer types like it for it's
obscurity and seem to hate typing a few extra keys (which is fine, it
just doesn't make me much difference, and I'm for "intuitive" too).
>And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
>"select" on Strings, variable, ANY Datatype - not just INTEGERS (duh!)
I thought this was a Java news group.
>the Windows API is VERY easy to use in VB - just put a "declare"
>statement in you "main module" - (just like your .hpp files), and then
>"call" them whenever you want. How the hell is THAT harder than than C -
>and the lack of pointers it a BENEFIT! - the single biggest thing that C
>Hackers screw up is POINTERs! POINTERS SUCK - and even though they are a
>necessary evil - it's REAL nice to be able to avoid it.
Java has no pointers either, and you only pass whole objects by reference
(which is pretty neato anyway, and you don't have to worry about how it's
handled), while variables get passed by value.
>I use C, VB, and about 10 other languages and if I had a a choice I'd
>use VB every time - unfortunately I don't always have a choice.
>Now having said all that - OF COURSE "C" is a more "powerful" language,
>just like a PORSCHE is more powerful than a Ford - but in a race
>between a great driver in a Ford and a "Hacker" in a Porsche - guess
>who'll win.
>Point is - use the right tool for the JOB - and get over yourself!
>So - enough FLAMES -
Did you check out the neato distinction between "while" and "for while"
in Java? Handy variation.
I know almost no C or C++. I thought at first that Java's inheritance of
C style syntax would really suck. However, VB is too much like English
(it's really a Germanic syntactical property) in way it compounds nouns
to the point that what modifies (is a function on something or a property
label) and what just refers (is an object or variable) is unclear with a
quick read through the code. It's similar to using phrases like:
Saving-and-Loan-Mortgage-for-first-time-buyers-with-no-money-down-this-mo
nth-only-get-it-now-say-you-heard-it-here.guarantee
Having translated a lot of more formal languages for a degree, I'm
permanently stuck on noticing the
clustered-up-can't-distinguish-one-type-of-sign-from-the-other syntax of
lower common denominator languages. Hey, at least Java uses your
favourit VB-style dot operator where you append included properties and
functions to your object, huh?
Genteel
A long time ago, on a computer far, far away... Steve Hilton
<shi...@webtex.com> wrote:
|>Point is - use the right tool for the JOB - and get over yourself!
|>So - enough FLAMES -
Totally agree. VB is a good language for certain jobs, while C++ is
good for others. That's why we have so many different languages. It
is for using using the right language for the right task. VB is just
one of them. For someone learning programming, C++ sucks. It is
harder to learn than BASIC. But for someone interested in good
software, C++ is good. The thing is, we have to consider what each
language is designed for in order to compare them. Comparing C++ to
VB is like comparing a knife to a pair of scissors. Both cut things,
but they cut different things.
=====
Peter
Email: de...@ipoline.com
Any mistakes, spelling, grammatical or otherwise are
results of poor transmission.
Genteel
A long time ago, on a computer far, far away... =BORG=
<vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote:
|>> Totally agree. Yes, although I do use a Microsoft operating system, IMHO
|>> VB sucks. I 've used it before. C/C++ gives much more flexibility.
|>> BASIC's basic constructs, such as for, switch, are difficult to use.
|>> Also try using Windows API from VB! VB has no pointers of any sort (not
|>> even references as in Java). VB code also cannot ignore return values.
|>> And Microsoft never thought of adding OOP to basic either yet adding
|>> other junk stuff. Conclusion: it's simply not suitable for production
|>> software.
|>
|>But it's very suitable for contaminating your HD with hundreds
|>of `vbrun's' and '*vbx's' files. Practically any VB-written
|>program that I installed, when I was a windoze user, put its
|>own version of those *vbx'es files in /windowz/system and dublicates
|>of these files in their own directories. Once I ran CleanSweep,
|>I found at least 3 copies of vbrun300.dll and about 30 copies
|>of the same damn conflicting VBX'es all over my HD. Whose fault
|>is it? Micro$oft's or VB programmers'? I am glad I switched
|>to Linux. No more junk files to clean and all the libraries
|>are more or less standard, at least. If some program needs
|>an older library, e.g. libjpeg.so.5, and I upgraded it
|>to libjpeg.so.6, all I do, I make a symbolic link, and
|>a newer library file is used by an older program without
|>problem. I'd like to see you trying to make your programs
|>use vbrun200.dll instead of vbrun300.dll by just making
|>a shortcut.
|>
That's gonna change by the next release. VB5. It will have a
compiler.
Jens Balchen Jr.
Thus wrote ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Schemitz Patrik ):
> "Option explicit" reminds me of "explicit none" in FORTRAN... and nothing
> good comes from a language that reminds me of that gorgoyle!
So I guess C as just as bad as Basic, then, since "if" surely reminds you
of Fortran, too.
> Anyway the original poster was not into _remembering_ but mistyping. And
> recognizing undeclared variables at run time -- should be taken and shot!
I agree with you on that count, and I'm glad VB will tell me when I've used
undeclared variables.
> That's clearly a task for the compiler... if VB actually _was_ a compiler.
> (Saying "compiler" I mean one who produces pure binary executables)
Saying "compiler" I mean something that produces something else from my
source code, 'cause that what it really means.
> I can't remember each and every variable name in one meg of source code,
IF you were using VB, it wouldn't be one meg ;)
> It would be even more intuitive if you wrote:
> for (i=1;i<40;i++) { ... }
> Because this one would even _work_.
Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
Solve My Problem
Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
> Of course, "for(i;i++;i<40)" would compile as well, but what would it do?
> It would not loop very long because the "i++" statement returns the value of
> i... which is !=0 after the first or second loop. Therefore, the loop would
> loop only once.
> Seriously brainwashed...
As he said...
> > Don't worry, the fool has probably not even SEEN VB 4.0 in action. If
> > he did, he'd have known about the OPTION EXPLICIT statement.
> And the above one hasn't even started a C compiler yet...
We all make mistakes. Consider this scenario: You're pointing your .357
Magnum at your foot, and you're slowly squeezing the trigger. So, what
happens?
C will let you shoot yourself in the foot.
C++ will take the leg away too.
Delphi will tell you not to point the gun at your foot.
VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
:)
> THIS MUST BE THE FIRST BASIC COMPILER EVER!
> Besides TrueBasic, TurboBasic, PowerBasic... of couse :)
PowerBasic sounds rather cool. Have you tried XBasic? Unix compiler and
Windows compiler from the same source, much like C.
Jens (bal...@sn.no)
--
I rocked my baby sister all day.
Until I ran out of rocks.
Schemitz Patrik
Chinedu "Chip" Opara (ch...@chipset.com) wrote:
> >Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
> >remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
> >least it catches it at "run time".
"Option explicit" reminds me of "explicit none" in FORTRAN... and nothing
good comes from a language that reminds me of that gorgoyle!
Anyway the original poster was not into _remembering_ but mistyping. And
recognizing undeclared variables at run time -- should be taken and shot!
That's clearly a task for the compiler... if VB actually _was_ a compiler.
(Saying "compiler" I mean one who produces pure binary executables)
I can't remember each and every variable name in one meg of source code,
espec. because I didn't write it all myself. But certainly _you_ could...
> >And ANYONE who thinks that
> >for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
> >For I=1 to 40:Next
> >is seriously Brainwashed.
> [snip]
It would be even more intuitive if you wrote:
for (i=1;i<40;i++) { ... }
Because this one would even _work_.
Of course, "for(i;i++;i<40)" would compile as well, but what would it do?
It would not loop very long because the "i++" statement returns the value of
i... which is !=0 after the first or second loop. Therefore, the loop would
loop only once.
Seriously brainwashed...
> Don't worry, the fool has probably not even SEEN VB 4.0 in action. If
> he did, he'd have known about the OPTION EXPLICIT statement.
And the above one hasn't even started a C compiler yet...
> Tell me, why do many C++ -only users think that VB is something more
> like GW-BASIC? Let me tell all you C++ people something... VB 5.0 will
> have a NATIVE compiler. It only gets better.
A native compiler, in v.5.0 ???! GREAT!
THIS MUST BE THE FIRST BASIC COMPILER EVER!
Besides TrueBasic, TurboBasic, PowerBasic... of couse :)
It's only getting worse.
Cheers, patrick
Absender: Patrick Schemitz,
ab...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
jeremy
Schemitz Patrik wrote:
>
> Chinedu "Chip" Opara (ch...@chipset.com) wrote:
> > >And ANYONE who thinks that
> > >for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
> > >For I=1 to 40:Next
> > >is seriously Brainwashed.
> > [snip]
>
> It would be even more intuitive if you wrote:
> for (i=1;i<40;i++) { ... }
> Because this one would even _work_.
>
> Of course, "for(i;i++;i<40)" would compile as well, but what would it do?
> It would not loop very long because the "i++" statement returns the value of
> i... which is !=0 after the first or second loop. Therefore, the loop would
> loop only once.
>
>Seriously brainwashed...
If i were != 0 after the first or second loop, the loop would continue
to execute until i==0.
Seriously brainwashed...
John McTaggart
"Robert Chafer" <Rob...@chalm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
>> OK, in VB how do you:
>> switch (wParam)
>> {
>> case WM_FRED:
>> case WM_BERT:
>> case WM_HARRY:
>> // do something
>>
>> case WM_SALLY:
>> case WM_SUE:
>> case WM_MARY:
>> // do something else
>> }
>>
>> Can this be done in VB ?? Or do you have to repeat code ?
>Select (wParam)
> case WM_FRED,WM_BERT,WM_SALLY
>...
