For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in mac

All development related issues welcome

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Reactionist
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Omnipresent
Contact:

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by Reactionist »

dizt3mp3r wrote:Whether or not the OP is a troll, he started a thread that caused some good responses.
Actually he did, which however doesn't justify such massive broadcasts unless those were, hehe, the S.O.S.'s of a sinking Titanic. Were they really, do you think?
Quickbasic 64 has a QB 4.5-cloned IDE and emits C++ code. It is what all languages should be...
No, it isn't and no, they shouldn't. QB64 is fundamentally a BASIC-to-C++ translator parasitizing on top of GCC. Pretty much like BCX that is yet another similar crutch to aid people in crossing the otherwise ^^unfathomable^^ gap between BASIC and ANSI C. From my perspective, both are equally conceptually and therefore syntactically scant if not altogether defective.
I abandoned QB4.5 years ago ... I keep looking for a reason to pick it up again and use it.
You don't have to really. There are at least a dozen mature and well-maintained 3rd-generation BASIC's around to choose from. Many are interpretative, some are interpretative and JIT compilable, still some others are JIT and statically compilable to machine code without the intermediation of another product. Nearly half of them support verbatim Intel-style assembly, either inlined or procedure-level. And there is at least one that supports verbatim BASIC, verbatim multiple procedure ANSI C, and verbatim multiple procedure Intel-style assembly -- alternating arbitrarily and co-operating in an all-in-one script -- thus enabling the user to select language instruments that would be the most appropropriate for a particular application or for a particular task within a complex application.
PurpleGurl wrote:I concur with what the devs have already said on lower level languages.
Well, I don't.
ekohl wrote:Modern compilers do a pretty good job at converting high level language code into assembly language or machine code.
This maxim is rather arguable. Look at all this markup hell all around you: even modern multi-GHz CPU's and nanometer technologies can't cure the lopsided shapes, broken links, unloadable images, turtle slow graphics, etc. in your browser windows. And not only that; look at Java, or PHP, or Python -- are their speeds comparable even to high-level C++, to say nothing of low-level C or hand-coded assembly? Not in the least. Now take GCC, the sanctum sanctorum of C partisans, and watch it doubling the size of GCC-generated executables while halfing their speed with every major version number change! And finally, think about countless legions of programmers the world over that are busy developing their products for, and burning them into, 32KB EEPROM's of CNC's, or kitchen utensils, or vacuum cleaners, or chewing gum dispensers. Can they use "stuff like php, tcl, xml, xsl, sql"? The question is obviously rhetoric. The overproduction of IT staff has lowered, definitively and dramatically, the SW industry quality standards and consequently, the level of craftsmanship in this profession.

A PHP or Python guru, hehe? The only guru on the block that can make me relatively uneasy would be a LISP guru. The CPU is a perfect solid-state stack machine ideally suited for a fundamentally stack-based LISP or Scheme compiler. So, a competent Lisper would make a worthwhile opponent to an assembly practician, speed-wise, while an average C programmer wouldn't unless he's fully aware of how a particular C compiler works and exactly what it is capable of doing behind the scenes.

It is too early to say no to low level languages, sir, if ever. I can name a few dozens BASIC, C, or Pascal implementations written in pure assembly but so far I know none such written in xsl or php. Nor am I likely to name one in the foreseeable future, no matter what next generation CPU geometries are going to be.
Mike
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(3.6GHz i5 Core Quad, 16GB RAM / 2 x nVidia GTX 650Ti SLI-bridged, 2GB VRAM; Win 7, 8.1, 10 / Ubuntu 16.04 LTS)


User avatar
dizt3mp3r
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by dizt3mp3r »

It sounds as if you are pining for the fjords...
Skillset: VMS sysadmin 20 years, fault Tolerance, cluster, Vax, Alpha, ftSparc. DCL, QB45, VB6, NET, PHP, JS, CMS, Graphics, Project Manager, DOS, Windows admin from 1985. Quad Electronics. Classic cars & motorbikes. Artist watercolours. Historian.

