These languages are a bundle of nope.
-
If you use WinForms, compare adding a ListBox in C# and creating one in Java. It's ridiculous. Let me clarify - I was mainly referring to IDE RAD based development. Sure, the syntax is similar. It also eats memory like a pig. Once I built the same application in .NET and in JBuilder. When I ran the app. in JBuilder, it told me I had insufficient memory. Really?
I avoid Java because the tools are awful.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I avoid Java because the tools are awful.
Real programmers use butterflies
Yes. You get what you pay for. :-O
-
Yes. You get what you pay for. :-O
You know how many times I've said that using open source stuff? :laugh:
Real programmers use butterflies
-
Wow, what crawled up your backside? You're wrong about my intentions, and all you managed to accomplish was to be a jerk to someone that has never done anything to you. And I'll remember it. So congratulations. Smart move.
Real programmers use butterflies
Wow I am a little taken back at your comment to Slow Eddie but that is beside the point of my reply Why am I a member here plain and simple this site has a wealth of Brains who do not waste time on idle chit chat and I always find a honest sharing of ideas Honey the Codewitch is one of those who has an alternate view on various subjects and that is nice One thing I learned here is that you pick the development language based on what language best suits the needs of the project You do not pick up bad habits you develop them and begin to embrace them over time and if you are lucky one day someone like most of the members shares a review of your code and points out the bad habit so that said honey the codewitch I am sure you have enough self control to use BASIC Why did I post this comment VB 6 and NS Basic for the Palm Pilot as well as Apple Basic on a 40 column screen were my foundation to explore and use other high level languages YES Gif pointed out a bad habit I rewrote the project and now that habit is gone
-
Who cares What you think? :zzz: If you don't have the mental discipline or fortitude to reject picking up those "bad habits" then shame on you. IMO your post is just an opportunity to brag about ALL of the languages you know and use, and bash languages others use like the "cool kids". Languages are just tools. If you mash your thumb with a hammer, is it the hammer's fault?
Use the language you like. Ignore the "cool kids"
-
Wow I am a little taken back at your comment to Slow Eddie but that is beside the point of my reply Why am I a member here plain and simple this site has a wealth of Brains who do not waste time on idle chit chat and I always find a honest sharing of ideas Honey the Codewitch is one of those who has an alternate view on various subjects and that is nice One thing I learned here is that you pick the development language based on what language best suits the needs of the project You do not pick up bad habits you develop them and begin to embrace them over time and if you are lucky one day someone like most of the members shares a review of your code and points out the bad habit so that said honey the codewitch I am sure you have enough self control to use BASIC Why did I post this comment VB 6 and NS Basic for the Palm Pilot as well as Apple Basic on a 40 column screen were my foundation to explore and use other high level languages YES Gif pointed out a bad habit I rewrote the project and now that habit is gone
As far as Eddie's comment, I feel like my reply was measured given the tone and nature of it, and the fact that he impugned my motivations for writing my OP. I do try to be nice. But I'm not a pushover. As far as your comment, I generally agree with you, but I've never had to write anything in BASIC or in python commercially. I'm thankful for it. Just like I'm thankful that my need for assembly and javascript in the field is limited. If I had been coding in them all the time, I'd have to work extra hard to keep the stink of them from rubbing off on my coding style, so to speak. That's why I avoid them. It doesn't mean I'll never use them. It's just I won't if I can help it.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
VB.NET and C# have the same exact functionality. My criticism isn't about BASIC not being powerful. It's about it reinforcing poor habits due to the way it's structured and due to its syntax.
Real programmers use butterflies
The idea that Basic promotes bad code design and structure is false and without merit. Why ? Because Basic uses a "different" style of coding than most programmers use today, but not necessarily a poorer one. What do I mean ? Programmers , in what most of you younger programmers would call the old days or even ancient days, use to code in the procedural style of coding. In the early 2000's procedural programming took a big hit by the new up and coming Object Oriented Programming (aka. OOP) style. There was so much talk about how it would solve all our problems and make coding better, faster and more powerful. There were a lot of promises made and most jumped the "procedural" ship in favor of this new fangled style of coding. There were some programmers who were not so sure about this new coding style and while they may have dabbled in it, they still held onto what they knew best, procedural. Their mindset was more of a wait and see if this new fangled coding style would deliver on all the promises made. Classic Visual Basic was a hybrid of sorts and only stepped into minimal OOP, but kept the procedural style of coding for the backend code (once you were in event code most coded using a procedural style at first). In the C world, many procedural programmers jumped ship into C++ and started writing everything as a class rather than a function or procedure. But there were experienced programmers who took it slowly and did not totally give up on procedural design. So what conclusion have many of those old timers (and amazingly a number of newer younger programmers over time) come too having given OOP plenty of time to prove itself ? While there are a few benefits to OOP, such as its tends to "force" programmers to write modular code, in the long run OOP has not delivers on all of its promises. Sadly OOP has brought us a new term "BLOAT". If one is honest and is willing to read many of the articles floating around the web by experienced programmers about the challenges and weaknesses of OOP, you will find that OOP created as many problems as it appeared to solve. There is a slow, but real, movement among not only old time programmers, but also some younger ones, to take a closer look back at the tried and true procedural style of coding to see if it real was as bad as many say and whether it had any benefits now lost by using OOP for everything. The reality is the procedural style coding, whether Basic, C (rather than C++), Fortran, Java or Pascal still exists and it actually has many benefits.