> case WM_SALLY,etc
Try...
Select Case wParam
Case WM_FRED, WM_BERT
'
Case WM_SALLY
'
Case Else
End Select
JE McTaggart
t...@iguana.ruralnet.net
Jeremy Lyons
I am really disappointed in VB. I started using it because someone wanted
something slapped together for windows. I think I did a real disservice
to my customer. I lost five hours yesterday on weird math errors that
could only be solved by simplifying the equations.
Is there any other "windows" language that is easy, fast and not so fat?
I don't need fancy i/o.
-JL
Schemitz Patrik
jeremy (jer...@xyris.com) wrote:
> Schemitz Patrik wrote:
> > Of course, "for(i;i++;i<40)" would compile as well, but what would it do?
> > It would not loop very long because the "i++" statement returns the value of
> > i... which is !=0 after the first or second loop. Therefore, the loop would
> > loop only once.
> If i were != 0 after the first or second loop, the loop would continue
> to execute until i==0.
Embarrasing for me, Jeremy is right. Nevertheless, the code would be
nonsence since it depended on the implementation of type int how long it
would loop.
Nice enough someone out there's still awake, Jeremy :)
Cheers, patrick
James Youngman
In article <4uvnkd$4...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
says...
>> Don't worry, the fool has probably not even SEEN VB 4.0 in action. If
>> he did, he'd have known about the OPTION EXPLICIT statement.
...which has been in VB since before version 4 and whose necessity is a real
carbuncle on the face of the language.
Followups trimmed (slightly).
--
James Youngman VG Gas Analysis Systems
The trouble with the rat-race is, even if you win, you're still a rat.
Kazinator
In article <32141dca...@news.pacbell.net>,
Chinedu "Chip" Opara <ch...@chipset.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 21:30:41 GMT, bal...@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.)
>wrote:
>
>>Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
>>
>> Solve My Problem
>>
>>Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
>
>users.
>
>>VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
>
>declare a variable and NOT initialize it to NULL string or 0? I know I
I know many people who don't want such behavior. That's what explicit
initializers are for.
>know, C does not do it because it wastes time. VB does it so it takes
>a little time. BUT...
What are you talking about? The C language mandates that all static variables
that don't have initializers are set to meaningful zero values before
the program is executed (or sometime before they are used, to be more
precise). Integral arithmetic types are set to zero. Floating-point values
are set to bit patterns that represent 0.0. Pointers are set to whatever
bitpattern represents a null pointer.
Automatic variables are not initialized because they are dynamically created
as part of a procedure's activation record. It would be wasteful to initialize
them each time the function is entered, only to have that value clobbered
by a subsequent assignment.
The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
times.
Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
From the ``fortune'' program files:
BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.
--
BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing.
-- Seymour Papert
--
It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
--
Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
BASIC after reaching puberty.
--
All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
The one from Dijkstra is a particularly stern condemnation, given his stature.
Of course, most of you VB lamers would be a lot more insulted if you actually
_knew_ who that is.
--
Chinedu Chip Opara
>Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
>
> Solve My Problem
>
>Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
VB reads very close to English that's why it is very appealing to many
users.
>VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
Exactly. I mean, for example, how many people you do know that want to
declare a variable and NOT initialize it to NULL string or 0? I know I
know, C does not do it because it wastes time. VB does it so it takes
a little time. BUT...
Tell me, VB-bashers, how much time does your Pentium 133MHz require to
initialize an integer to 0? OHHHH I am sorry, I forgot that your
deadline depended on that .000000001 nanoseconds it would take to
intialize the variable to 0. Forgive me.
>PowerBasic sounds rather cool. Have you tried XBasic? Unix compiler and
>Windows compiler from the same source, much like C.
I had XBasic for a while but I never really used it becuase the
interface was too UN-windows. It was pretty powerful though, I'll tell
ya.
James Seymour
[Trimmed: comp.unix.questions]
In article <4v29pb$c...@latte.cafe.net> Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> writes:
[snip]
>
In reference to Microsoft's Visual BASIC automatically initializing
dynamic variables..
>The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
>times.
Just add more processor power and memory, right? (Picture in your
mind the look and sound of dripping sarcasm.)
>
>Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
>Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
Hey! *I* eat quiche. My wife makes *great* quiche. And I *don't*
code in any form of BASIC anymore. (As previously noted.) (I'm
gonna tell my wife about your anti-quiche attitude. See if *you*
ever get any of it! You'll be sorry.)
>
>From the ``fortune'' program files:
>
[snip]
>--
>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
> -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
I think maybe Dijkstra was exaggerating just a bit. Fact is, I did
start with BASIC. (Microsoft Disk-Extended BASIC under CP/M and,
later, Digital Research's CBASIC.)
It was while designing/coding my first *serious* program--an inventory
and purchasing app--that it dawned on me: 1) what structured
programming meant, and 2) why it was advantageous.
It took me quite some number of hours to do it, but I pulled that whole
program apart and re-assembled it in a structured manner. (Difficult,
as you might imagine, in line-numbered interpreter BASIC.) What a
difference.
Later yet I discovered Pascal. I never looked back.
>--
>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
>BASIC after reaching puberty.
Well, you *could* say that I was in "computer-puberty" about the time
I discovered there had to be a better way than BASIC. (But I was *far*
beyond physical puberty.)
[snip]
>
>The one from Dijkstra is a particularly stern condemnation, given his
>stature. Of course, most of you VB lamers would be a lot more insulted
>if you actually _knew_ who that is.
Probably not. As with any other argument that attempts to expose the
utter amateurish nature of most Ms-oriented product, be it development
tools or whatever, they will simply dismiss such comments as the tortured
ramblings of dinosaurs whos time is past.
Regards,
Jim "yep, a dino" Seymour
--
Jim Seymour | "Try moving off NT easily. You can move from
jsey...@medar.com | Solaris to HP/UX to AIX or DEC easily--
Systems & Network Administrator | relative to moving off of NT, which is like
Medar, Inc., 38700 Grand River | a Roach Motel. Once you check in, you never
Ave., Farmington Hills, MI. | check out." Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems
Chinedu Chip Opara
On 15 Aug 1996 23:17:01 -0700, Jeremy Lyons <jly...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>I am really disappointed in VB. I started using it because someone wanted
>something slapped together for windows. I think I did a real disservice
>to my customer. I lost five hours yesterday on weird math errors that
>could only be solved by simplifying the equations.
Sometimes problems like that require simpler building blocks. Please
take my advice: don't blame the language and or programing
environment. They are just tools for expression and problem-solving.
>Is there any other "windows" language that is easy, fast and not so fat?
>I don't need fancy i/o.
Delphi is cool, and so is Visual C++, but I suspect you will have more
headaches with both. I mean, if you can't express and solve simple
expressions in VB then what simpler way is there to do it?
Maybe if you post the equations here we can help.
Cheerio!
Chinedu Chip Opara
On 16 Aug 1996 10:05:47 -0700, Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
>The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
>times.
Depends on the program being written. I doubt a small calculator
utility would drag if all the variables were initialized to 0 upon
declaration.
>Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
>Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
What is "quiche"?
Of course I know what "real" programmers do for a living. They sit on
newsgroups and insult and belittle use Visual BASIC programmers.
>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
I started with GW-BASIC, moved to QB, VB, C, and Perl, and I use
whichever tool fits the job.
So please, BITE ME.
>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
>BASIC after reaching puberty.
In that case there must be MILLIONS of pre-pubescent VB developers out
there cranking out all those VB apps and VBScript applets. Now these
are pre-TEENS that even a geek like me would like to hang out with.
Tell me though, how do they handle taxes since they are under 18 and
cannot legally work? I'd really like to know...
>All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
Ever thought about how a multi-millonaire demi-god like Gates rose,
especially after learning such a TERRIBLE language like BASIC? My oh
my BASIC should be banned from schools lest it make people smart and
wealthy like Bill Gates!
Niranjan Hira
In comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
[snip-snip]
: Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
: Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
languages while we get tasks done within deadlines so that our users don't
beat us up about deadlines or response times. "Real" programmers, on the
other hand, seem to have the liberties of infinite time. :)
The assumption that just because one programs in BASIC, one is
incapable of using another language is rather silly. I have used many
different languages in the past (C being one of my favourites), but
commercial application development cannot wait for "real" languages
sometimes.
: From the ``fortune'' program files:
: BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.
: --
: BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing.
: -- Seymour Papert
: --
: It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
: that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
: mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
: -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
: --
: Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
: BASIC after reaching puberty.
: --
Programmers who work with people rather than in Ivory Towers work
with whatever they have to. Indeed this can only enrich, rather than to
stifle.
: All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
Ooh...all of a sudden Gates is the epitomy of BASIC programmers?!
: The one from Dijkstra is a particularly stern condemnation, given his stature.
: Of course, most of you VB lamers would be a lot more insulted if you actually
: _knew_ who that is.
: --
Let me guess...just because I work with BASIC, I have no clue of
who Dijkstra is. And that's right--the man has *NEVER* been opinionated
or even remotely (dare I say it) wrong! After all, Dijkstra is the
unattainable genius of the world of computing.
Do realize that I do *NOT* mean to disregard his accomplishments.
But remember that I don't beleive what he says to be the gospel
truth--that would make me a parasite.
If you are indeed as bitter about VB as you claim to be, why not
suggest improvements. Let's see if you can restructure this "fake"
language using your incredible cornucopia of quotes and facts.
(The attack isn't personal--I have nothing against you, except
what you've implied: "If you work with VB, then you are a lame-brain".)
-- Hira
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Though the Earth now stands still, her spirit drives us on in search of
a cradle which we hope to call home--for but a fleeting moment.
For those of you who care (as of 08/08/96)...
mer...@ritz.mordor.com http://www.mordor.com/merlin/
is now is now
mer...@interactive.net http://www.interactive.net/~merlin/
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Harrison Bergeron
Winning the competition with pi for irrationality,
Chinedu "Chip" Opara ch...@chipset.com wrote:
>Ever thought about how a multi-millonaire demi-god like Gates rose,
>especially after learning such a TERRIBLE language like BASIC? My oh
>my BASIC should be banned from schools lest it make people smart and
>wealthy like Bill Gates!
>
Perhaps this is part of the problem with BASIC; the inability
to differentiate variable types properly. For example :
struct Bill_Gates {
bankbook wealth = NaN; <-- Simply because this is BIG.
const char *intell = "smart"; <-- this doesn't follow. By properly
}; differentiating what is and isn't
related, the obvious choice for
*intell, would have in fact, been
static void.
--
se...@comp.tamu.edu
Steinberger:
State of the Instrument
Chinedu Chip Opara
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 00:18:28 GMT, jsey...@medar.com (James Seymour)
wrote:
>It was while designing/coding my first *serious* program--an inventory
>and purchasing app--that it dawned on me: 1) what structured
>programming meant, and 2) why it was advantageous.
Structured programming is KING.
>It took me quite some number of hours to do it, but I pulled that whole
>program apart and re-assembled it in a structured manner. (Difficult,
>as you might imagine, in line-numbered interpreter BASIC.) What a
>difference.
Wow. What a task. If only they had at least VBDOS then...
>Later yet I discovered Pascal. I never looked back.
Becuase you could not, or because you did not want to?
(j/k)
>Well, you *could* say that I was in "computer-puberty" about the time
>I discovered there had to be a better way than BASIC. (But I was *far*
>beyond physical puberty.)
Got a question for all you developers. Why are most progammers FAT? No
offense to anyone, just curious.
I am skinny and have been that way for YEARS as a programmer. I think
I am actually losing more weight as I spend more and more time on my
PC. What gives? I want to be fat too. I heard it was cool to be a fat
programmer because you shows you are a real geek and don't move from
your workstation for DAYS at a time.
I wanna be fat.
Jens Balchen Jr.
Thus wrote ro...@davids.psyberlink.net (Harrison Bergeron):
> Perhaps this is part of the problem with BASIC; the inability
> to differentiate variable types properly. For example :
Oh, but you see, we Basic'ers are forced to do things the hard way:
Type Person
BankBook As Double
Intelligence As Variant
End Type
Dim Bill_Gates As Person
Sub Form_Load ()
LSet Bill_Gates = Rich_And_Famous
End Sub
Jens (bal...@sn.no)
--
I rocked my baby sister all day.
Until I ran out of rocks.
Lutful Kabir Khan
>>>>>>>>>...
I guess I missed out on this intersting thread!
>>>>>>>>>...
May I add just an anecdote?
A former co-worker (I won't say ''programmer'',
since he never finished a single project),
was pitifully ignorant of modern basic syntax and practice.
He (still) thinks that all ''our'' program lines
start with REM or line numbers, and that GOTOs are
splattered all over.
He used to go on and on about PERMANENTLY BANNING
any language that used GOTOs from the company list.
He had brought me a book on C after I expressed some interest,
and the very first page we perused together explained the use of
do, while, for, break, continue and ... GOTO!!!
Lutful Khan
--
Adolph Hitler
In article <DwAJp...@interactive.net>, mer...@onyx.interactive.net
says...
for very quick problem solving. I also know that these programmers are
very well versed in VB, C, and many old lanquages as Fortran, Etc.. I
think that VB is a very good tool and am going out on a limb, but I
feel that any programmer that would discredit it must be some kind of
an imbecile.
James Seymour
[Trimmed: comp.unix.questions]
In article <4uvnkd$4...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Schemitz Patrik ) writes:
>Chinedu "Chip" Opara (ch...@chipset.com) wrote:
>> >Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
>> >remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
>> >least it catches it at "run time".
>
>"Option explicit" reminds me of "explicit none" in FORTRAN... and nothing
>good comes from a language that reminds me of that gorgoyle!
>
[snip]
I've got a more basic [pun intended, now that I think of it :-)]
problem with an option like this. It seems to me that structured
programming *demands* that variables be declared before their use.
Thus, a language that defaults to behaviour that is inherently
un-structured in nature is a Bad Thing [tm].
So, any other failings aside (and I don't know what those may be,
as I know nothing of Microsoft Visual Basic other than that it's
related [?] to BASIC), IMO, this checking ought to be enabled by
default and the option ought to be to *disable* it. (That's
assuming that such a thing ought to be optional in the first place,
which I would argue.)
Having the requirement that variables be declared before use be
disabled by default is a black mark against the language, IMO.
[I don't think we're using Ms-VB for anything serious here, but
I'm going to see to it that our Software Quality Assurance Plan
contains a requirement along the lines of "where checking for
pre-declaration of variables is optional, the option must be
enabled at all times." Same for strict type-checking and any
other structured kinds of things that Microsoft and the other
Ms-oriented toy manufacturers see fit to make optional.]
Tell me, Ms-VB aficionados, do *any* of you leave this option
*off*? (For maybe anything other than quick prototyping.)
Regards,
Jim
James Seymour
In article <32156e26...@news.pacbell.net> ch...@chipset.com (Chinedu "Chip" Opara) writes:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 00:18:28 GMT, jsey...@medar.com (James Seymour)
>wrote:
>
>
>>It took me quite some number of hours to do it, but I pulled that whole
>>program apart and re-assembled it in a structured manner. (Difficult,
>>as you might imagine, in line-numbered interpreter BASIC.) What a
>>difference.
>
>Wow. What a task. If only they had at least VBDOS then...
Excuse my glaring ignorance, but what is (was?) "VBODS"?
>
>>Later yet I discovered Pascal. I never looked back.
>
>Becuase you could not, or because you did not want to?
>(j/k)
Because I did not want to. You could say I "saw the light". That
was followed by discovering the C programming language. Then UNIX.
(A clear, and logical, progression.) And now? C++ (finally!)
That'll be followed be Java and/or Tcl/Tk. (But there's presently
a short digression to SQL for a specific requirement.)
>
>>Well, you *could* say that I was in "computer-puberty" about the time
>>I discovered there had to be a better way than BASIC. (But I was *far*
>>beyond physical puberty.)
>
>Got a question for all you developers. Why are most progammers FAT? No
>offense to anyone, just curious.
Actually, of all of the program designers/engineers/programmers/coders
I've known, very few of them have been "fat".
>I am skinny and have been that way for YEARS as a programmer. I think
>I am actually losing more weight as I spend more and more time on my
>PC. What gives?
In *your* case? Stress? (I know I'd be seriously stressed-out if
*I* were confined to Ms-*. [Sorry, couldn't resist :-).])
[snip]
Regards,
Jim "at the high end of his ideal weight range" Seymour
Kazinator
In article <DwCG3...@medar.com>, James Seymour <jsey...@medar.com> wrote:
>>He used to go on and on about PERMANENTLY BANNING
>>any language that used GOTOs from the company list.
>>
>>He had brought me a book on C after I expressed some interest,
>>and the very first page we perused together explained the use of
>>do, while, for, break, continue and ... GOTO!!!
>
>language, tho regarded as the most blatant. I believe you will
>find, if you read further, that its use is discouraged.
It's use is discouraged, and its scope is limited to within the same
function. The latter point is important, because it is global GOTO
statements that do the most harm in a large (or even not so large)
computer program.
In a C program, a goto statement can often simplify and clarify a piece
of code.
It's a theorem that a program which uses if/goto constructs can be rewritten
using structured control constructs---WITH the possible introduction of
state variables!
Some computer science fogies in the 60's forgot the part about the extra state
variables and took the theorem as not only a proof that all goto's can be
replaced with structured control flow, but as a directive that this must
always be done. Back then, a holy war against goto perhaps made a lot of
sense to programmers who were faced with maintaining FORTRAN programs with
global gotos spanning thousands of lines. But that can hardly be compared
to a well thought-out goto statement which crosses over just a few lines, and
stays in the same procedure.
Having a few goto statements is often clearer and preferrable
to introducing a whole bunch of messy state variables. For example, jumping
out of the inside of a nested loop is probably better (not to mention more
efficient) than setting a ``I am done'' flag, and testing it at each nesting
level. Also, gotos can be cleanly used to divert flow to a common exit point
of a function where some clean-up code happens: a sort of exception handler.
The alternative is to duplicate the clean-up code before every return. The
choice here is between the evil of the goto statement, and the evil of
multiple exit points from one procedure. Funny how nobody seems to complain
about the latter! But heaven forbid you should use a goto...
The inclusion of a goto construct in the C language provides an important
escape hatch to the most general control mechanism.
In any case, a ``comefrom'' construct is far more harmful than goto.
A ``comefrom X'' causes control to be diverted pass from line/label X to the
code which follows the comefrom statement. There have been languages
that actually implemented this idea!
--
Steve Tarver
Ahhh.... Isn't adolescence wonderful...
A language will fail comercially if it doesn't have some edge on
existing products. Microsoft claims some 4 million vb boxes sold -
evidently VB has one or two good points.
Language is a tool. Knowledge and experience with a hammer make you a
good "hammerer". More is needed to be a good carpenter. The analogy
holds for programming.
lighten up Kazinator. Confucius say: The superior man will not feel
superior.
Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
>In article <32141dca...@news.pacbell.net>,
>Chinedu "Chip" Opara <ch...@chipset.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 21:30:41 GMT, bal...@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
>>>
>>> Solve My Problem
>>>
>>>Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
>>
>>VB reads very close to English that's why it is very appealing to many
>>users.
>>
>>>VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
>>
>>Exactly. I mean, for example, how many people you do know that want to
>>declare a variable and NOT initialize it to NULL string or 0? I know I
>I know many people who don't want such behavior. That's what explicit
>initializers are for.
>>know, C does not do it because it wastes time. VB does it so it takes
>>a little time. BUT...
>What are you talking about? The C language mandates that all static variables
>that don't have initializers are set to meaningful zero values before
>the program is executed (or sometime before they are used, to be more
>precise). Integral arithmetic types are set to zero. Floating-point values
>are set to bit patterns that represent 0.0. Pointers are set to whatever
>bitpattern represents a null pointer.
>Automatic variables are not initialized because they are dynamically created
>as part of a procedure's activation record. It would be wasteful to initialize
>them each time the function is entered, only to have that value clobbered
>by a subsequent assignment.
>The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
>times.
>Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
>Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
>From the ``fortune'' program files:
>BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.
>--
>BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing.
> -- Seymour Papert
>--
>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
> -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
>--
>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
>BASIC after reaching puberty.
>--
>All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
>The one from Dijkstra is a particularly stern condemnation, given his stature.
James Seymour
[Trimmed: comp.unix.questions]
In article <01bb8d05$3cc1b020$dcca...@calvin.daugherty.com> "Joseph C. Helton" <ht...@i1.net> writes:
>This guy obviously has to have something to bitch about. Visual Basic is
>the second most actively used language in the industry,
What is your point? Is this somehow supposed to lend it respect?
(I mean from a *technical* point-of-view.)
[snip]
> I simply can't understand people like this... I'd rather get my
>work done,
Ahhhh... Expediency. More ills have been foisted on the unwary
in the name of "expediency". Yes, this is certainly a justification
for the use of something: it's "handy". By that logic, the next
time the exhaust system on my car needs work, I oughtta just patch
it with the Handyman's Secret Weapon: duct tape. After all: it'd
be much more expedient than taking the car in for proper repair,
now wouldn't it?
> and do it using a language that is broadly supported...sorry
>that you have to be such a dork...
>
[snip]
Translation: if you don't see the Awful Beauty inherent in Ms-VB,
you're a dork. The blinding logic behind such an assertion is
simply awe-inspiring.
Jim
James Seymour
[Trimmed: comp.unix.questions]
In article <4v69u6$h...@news.trytel.on.ca> lut...@romputing.com (Lutful Kabir Khan) writes:
>>>>>>>>>>...
>
>I guess I missed out on this intersting thread!
>
>>>>>>>>>>...
>
>May I add just an anecdote?
>
>A former co-worker (I won't say ''programmer'',
>since he never finished a single project),
>was pitifully ignorant of modern basic syntax and practice.
>
>He (still) thinks that all ''our'' program lines
>start with REM or line numbers, and that GOTOs are
>splattered all over.
>
>He used to go on and on about PERMANENTLY BANNING
>any language that used GOTOs from the company list.
>
>He had brought me a book on C after I expressed some interest,
>and the very first page we perused together explained the use of
>do, while, for, break, continue and ... GOTO!!!
This is not the only un-structured aspect of the C programming
language, tho regarded as the most blatant. I believe you will
find, if you read further, that its use is discouraged.
Regards,
Jens Balchen Jr.
Thus wrote jsey...@medar.com (James Seymour):
[about Option Explicit]
> Tell me, Ms-VB aficionados, do *any* of you leave this option
> *off*? (For maybe anything other than quick prototyping.)
No, not even for prototyping.
Just one side-step: You attacking the default off is, in essense, attacking
the editor, not the language. Get it? It would be like me attacking C
because of Borland C's editor. It doesn't make sense.
Jens (bal...@sn.no)
--
I rocked my baby sister all day. | INTJ
Joseph C. Helton
This guy obviously has to have something to bitch about. Visual Basic is
COBOL which is used in all those wonderful legacy apps on the old iron. It
currently has unprecedented support from third party vendors supplying
custon controls which add to the functionality available in the VB
language. I simply can't understand people like this... I'd rather get my
work done, and do it using a language that is broadly supported...sorry
that you have to be such a dork...
Adolph Hitler <helt...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<8127cc$4271f.150@MYCROFT>...
> In article <DwAJp...@interactive.net>, mer...@onyx.interactive.net
> says...
> >
> >In comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
> >[snip-snip]
> >: Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about
> efficiency.
> >: Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
> >I guess "real" programmers spend their lives quibbling over efficiency
> of
> >languages while we get tasks done within deadlines so that our users
> don't
> >beat us up about deadlines or response times. "Real" programmers, on
> the
> >other hand, seem to have the liberties of infinite time. :)
> > The assumption that just because one programs in BASIC, one is
> >incapable of using another language is rather silly. I have used many
> >different languages in the past (C being one of my favourites), but
> >commercial application development cannot wait for "real" languages
> >sometimes.
> >
> >: From the ``fortune'' program files:
> >
> >: BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific
> Creationism'.
> >: --
> >: BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing.
> >: -- Seymour Papert
> >: --
> >: It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to
> students
> >: that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
> are
> >: mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
> >: -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17,
> Number 5
> >: --
> >: Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers
> write in
> >: BASIC after reaching puberty.
> >: --
> > Programmers who work with people rather than in Ivory Towers
> work...
yeah yeah yeah,,,, SHUT UP!
James Seymour
[Trimmed: comp.unix.questions]
In article <32156c68...@news.pacbell.net> ch...@chipset.com (Chinedu "Chip" Opara) writes:
>On 16 Aug 1996 10:05:47 -0700, Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
>
>>The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
>>times.
>
>Depends on the program being written. I doubt a small calculator
>utility would drag if all the variables were initialized to 0 upon
>declaration.
>
>>Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
>>Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
>
>What is "quiche"?
You're not serious, are you? [Maybe we should'a left nyc.food in :-).]
>Of course I know what "real" programmers do for a living. They sit on
>newsgroups and insult and belittle use Visual BASIC programmers.
Actually, real programmers don't spend *near* as much time thinking-
up insults for Ms-VB "programmers" as you might think. It's just not
all that hard :-). Frequently, y'all do our work for us, as in...
>
[remember folks: the following is a quote from Dijkstra...]
>>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
>>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
>
>I started with GW-BASIC, moved to QB, VB, C, and Perl, and I use
>whichever tool fits the job.
>So please, BITE ME.
You really don't know who Dijkstra is, do you? (Thus neatly proving
Kaz's, and Dijkstra's, point--in a general sort of way.) Has somebody
got a short bio handy?
>
>>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
>>BASIC after reaching puberty.
>
>In that case there must be MILLIONS of pre-pubescent VB developers out
>there cranking out all those VB apps and VBScript applets. Now these
>are pre-TEENS that even a geek like me would like to hang out with.
>Tell me though, how do they handle taxes since they are under 18 and
>cannot legally work? I'd really like to know...
Sigh... This came from a UNIX (most likely) fortune-cookie generator.
A standard "game" that comes with nearly all UNIX distributions. Or
used to, at any rate. Are you so blindly defensive that you don't
recognize a tweak when you see one? (Methinks thou doth protesteth
too much.)
>
>>All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his
>>young life.
>
>Ever thought about how a multi-millonaire demi-god like Gates rose,
>especially after learning such a TERRIBLE language like BASIC? My oh
>my BASIC should be banned from schools lest it make people smart and
>wealthy like Bill Gates!
>
*We* know. Do you? (Free Clue: marketing.)
And as to BASIC making folks "smart"? I rather doubt it. BASIC,
is condemned for precisely the opposite: since it imposes no structure,
it encourages Very Bad Habits (like using undeclared variables?),
by default. It seems that Ms-VB continues the tradition.
Ever hear of Professor Nicolaus [sp?] Wirth? Ever hear of DeMarco?
Page-Jones? Yourdon? (To name just a few.) You had written (in
a part that I snipped) something along the lines of "structured
programming is KING". But one is inclined to wonder: have you ever
actually *studied* structured systems design? Or is the term
"structured programming" just a nice, impressive-sounding buzz-
phrase for you?
This is not meant to be an ad hominem argument, but a serious inquiry
into your credentials. *I* don't know Ms-VB. I *do* know "classical"
BASIC (tho after years and years of non-use, I'd naturally be a bit
rusty at it).
"Regular old BASIC" is not regarded as an acceptable language for
structured software development. Period. Inargueable. It has
absolutely none of the characteristics required to allow it to be
classified so. By extension, I would argue that a structured systems
design cannot be properly implemented in a programming language that
does not enforce, or at the very least *encourage*, structured design
and programming techniques. (For example: Classical Pascal enforces
strict structured techniques. Classical K&R C somewhat encourages
them. ANSI C more strongly encourages them. But I rather doubt
that Wirth would find even ANSI C acceptable. Too many outs.)
*You* are arguing that Ms-VB is a valid contender for sophisticated
software projects (unless I misunderstand). A valid choice right up
there with the likes of Pascal, C, C++, Modula II, etc al. Whence
your credibility, that should cause anyone to lend credence to your
assertions?
[I ought to be real easy to defeat in this debate. I have not so
much as coded, much-less designed, any major software in over two
years. (Take a look at my .sig, if you're wondering why. Career
change.) And I haven't done any studying of software or structured
systems design techniques in even longer. Hell, my education isn't
even formal in the first place. So go for it.]
So what is your argument: that Ms-VB is a structured programming
language. Or that a structured programming language is not necessary
for serious software development? If it's the former: educate me.
If it's the latter: we've nothing to debate because there's no way
in hell you're going to convince me. I've seen too much garbage
produced by un-structured design techniques and in un-structured
languages.
Trey Campbell
Amen. I use C/C++ exclusively on some projects because I have to, but tools
like VB and Delphi are a dream to use because you don't *have* to do
everything for yourself. Projects come together in hours or days instead of
weeks and months. Almost every language/tool has a place and can be useful.
A little tolerance is in order; haven't we all had enough of the infantile
my tool's better, bigger, faster, ... lines of "discussion"?
Joseph C. Helton <ht...@i1.net> wrote in article
<01bb8d05$3cc1b020$dcca...@Calvin.daugherty.com>...
> This guy obviously has to have something to bitch about. Visual Basic is
> the second most actively used language in the industry, second only to
> COBOL which is used in all those wonderful legacy apps on the old iron.
It
> currently has unprecedented support from third party vendors supplying
> custon controls which add to the functionality available in the VB
> language. I simply can't understand people like this... I'd rather get
my
> work done, and do it using a language that is broadly supported...sorry
> that you have to be such a dork...
>
Endless drivel snipped...
Joe Foster
In article <DwCFy...@medar.com>, jsey...@medar.com (James Seymour) writes:
[snip snip snip]
: Actually, real programmers don't spend *near* as much time thinking-
: up insults for Ms-VB "programmers" as you might think. It's just not
: all that hard :-). Frequently, y'all do our work for us, as in...
: >
: [remember folks: the following is a quote from Dijkstra...]
: >>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
: >>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
: >>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
: >
: >I started with GW-BASIC, moved to QB, VB, C, and Perl, and I use
: >whichever tool fits the job.
: >So please, BITE ME.
: You really don't know who Dijkstra is, do you? (Thus neatly proving
: Kaz's, and Dijkstra's, point--in a general sort of way.) Has somebody
: got a short bio handy?
When did he make this particular comment? Was it before or after
Microsoft BASIC mutated from the horrible line-number and GOTO-
oriented beast it used to be to the structured tool it is today?
I learned VB after learning UNIX, C, and C++, but I like it. VB
sure beats MFC or the SDK for typical Windows GUI work! I
wouldn't want to do matrix arithmetic with it, but VB makes a
fine front-end for DLLs written in C and C++ that do the heavy
computation. Don't get me wrong, I love UNIX and always will.
OpenNT makes NT much more livable for me. However, Windows pays
the rent!
: >>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
: >>BASIC after reaching puberty.
: >
: >In that case there must be MILLIONS of pre-pubescent VB developers out
: >there cranking out all those VB apps and VBScript applets. Now these
: >are pre-TEENS that even a geek like me would like to hang out with.
: >Tell me though, how do they handle taxes since they are under 18 and
: >cannot legally work? I'd really like to know...
: Sigh... This came from a UNIX (most likely) fortune-cookie generator.
: A standard "game" that comes with nearly all UNIX distributions. Or
: used to, at any rate. Are you so blindly defensive that you don't
: recognize a tweak when you see one? (Methinks thou doth protesteth
: too much.)
Methinks you don't really know what you're talking about.
: >
: >>All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his
: >>young life.
: >
: >Ever thought about how a multi-millonaire demi-god like Gates rose,
: >especially after learning such a TERRIBLE language like BASIC? My oh
: >my BASIC should be banned from schools lest it make people smart and
: >wealthy like Bill Gates!
: >
: *We* know. Do you? (Free Clue: marketing.)
: And as to BASIC making folks "smart"? I rather doubt it. BASIC,
: is condemned for precisely the opposite: since it imposes no structure,
: it encourages Very Bad Habits (like using undeclared variables?),
: by default. It seems that Ms-VB continues the tradition.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. VB still has GOTO and line numbers for
backwards compatibility, although I haven't used line numbers in
years and only use GOTOs for error handling, but it does have all
the language elements required for structured programming. VB is
at least as structured as ANSI C. If you doubt my knowledge of C,
feel free to dive into the Dejanews archives of my posts before
the students wanting free homework answers chased out so many.
: Ever hear of Professor Nicolaus [sp?] Wirth? Ever hear of DeMarco?
: Page-Jones? Yourdon? (To name just a few.) You had written (in
: a part that I snipped) something along the lines of "structured
: programming is KING". But one is inclined to wonder: have you ever
: actually *studied* structured systems design? Or is the term
: "structured programming" just a nice, impressive-sounding buzz-
: phrase for you?
: This is not meant to be an ad hominem argument, but a serious inquiry
: into your credentials. *I* don't know Ms-VB. I *do* know "classical"
: BASIC (tho after years and years of non-use, I'd naturally be a bit
: rusty at it).
VB is not "classical" BASIC. You are arguing out of ignorance.
Thank you for playing.
[pathetic strawman argument deleted]
--
Joe Foster (j...@bftsi0.gate.net or joe%bft...@uunet.uu.net)
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Niranjan Hira
In comp.lang.basic.visual.misc James Seymour <jsey...@medar.com> wrote:
[snip-snip]
: You really don't know who Dijkstra is, do you? (Thus neatly proving
: Kaz's, and Dijkstra's, point--in a general sort of way.) Has somebody
: got a short bio handy?
Here's something I picked up:
Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Schlumberger Centennial Chair in Computer Sciences
Professor of Mathematics
Kandidaatsexamen,
Mathematics and Physics (1951),
Doctoraal Examen,
Theoretical Physics (1956)
University of Leyden
Ph.D. (1959)
University of Amsterdam
Honors and Awards
* ACM Turing Award, 1972
* Foreign Honorary Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Member, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Distinguished Fellow, British Computer Society
* AFIPS Harry Goode Memorial Award, 1974
* Doctor of Science Honoris Causa, The Queen's University of Belfast
Areas of Interest
Program correctness, algorithms, and systems
Summary of Research
My area of interest focuses on the streamlining of the mathematical
argument so as to increase our powers of reasoning, in particular, by
the use of formal techniques.
-- Hira
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Steve Mading
Jens Balchen Jr. (bal...@sn.no) wrote:
: We all make mistakes. Consider this scenario: You're pointing your .357
: Magnum at your foot, and you're slowly squeezing the trigger. So, what
: happens?
: C will let you shoot yourself in the foot.
: C++ will take the leg away too.
: Delphi will tell you not to point the gun at your foot.
: VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
Then you point your gun elsewhere and VB still won't let you fire,
because there might be a foot somewhere in the vicinity.
The power to shoot yourself in the foot is the power to do what you
want with your tools, as opposed to having your tools tell you what
you are allowed to do.
How would you like it if yo tried using a hammer to flatten a wrinkly
bit of metal, and the hammer told you you can't because it was made for
pounding nails?
Niranjan Hira
have taken to write a few well-written posts. (Not being snippy, just a
compliment.)
[(perhaps wrongfully) snip-snip]
: So what is your argument: that Ms-VB is a structured programming
: language. Or that a structured programming language is not necessary
: for serious software development? If it's the former: educate me.
: If it's the latter: we've nothing to debate because there's no way
: in hell you're going to convince me. I've seen too much garbage
: produced by un-structured design techniques and in un-structured
: languages.
My original post was toward the seemingly hostile (and misinformed
Kazinator). I'm not going to argue the merits of structured programming.
Nor am I about to argue that MS-VB is a structured programming language.
I was arguing against Kazinator's apparent inference, "If you use VB, you
must be plain stupid".
In any case, (to answer your question) I'm arguing that VB *can*
be used for structured programming and it's a handy tool for quick
development. I will not say that it is "better" than a language like C++
because I don't believe that. I am further arguing that academic
knowledge is not outside of the grasp of VB programmers. Indeed I argue
that non-programmers maintain sufficient grasp of programming concepts to
argue with programmers (using any language)--yourself being a prime
example (since you haven't used VB equally as perhaps have I yet you argue
an excellent case against it). Therefore, to assume that VB programmers
know not whereof you speak is wrongful and perhaps self-defeating.
Have I answered your question?
Rasheed Abdal-Aziz
James Seymour wrote:
> So, any other failings aside (and I don't know what those may be,
> as I know nothing of Microsoft Visual Basic other than that it's
> related [?] to BASIC), IMO, this checking ought to be enabled by
> default and the option ought to be to *disable* it. (That's
> assuming that such a thing ought to be optional in the first place,
> which I would argue.)
>
My VB Installed with this option ON.
> Tell me, Ms-VB aficionados, do *any* of you leave this option
> *off*? (For maybe anything other than quick prototyping.)
NEVER.. That would just waste more time than it would save (do you
recognise the trend here?), but at least for the finicky.. the option
is there.
Schemitz Patrik
> > "Option explicit" reminds me of "explicit none" in FORTRAN... and nothing
> > good comes from a language that reminds me of that gorgoyle!
> of Fortran, too.
Nope, because my C compiler doesn't need .EQ. :)
"if" isn't FORTRAN-specific,"explicit none" is.
> > I can't remember each and every variable name in one meg of source code,
> IF you were using VB, it wouldn't be one meg ;)
IF we had used VB for this FEM program, it could easily be outperformed by
an old ZX81 swapping to audio tape ;)
> Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
> Solve My Problem
> Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
It's not intuitive, it preserves the programmer from thinking. And about the
for loop: IMHO the PASCAL version is the most intuitive, but the weakest as
well. The C for loop is the most powerful but most complex as well, I am
willing to admit.