User avatar
Reactionist
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Omnipresent
Contact:

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by Reactionist »

dizt3mp3r wrote:It sounds as if you are pining for the fjords...
It's rather a saga to the living. The patient looks more alive than dead despite the hosts of mourners around. In fact, that's exactly what ROS itself is all about, in its own peculiar way. :)
Mike
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(3.6GHz i5 Core Quad, 16GB RAM / 2 x nVidia GTX 650Ti SLI-bridged, 2GB VRAM; Win 7, 8.1, 10 / Ubuntu 16.04 LTS)


User avatar
dizt3mp3r
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by dizt3mp3r »

What did I mean by "QB64 is what all languages should be"?

OK, that was a little bit of hyperbole perhaps, I meant it in the context of usablity, familiarity, building upon layers and years of expertise, and still having some sort of a future... QB64 has many limitations not least of which is the inability to interpret the code and interrupt the execution at breakpoints. Still though, it is rather good to use. Reason being - that I have used so many MS products and I am so sick of having to re-learn and start from scratch every few years. Getting into QB64 was like putting on a pair of long-neglected boots that you've just had returned from the menders. A friendly and warm place to be, even though out-of-fashion, still as good as they ever were, in fact quite a lot better. I am almost tempted by QB64 merely because it still exists. I am looking for that reason to use it.

If there was a VB6 direct equivalent as per QB64 (not .NET, not jabaco, KBASIC, Q7, powerbasic, Xojo) then I'd be happy to code in that friendly, warm, familiar, VB6-like IDE and compiler, the one that hasn't yet been made...

That's actually what I really meant. Stability and continuity is what I'm after and that is also what draws me to ReactOS.
Skillset: VMS sysadmin 20 years, fault Tolerance, cluster, Vax, Alpha, ftSparc. DCL, QB45, VB6, NET, PHP, JS, CMS, Graphics, Project Manager, DOS, Windows admin from 1985. Quad Electronics. Classic cars & motorbikes. Artist watercolours. Historian.

User avatar
dizt3mp3r
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by dizt3mp3r »

These C++ emitters do seem to be the way things are going for people that want to keep an old IDE and language variant alive, there were plans in one part of the internet to create a VB6 clone using this method - and I suppose it speeds up the whole process of creating one.

I am not against the use of C++ emitters as I probably don't understand the counter arguments. An inability to watch and debug the code as it runs is of course a loss - but I could do without it possibly, if the trade-off is a familiar working environment in all other respects.

I quite like the original post as it almost allows you to waffle on about anything, which is precisely what I've been doing.
Skillset: VMS sysadmin 20 years, fault Tolerance, cluster, Vax, Alpha, ftSparc. DCL, QB45, VB6, NET, PHP, JS, CMS, Graphics, Project Manager, DOS, Windows admin from 1985. Quad Electronics. Classic cars & motorbikes. Artist watercolours. Historian.


User avatar
dizt3mp3r
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by dizt3mp3r »

What is all that about? Some people are really strange from start to finish.
Skillset: VMS sysadmin 20 years, fault Tolerance, cluster, Vax, Alpha, ftSparc. DCL, QB45, VB6, NET, PHP, JS, CMS, Graphics, Project Manager, DOS, Windows admin from 1985. Quad Electronics. Classic cars & motorbikes. Artist watercolours. Historian.

justincase
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:13 pm

Re: For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop in

Post by justincase »

Reactionist wrote:FYI:

His other known nicks are français, monsieur, and Jorge Monsieur.

The sooner this entity goes to ban, the better.
(snip)
Those are way too broad names to put a ban on, unless you hate the French, Walloons and Quebeckers :roll:
I reserve the right to ignore any portion of any post if I deem it not constructive or likely to cause the discussion to degenerate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest