On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:20:01 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
><ArarghMail804NOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> No need to be sorry. I haven't a clue as to what features other
>> versions of basic have. I only really know the MS 16-bit basics,
>> BCET, which I wrote, and a little bit about VB, which I don't really
>> like. :-)
>
>Though BASIC has generally not been my primary development language,
>I've been programming in a number of BASIC dialects since 1975, and
>use BASIC virtually every day for one thing or another. I love BASIC.
Same here even as to the year. :-)
>VB was not created for people who love programming, I believe, but
>as a rapid development language. The im****tant thing about VB is the
>vast wealth of other tools that come with it, that make it very easy
>to create and use forms, controls, databases and the like. I love
>PowerBASIC for console applications, or lean-and-mean small GUI apps,
>but if the user interface is more complex, it's a lot easier to
>create, and especially easier to modify, VB code than PB/Win code.
>The system does so much for you to make it easy, like IntelliSense.
>The language itself is only a small part of the whole package. But
>that stuff is about productivity, and isn't as likely to appeal to
>programming purists who want smell the fumes, fell the heat, and
>program right down to the bare metal. :-)
Or who want a program that fits on a floppy and doesn't need a gig or
two of runtime. :-)
>
>I've been developing primarily using Visual Studio 2005 for nearly
>two years, and one of the things that strike me about it is that
>Microsoft has leveled the playing field between the CLR (.NET Common
>Language Runtime) languages. They have stripped out of VB, for
>example, some of the unique string handling features that were part
>of the BASIC language from way back, and made .NET methods and
>properties to do the same thing, and much more. They also added many
>of the nice features of C/C++, like arithmetic assignment operators
>(e.g. A += 3). As far as I can see, there is nothing you can do in
Once BCET is more stable, I will be adding some of those. :-)
>C# or C++ (under the CLR), for example, that you can't do in VB, or
>vice versa. You chose the language based on the syntax you prefer.
>I like BASIC syntax better than the C-type languages, so I use VB.
>Unless you need to create a native Windows executable that doesn't
>need the .NET runtime using Visual Studio .NET, in which case you
>must use C++, because the other compilers don't create native code.
>
>For anyone interested in using Visual Studio, it's a combination of
>easy and difficult. You can download the Visual Studio Express
>Editions, which are not crippled in any way, and are full featured
>development systems, for free from Microsoft, or buy a DVD for the
>****pping charge. But the learning curve for .NET is really steep;
>not something you can master in a few weeks, or months. However,
>once you get used to writing Visual Studio Windows applications,
>those skills merge really smoothly into programming ASP.NET web
>applications. Using web controls is very much like using Windows
>form controls. I believe those are the kinds of features that make
>VB (or C#, etc.) more attractive for some developers.
Some of which is why I wrote BCET. Basic compiled to small win32
console apps. (or you can do GUI, but it's a pain). I have no
intention of ever going near the .NET mess. The entire BCET runtime
is under a meg, in .LIB form, with debug symbols. About 320k without.
Smaller in linked form, I presume.
Ever look at BCET?
A later and not as much tested version is at:
http://www.arargh.com/download/bcet_beta_065.zip
Development is at 067 and I am currently chasing down a strange bug.
--
ArarghMail804 at [drop the 'http://www.'
from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
|