> We all make mistakes. Consider this scenario: You're pointing your .357
> Magnum at your foot, and you're slowly squeezing the trigger. So, what
> happens?
> C will let you shoot yourself in the foot.
> C++ will take the leg away too.
> Delphi will tell you not to point the gun at your foot.
> VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
The C compiler assumes that the programmer knows what he/she does. It might
be a good idea to shoot in your foot and might even prevent you from getting
killed (sends you to the hospital instead of front line).
C was designed for system programming. I saw code where an array index of -1
was the most elegant solution for some memory management... (remember, C
arrays *always* range from 0...somewhat-1)
VB wouldn't have allowed this, I guess... pity, because it was really a
brilliant solution. In VB you would have had to follow some linked lists.
> > Besides TrueBasic, TurboBasic, PowerBasic... of couse :)
> PowerBasic sounds rather cool. Have you tried XBasic? Unix compiler and
> Windows compiler from the same source, much like C.
PowerBasic was written by Bob Zale, the one how wrote Borland's Turbo Basic.
Power Basic was its successor. I stopped writing BASIC code nearly a decade
ago, but PowerBasic shipped with my (once new) computer back in summer '92.
I played with the sample programs, but never used it very much.
Cheers, patrick
Absender: Patrick Schemitz,
ab...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
Joe Foster
In article <4v29pb$c...@latte.cafe.net>, k...@cafe.net (Kazinator) writes:
[discussion of C and VB's treatment of auto variables]
> Of course, you quiche-eating BASIC programmrs wound't know about efficiency.
> Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
Visual Basic isn't like old BASIC. I haven't used line numbers
since VB 1.0 came out! And I do know about efficiency. I use VB
for the GUI and DLL's for the hot spots. I do know what Real
programmers do for a living, having worked in the C/C++/UNIX
world for some time. However, expecting our road warriors to use
X Window over CDPD or 14.4 modems for everything is a little bit
much, so I got sucked into Windows development. Oh, well, at
least I can get the GUI crap out of the way fast *and* do it
right with VB! When our users get better notebooks, I'll check
out XBasic, which is cross-platform between Windows and X, with
the quick GUI builder goodies, but until then...
> From the ``fortune'' program files:
Which haven't been updated in years.
> BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.
> --
> BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing.
> -- Seymour Papert
> --
> It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
> that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
> mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
> -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
> --
> Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
> BASIC after reaching puberty.
> --
You dumb ass, these were all written prior to 1991, when
Microsoft Basic got such a major makeover. It's now just as
structured as ANSI C. Do you also argue that C++ is crap because
it only supported single-ingeritance and the "compiler" was
really just a preprocessor way back in 1985?
> All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
> The one from Dijkstra is a particularly stern condemnation, given his stature.
> Of course, most of you VB lamers would be a lot more insulted if you actually
> _knew_ who that is.
> --
Dijkstra said this back in the 1970's, *fool*! Basic has
undergone radical changes since then! A Pascal or C programmer
would feel much more at home with Visual Basic than a user of old
BASIC would! The reliance on line numbers and GOTO is gone,
replaced by while and do/until loops, functions and procedures,
select statements, long identifiers, user-defined types, and
strong typing. Your entire argument is based on ignorance, and
your strawman is burning. Thank you for playing.
Schemitz Patrik
> > *off*? (For maybe anything other than quick prototyping.)
> Just one side-step: You attacking the default off is, in essense, attacking
> the editor, not the language. Get it? It would be like me attacking C
> because of Borland C's editor. It doesn't make sense.
Option explicit is a compiler option which defaults to off (AFAIK), so it's
an attack against the compiler.
The language BASIC does not provide the option explicit, so it's also an
attack against the language.
The editor has nothing to do with this option. Need a proof? Think of a
command-line driven version of VB (don't know if there is any, just think of
it). There are two possibilities: 1. option explicit is dropped. or 2.
option explicit is a commandline option or a compiler directive.
Since 1. is not very likely (nor very intelligent), option explicit is not
related to the editor or environment.
It absolutely makes sense.
Cheers, patrick
Absender: Patrick Schemitz,
ab...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
=========( schnipp schnapp )==========================================
From FORTRAN77 to FORTRAN 90 standard: just believe me: one cannot
polish a pile of cow shit.
=========( schnipp schnapp )==========================================
Kazinator
In article <320c1248...@news.pacbell.net>,
>>remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
>>least it catches it at "run time".
>>for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
>>For I=1 to 40:Next
>>is seriously Brainwashed.
> [snip]
>
>Don't worry, the fool has probably not even SEEN VB 4.0 in action. If
>he did, he'd have known about the OPTION EXPLICIT statement.
>Tell me, why do many C++ -only users think that VB is something more
>like GW-BASIC? Let me tell all you C++ people something... VB 5.0 will
>have a NATIVE compiler. It only gets better.
When you have a running operating system written in VB, drop me some e-mail,
all right? Or maybe a ray-tracer, compiler, database server, embedded
system... Maybe the DOD will start using it in weapons control systems!
Structured or not, *basic is for kids and ambitious office staff who pop up
a form with buttons and call it an application.
--
Pontus Rydin
> >He used to go on and on about PERMANENTLY BANNING
> >any language that used GOTOs from the company list.
[Reply to original message, which seems to have disappeared from my
server]
Languages don't use GOTO. Programmers do. This discussion is
meaningless! You can't judge a writer from whether he/she writes in
English, Spanish, Japanese or Swedish. The same goes for programming
languages! I've seen this discussion on BBSs, newsgroups, mailinglists
and toilet walls. It's nothing more than waste of megabytes and
wallspace. I'm sick and tired of it!
Joel Garry
In article <32156c68...@news.pacbell.net> ch...@chipset.com (Chinedu "Chip" Opara) writes:
>On 16 Aug 1996 10:05:47 -0700, Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> wrote:
>
>>The overhead will add up if you call a function that has many locals many
>>times.
>
>Depends on the program being written. I doubt a small calculator
>utility would drag if all the variables were initialized to 0 upon
>declaration.
>
>>Fact is, you have no clue what Real programmers do for a living.
>
French food, sort of like a fluffy omelette or frittata. In this
context, the opposite of "manly" foods like steak.
>Of course I know what "real" programmers do for a living. They sit on
>newsgroups and insult and belittle use Visual BASIC programmers.
>
>>It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
>>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>>mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
I completely disagree with this, although the sentiment behind it, that
people figure out how to do things themselves and are therefore difficult
to train in certain software engineering practices, is probably correct.
>
>I started with GW-BASIC, moved to QB, VB, C, and Perl, and I use
>whichever tool fits the job.
>So please, BITE ME.
All of those languages are subject to bad style.
>
>>Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in
>>BASIC after reaching puberty.
>
>In that case there must be MILLIONS of pre-pubescent VB developers out
>there cranking out all those VB apps and VBScript applets. Now these
>are pre-TEENS that even a geek like me would like to hang out with.
>Tell me though, how do they handle taxes since they are under 18 and
>cannot legally work? I'd really like to know...
Not a problem, it is not illegal for them to work. They are simply
subject to certain exploitation laws. When my son was born a few
months ago, the hospital included a SSN application in the information
packet. Just ask Macauley Caulkin. :)
>
>>All of this explains why Gates dicked around with BASIC most of his young life.
>
>Ever thought about how a multi-millonaire demi-god like Gates rose,
>especially after learning such a TERRIBLE language like BASIC? My oh
>my BASIC should be banned from schools lest it make people smart and
>wealthy like Bill Gates!
Gates genius was in delegating authority for contracts negotiation, not
in computers. The derivatives of DEC BASIC such as BP2 and VAX BASIC
for example (as well as a number of other contemporaneous business basics
from other companies, as opposed to the BASIC that he, err, borrowed), had
plenty of structural concepts that could be used by disciplined business
programmers to write well-styled, structured, easily maintainable programs.
It is very unfortunate for the business programming industry that Gates
missed the boat on writing a decent language, wound up giving millions
of programmers the idea that QBASIC and GW are all that basic can do,
generally gave rise to the jokes that "Kaz" preaches as gospel, and now
forces millions to inappropriately use C etc. as applications languages,
or struggle trying to make the Visual languages go beyond their limitations.
At least that means full employment for _flexible_ language experts for
the forseeable future.
jg
--
Joel Garry joe...@rossinc.com Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc. <> <>
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push. \ V /
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes... O
Kazinator
In article <3208BF...@webtex.com>,
Steve Hilton <shi...@webtex.com> wrote:
>> means Windows). This is reason why I don't write a lot Windows software
>> either, something like JAva is better.Here we go again - UNIFORMED C++ bigots with no programming creativity.
>Try turning on the "Option Explicit" switch you jerk - if you just can't
>remember your own variable name - VB will NOT allow you just run - at
>least it catches it at "run time".
>And ANYONE who thinks that
>for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
>For I=1 to 40:Next
>is seriously Brainwashed.
I think you meant for (i=1; i <= 40; i++) { }
If you think that's equivalent to the For/Next, _you_ are seriously
braindamaged, not brainwashed. The elements of the for(;;) statement are
arbitrary expressions that are evaluated at various points. It's syntactically
and semantically clean.
Tell me, fool, how easily would that for/next adapt to a linked list
traversal?
for (ptr = list; ptr; ptr = ptr->next) { }
FOR/NEXT is an abomination that beginners leave behind in their BASIC puberty.
How does VB handle a for I=X to Y, where Y < X?
>And the Select Case is SO MUCH more flexible than C - in Basic you can
>"select" on Strings, variable, ANY Datatype - not just INTEGERS (duh!)
The switch() statement in C, on the other hand, lends itself to generating
fabulously optimized code. Most compilers I work with turn switch() statements
into jump tables. That's the idea.
Switching or (selecting) on strings is difficult to optimize. A real
programmer would write a suitable look-up data structure. For example, I might
hash the string value to obtain a function pointer to call. Or I would
write (or have a lexical analyzer generator write for me) a pattern matching
table that will compare _all_ the string cases at once and arrive
at an acceptance state that corresponds to the code I want to do for each
particular match.
How does VB do it internally? I bet you haven't even paused to wonder.
Is it always done in the most efficient way? I bet it does a naive
``ladder'' comparison, examining all of the case values in a sequential
search.
I once worked on a C program that had a 250 kilobyte switch() statement.
How well would VB handle that?
Incidentally, what language is VB written in? Not C or C++ by any chance, now.
Will the VB compiler be written in VB, the way C compilers are written in C?
>the Windows API is VERY easy to use in VB - just put a "declare"
>statement in you "main module" - (jut like your .hpp files), and then
>"call" them whenever you want. How the hell is THAT harder than than C -
>and the lack of pointers it a BENEFIT! - the single biggest thing that C
>Hackers screw up is POINTERs! POINTERS SUCK - and even though they are a
>necessary evil - it's REAL nice to be able to avoid it.
Whoa, VB doesn't have pointers? Surely, you jest. It's practically impossible
to write a non-trivial program without the use of reference variables.
See, a real programmer would never be caught saying that it's real(ly)
nice to be able to avoid pointers. Saying so makes you look like a twit.
In any case, you are now exempt from answering the question about linked
list traversal in a for/next loop.
>I use C, VB, and about 10 other languages and if I had a a choice I'd
... and yet you can't write the equivalent for(;;) for a given
for/next loop?
List the 10 other languages, not including DOS batch.
>just like a PORSCHE is more powerful than a Ford - but in a race
>between a great driver in a Ford and a "Hacker" in a Porsche - guess
>who'll win.
The Hacker, clearly.
--
Kazinator
In article <4v6ebc$e...@dpro.unicom.net>,
Steve Tarver <tar...@mail.unicom.net> wrote:
>Ahhh.... Isn't adolescence wonderful...
>
>A language will fail comercially if it doesn't have some edge on
>existing products. Microsoft claims some 4 million vb boxes sold -
>evidently VB has one or two good points.
Allow me to enumerate them:
1. Microsoft
2. Microsoft
Microsoft could smear shit on a stick, call it a fudgesickle, and sell four
million units of it.
>Language is a tool. Knowledge and experience with a hammer make you a
>good "hammerer". More is needed to be a good carpenter. The analogy
>holds for programming.
Yes the analogy holds. The carpenter has a steel hammer, the lamer has a
Visually appealing hammer made of bright, shiny plastic for driving plastic
projections through pre-fabricated holes.
>lighten up Kazinator. Confucius say: The superior man will not feel
>superior.
I don't feel superior. I just feel that you lamers are inferior, that's all,
on more-less an absolute scale. Quit taking up so much oxygen!
What programming language does Confucius use, by the way? Where does
Confucious take his PC/M$ complaints?
--
Joe Foster
In article <4v9qj4$r...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Schemitz Patrik ) writes:
> Jens Balchen Jr. (bal...@sn.no) wrote:
> > Thus wrote jsey...@medar.com (James Seymour):
> > [about Option Explicit]
> > > Tell me, Ms-VB aficionados, do *any* of you leave this option
> > > *off*? (For maybe anything other than quick prototyping.)
> > No, not even for prototyping.
> > Just one side-step: You attacking the default off is, in essense, attacking
> > the editor, not the language. Get it? It would be like me attacking C
> > because of Borland C's editor. It doesn't make sense.
> Option explicit is a compiler option which defaults to off (AFAIK), so it's
> an attack against the compiler.
> The language BASIC does not provide the option explicit, so it's also an
> attack against the language.
> The editor has nothing to do with this option. Need a proof? Think of a
> command-line driven version of VB (don't know if there is any, just think of
> it). There are two possibilities: 1. option explicit is dropped. or 2.
> option explicit is a commandline option or a compiler directive.
> Since 1. is not very likely (nor very intelligent), option explicit is not
> related to the editor or environment.
> It absolutely makes sense.
So set the environment option to insert Option Explicit by
default and forget about it! Actually, the first two lines in any
module I write are these:
Option Comapre Binary
Option Explicit: DefInt A-Z
After these, the environment's C-like and fast enough to suit me,
at least for GUI and remote database work. What the hell's the
big deal?
> Cheers, patrick
> Absender: Patrick Schemitz,
> ab...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
> =========( schnipp schnapp )==========================================
> From FORTRAN77 to FORTRAN 90 standard: just believe me: one cannot
> polish a pile of cow shit.
> =========( schnipp schnapp )==========================================
...but you can shellac it!
Daisy
Matt Taylor (mta...@acbc.com) wrote:
: In article <3208BF...@webtex.com>, shi...@webtex.com says...
: >And ANYONE who thinks that
: >for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
: >For I=1 to 40:Next
: >is seriously Brainwashed.
You mean no-one's flamed this guy for screwing up his C yet?
*putsd nit-picking hat on
Surely you mean
for(i=0; i<40; i++)
Honk.
Inconnu
In article <4v04qm$k...@hasle.sn.no>, Jens Balchen Jr. <bal...@sn.no> wrote:
->Meaning it works doesn't mean it's intuitive. In VB, I'd like to write:
->
-> Solve My Problem
->
->Now THAT's intuitive, but unfortunately, it won't work.
And it is this kind of mentality that drives VB-- The goal is to
develop a wizard for every occasion, regardless the code behind the
solution. I can see (in the not-so-distant future) the "SQL database
wizard" saying "Would you like to provide access for sockets? Next,
Finish" and it will go about in a happy-go-lucky manner using
whatever algorithm it deems appropriate for the occasion.
Its *not* the language but the *logic* that makes the difference,
many criticize C for being "too cryptic" but a programmer can see
exactly what a program is going to do (nothing is hidden).
->C will let you shoot yourself in the foot.
->C++ will take the leg away too.
->Delphi will tell you not to point the gun at your foot.
->VB will refuse to fire until you've pointed the gun somewhere else.
Access Basic (basically VB, if you don't mind the pun) will make
you guess how to shoot the gun while pointing you to insipid "help"
pages.
--
kell...@cwis.isu.edu (http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai)
Patrick Horgan
In article <4v29pb$c...@latte.cafe.net>, Kazinator <k...@cafe.net> writes:
A bit was trimmed here that was funny, but filled with too much personal
attack (and too many misspellings;) to be completely comfortable.
> It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
> that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
> mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
> -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
To be completely fair, this was written in a time when good programming style
meant structured programming, and the basics of the time didn't have the
requisite language features to support it (well some did, but it wasn't wide-
spread.) Today's basics, (and those available for years) do support structured
concepts, and indeed, many, support object oriented programming as well.
I still prefer C++ myself, but it's not for the reasons that Dijkstra was
decrying basic over all those years ago.
Nevertheless, there's no reason in any of these newsgroups, to attack people
in order to make your point. Even the advocacy groups are to advocate ideas,
not to denigrate people.
I've set the followups to just the lang groups as its obvious that this
has nothing to do with the other groups;)
--
Patrick J. Horgan pat...@broadvision.com Have horse will ride.
Opinions mine, not my employer's except by most bizarre coincidence.
ron.s...@nethawk.com
On 19 Aug 1996 13:00:39 GMT, ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Schemitz
Patrik ) wrote:
>C was designed for system programming. I saw code where an array index of -1
>was the most elegant solution for some memory management... (remember, C
>arrays *always* range from 0...somewhat-1)
>VB wouldn't have allowed this, I guess... pity, because it was really a
>brilliant solution. In VB you would have had to follow some linked lists.
VB allows you to have negative array subscripts.
ron.s...@nethawk.com
On 19 Aug 96 03:22:32 GMT, j...@bftsi0.UUCP (Joe Foster) wrote:
>VB is not "classical" BASIC. You are arguing out of ignorance.
>Thank you for playing.
>
>[pathetic strawman argument deleted]
Nicely done!
ron.s...@nethawk.com
On 19 Aug 1996 08:31:33 -0700, k...@latte.cafe.net (Kazinator) wrote:
>When you have a running operating system written in VB, drop me some e-mail,
>all right? Or maybe a ray-tracer, compiler, database server, embedded
>system... Maybe the DOD will start using it in weapons control systems!
>
>Structured or not, *basic is for kids and ambitious office staff who pop up
>a form with buttons and call it an application.
How about a major engineering graphics program written in VB3 in the
space of one month, which sold for $10,000 to a major automotive OEM.
Btw, a C++ hack had tried (in vain) to write it for several months
prior to my receiving the contract.
And also btw, I wrote the entire graphing engine in VB -- there is no
custom control available (yet, wink wink nudge nudge) to create
"racetrack" type web charts.
Tim Hollebeek
[Newsgroups trimmed even more; an 8 newsgroup Followup-To: is gross!]
Schemitz Patrik (ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:
: Jens Balchen Jr. (bal...@sn.no) wrote:
: > Thus wrote ab...@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Schemitz Patrik ):
: > > "Option explicit" reminds me of "explicit none" in FORTRAN... and nothing
: > > good comes from a language that reminds me of that gorgoyle!
: > So I guess C as just as bad as Basic, then, since "if" surely reminds you
: > of Fortran, too.
: Nope, because my C compiler doesn't need .EQ. :)
: "if" isn't FORTRAN-specific,"explicit none" is.
Erm, it's "IMPLICIT NONE".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Joe Foster
In article <4vai3a$9...@latte.cafe.net>, k...@latte.cafe.net (Kazinator) writes:
[snip]
> Yes the analogy holds. The carpenter has a steel hammer, the lamer has a
> Visually appealing hammer made of bright, shiny plastic for driving plastic
> projections through pre-fabricated holes.
Who cares if the instrumentation console's plastic (VB) so long
as the actual works are done with precision tools such as C
and C++ DLL's. But why build a doghouse with a lathe when
hammer and nails will do?
> >lighten up Kazinator. Confucius say: The superior man will not feel
> >superior.
> I don't feel superior. I just feel that you lamers are inferior, that's all,
> on more-less an absolute scale. Quit taking up so much oxygen!
Meanwhile, I can crank out a GUI in the time it takes
you to whine about how much oxygen I breathe.
> What programming language does Confucius use, by the way? Where does
> Confucious take his PC/M$ complaints?
> --
Do tell us, oh great guru. Maybe I'll wait that long
before I plonk you.
Bud Millwood
Kazinator wrote:
[snip]
> In a C program, a goto statement can often simplify and clarify a piece
> of code.
>
[snip]
> Having a few goto statements is often clearer and preferrable
> to introducing a whole bunch of messy state variables. For example, jumping
> out of the inside of a nested loop is probably better (not to mention more
> efficient) than setting a ``I am done'' flag, and testing it at each nesting
> level. Also, gotos can be cleanly used to divert flow to a common exit point
> of a function where some clean-up code happens: a sort of exception handler.
> The alternative is to duplicate the clean-up code before every return. The
> choice here is between the evil of the goto statement, and the evil of
> multiple exit points from one procedure. Funny how nobody seems to complain
> about the latter! But heaven forbid you should use a goto...
>
> The inclusion of a goto construct in the C language provides an important
> escape hatch to the most general control mechanism.
[and snip]
Agreed wholeheartedly, although I thought this argument was dead years
ago.
Thinking about it now, I guess it'll never be dead as long as "goto"
exists
and there exist programmers that cannot make a sound decision about when
it
should and should not be used.
Programming languages give you a model in which to think. A particular
language's
model can give you immense power to think through difficult problems,
but it
can also impose limitations on how you think about that problem. (Choose
the
right tool for the job?) Like human language, I suppose.
Conservative use of "goto" may be the sign of a programmer that is able
to
understand the limitations of his/her chosen language. On those really
sticky
flow control problems, take one look at your generated machine code and
you
can easily see the limitations imposed by *not* using a goto statement.
Things like "goto" and self-modifying code are not inherently bad;
they're simply
tools, and it's the programmer that should be exalted or shot depending
on his/her
use of those tools.
/* "...exalted or shot..." - We believe in Accountability. <chuckle> */
Bud Millwood
Weird Solutions, Inc.
http://www.mhi.se
bu...@mhi.se
Glenn J. Miller (The Doktor)
Steve Tarver <tar...@mail.unicom.net> wrote in article
<4v6ebc$e...@dpro.unicom.net>...
> Language is a tool. Knowledge and experience with a hammer make you a
> good "hammerer". More is needed to be a good carpenter. The analogy
> holds for programming.
>
> lighten up Kazinator. Confucius say: The superior man will not feel
> superior.
>
Ahh, very well put and wise beyond your years inded!?! ;-)
Seriously tho, you have voiced a very good point that should be taken as
such!!!
Regards,
The Doktor
dokt...@cyberatl.net
Gregory L Hansen
In article <84047...@cs.york.ac.uk>,
Daisy <da...@sv1pc44.cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
>Matt Taylor (mta...@acbc.com) wrote:
>: In article <3208BF...@webtex.com>, shi...@webtex.com says...
>
>: >And ANYONE who thinks that
>: >for (i;i++;i<40) etc is MORE intuitive than
>: >For I=1 to 40:Next
>: >is seriously Brainwashed.
>
>You mean no-one's flamed this guy for screwing up his C yet?
I'd let that one pass as a thinko. (That's like a typo, except it's more
like a brain fart.)
Can VB make convoluted nested commands? Can it do something like, oh,
picking a few expressions at random,
for (x=0,y=2,z=3,c=getc();x<y,z>x,c!='q';x++,y=5*sine(x),z=y*y,c=getc())
Sure, you could do that in Visual BASIC, but it will take you more than
one line!
Corey Young
> When you have a running operating system written in VB, drop me some
e-mail,
> all right? Or maybe a ray-tracer, compiler, database server, embedded
> system... Maybe the DOD will start using it in weapons control systems!
>
> Structured or not, *basic is for kids and ambitious office staff who pop
up
> a form with buttons and call it an application.
:) It's funny how people like the "idiot" who wrote the above message for
some reason think there is only one solution to everything. The above
statement is like me saying: Let me take my C++ to an AS/400 and write
some kind of scanning program.
Obviously, why in the world would I use VB to right an operating system?
It wasn't designed for that. It was designed for the average business that
wants quick, fast, database clients, etc, blah blah blah. If I'm going to
right Word, of course I'd use VC++ or the SDK. If I'm going to write a
database client, why in the world would I need something more than VB? I
write both in VC++ and VB. You've got to choose the right tool for the
task. You've got to be kidding if I need to use VC++ to write some kind of
client.
Also, if you are the average business man, why not use VB to write very
quickly some small apps or clients you made need for your company? Why
would you hire some C++ programmer. I know VB is a lot slower and
clumbsier then C++, but when you don't need anything more, why use
something else? With VB, you can create applications very quickly and
efficiently. Within a week you can be done with a project.
The bottom line: Choose the best tool for the task, whether it is VB or
C++, or whatever.
Corey Young
cor...@sisna.com
Bellevue, Washington (USA)
Nico Holvoet
Corey Young wrote:
>
> The bottom line: Choose the best tool for the task, whether it is VB or
> C++, or whatever.
I myself am a self made programmer. I started early 80'ties with Basic. Did
some pretty nice things with it. Then I switched to Pascal. Also nice.
Then late 80'ties I switched to C. I must say, in the beginning I've cursed a
lot on the ninkenpoop who invented a pointer (especially when it is one that
goes sky diving in your OS).
My statement: No matter what the development environment is, you need to get
the job done. So, if speed is no requirement, why not use VB. If development
time is an issue and you don't know C++, why not VB?
(Hey, don't get me wrong here, I am no VB programmer, I did some small
experimenting with it, but that's all. I am basically a C writer).
I hope the end of this discussion lies somewhere in the 90'ties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Telecom, Switching Systems Division
V Nico Holvoet
+-----------------+ Department: VM23
I A L C A T E L I Mail: Bell Telephonelaan 3, 2440 Geel, BELGIUM
+-----------------+ Phone: (+32)14 57 20 88
TELECOM Fax: (+32)14 57 22 89
E-Mail: holv...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be
E-Mail: holv...@sh.bel.alcatel.be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Schultz
Gregory L Hansen wrote:
>
SNIP
> for (x=0,y=2,z=3,c=getc();x<y,z>x,c!='q';x++,y=5*sine(x),z=y*y,c=getc())
>
> Sure, you could do that in Visual BASIC, but it will take you more than
> one line!
programmers who have to maintain your code really love you.
Todd Bleeker
Ouch!!!!!! Is this what they teach at San Jose State University?
Please don't come to work here.
Gregory L Hansen wrote:
>
> for (x=0,y=2,z=3,c=getc();x<y,z>x,c!='q';x++,y=5*sine(x),z=y*y,c=getc())
--
///
/ ^ \
( o-o )
---oOOO--(_)--OOOo----------------------------------------------------------
.oooO "We're going to do the same thing we do every night,
Pinky"
( ) Oooo.
-----\ (----(
)-----------------------------------------------------------
\_) ) /
(_/ Todd Bleeker, http://www.fingerhut.com
Corey Young
Nico Holvoet <holv...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be> wrote in article
<3219D9...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be>...
> Corey Young wrote:
> >
>
> > The bottom line: Choose the best tool for the task, whether it is VB
or
> > C++, or whatever.
>
> I myself am a self made programmer. I started early 80'ties with Basic.
Did
> some pretty nice things with it. Then I switched to Pascal. Also nice.
> Then late 80'ties I switched to C. I must say, in the beginning I've
cursed a
> lot on the ninkenpoop who invented a pointer (especially when it is one
that
> goes sky diving in your OS).
>
> My statement: No matter what the development environment is, you need to
get
> the job done. So, if speed is no requirement, why not use VB. If
development
> time is an issue and you don't know C++, why not VB?
> (Hey, don't get me wrong here, I am no VB programmer, I did some small
> experimenting with it, but that's all. I am basically a C writer).
>
> I hope the end of this discussion lies somewhere in the 90'ties.
Well, I think the discussion ends right here with us two since our point is
clear. I hope no one argues with you having said to "get the job done"
with whatever language you use. I also hope they respect my "Choose the
best tool for the task" claim.
I too am self made. Started on the old Atari-800 when I was about eight
years old. I then went to QuickBasic when I was in seventh grade, and on
to C in high school. I was then out of the country for a couple of years
in Guatemala (Try and find a computer there) and since returning two and a
half years ago, first got into Visual Basic, and soon after Visual C++.
So, I am completely profecient at both and have done extensive professional
development with the two, though more with Visual Basic since most
business, database oriented applications don't require much performance on
the client end.
But yeah, it's nice to see someone who has never used Visual Basic, know
what he's talking about.
--
Corey A. Young
cor...@sisna.com
Bellevue, Washington (USA)