-
The idea that Basic promotes bad code design and structure is false and without merit. Why ? Because Basic uses a "different" style of coding than most programmers use today, but not necessarily a poorer one. What do I mean ? Programmers , in what most of you younger programmers would call the old days or even ancient days, use to code in the procedural style of coding. In the early 2000's procedural programming took a big hit by the new up and coming Object Oriented Programming (aka. OOP) style. There was so much talk about how it would solve all our problems and make coding better, faster and more powerful. There were a lot of promises made and most jumped the "procedural" ship in favor of this new fangled style of coding. There were some programmers who were not so sure about this new coding style and while they may have dabbled in it, they still held onto what they knew best, procedural. Their mindset was more of a wait and see if this new fangled coding style would deliver on all the promises made. Classic Visual Basic was a hybrid of sorts and only stepped into minimal OOP, but kept the procedural style of coding for the backend code (once you were in event code most coded using a procedural style at first). In the C world, many procedural programmers jumped ship into C++ and started writing everything as a class rather than a function or procedure. But there were experienced programmers who took it slowly and did not totally give up on procedural design. So what conclusion have many of those old timers (and amazingly a number of newer younger programmers over time) come too having given OOP plenty of time to prove itself ? While there are a few benefits to OOP, such as its tends to "force" programmers to write modular code, in the long run OOP has not delivers on all of its promises. Sadly OOP has brought us a new term "BLOAT". If one is honest and is willing to read many of the articles floating around the web by experienced programmers about the challenges and weaknesses of OOP, you will find that OOP created as many problems as it appeared to solve. There is a slow, but real, movement among not only old time programmers, but also some younger ones, to take a closer look back at the tried and true procedural style of coding to see if it real was as bad as many say and whether it had any benefits now lost by using OOP for everything. The reality is the procedural style coding, whether Basic, C (rather than C++), Fortran, Java or Pascal still exists and it actually has many benefits.
I disagree with most of your comment - or rather the parts were pertinent to BASIC's form and coding style (not the bit about projects failing which is a sidebar at best). I've had to embed too many arrays into a single line of basic code to ever be okay with their syntax.
The only other language it could have been written in would have been pure C (not C++).
I challenge you to produce C code that generates different assembly instructions than I can produce in C++ code. You can literally write the same code in C++ that you can in C. You just do it differently.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
There are languages I refuse to use for fear of picking up bad habits. Perl is one. Python* is another. And then there's BASIC :~ I'd add assembly to the list except there are unfortunately, rare instances where I need it. *Python isn't as bad an offender as the others, but its array handling and use of significant whitespace are deal breakers for me. I don't like to holy roll. Sure I have my favorite languages (C++, C#) and languages I hate but grudgingly accept (like Javascript), and ones that just aren't my cup of tea but I'll use them if I must (Java). Still, I try to be fair, and I believe that most languages have their niche. Even Perl, if I'm being generous, but that doesn't mean I'll use it and it doesn't mean I don't think there should be a better alternative. The ones I listed up top though - Nope. Just no. I will not use them, except perhaps to port something away from them. I have to have some sort of standards. Sometimes I wonder if I'm being overly picky though.
Real programmers use butterflies
Perl and Python I have no use for, nor do I want to learn them. I've looked at them enough to know I don't like them. I've developed in Java and made a few products with it at a previous job, and I never want to touch it again if I can help it. I grew up on BASIC with the commodore64, Apple II, and old IBM clones. It was a fun language to get started in, and sparked my interest in how computers actually worked, so I dived in deeper for harder languages. the old BASIC is nothing like modern derivatives, beyond the name and some of the keywords. I don't mind JavaScript, it's interesting, (fun and frustrating at times) and definitely has it's place. The same with C, it has it's place also. If anyone tries making a JS enabled microcontroller, they need their ass kicked, or a C script runtime for web development. I've picked up assembly just for the knowledge of it, since there are times in the embedded world that dropping down into assembly is helpful. I picked up ADA at my last job, it was used to program some scientific equipment oddly enough. I've played around with COBAL a bit and I don't hate it. I love D-lang but I'm afraid it won't ever hit main stream. Rust is awesome, but it's a 180° from JavaScript that I have to use daily, so it takes a minute to get back in the flow. To each their own
-
Perl and Python I have no use for, nor do I want to learn them. I've looked at them enough to know I don't like them. I've developed in Java and made a few products with it at a previous job, and I never want to touch it again if I can help it. I grew up on BASIC with the commodore64, Apple II, and old IBM clones. It was a fun language to get started in, and sparked my interest in how computers actually worked, so I dived in deeper for harder languages. the old BASIC is nothing like modern derivatives, beyond the name and some of the keywords. I don't mind JavaScript, it's interesting, (fun and frustrating at times) and definitely has it's place. The same with C, it has it's place also. If anyone tries making a JS enabled microcontroller, they need their ass kicked, or a C script runtime for web development. I've picked up assembly just for the knowledge of it, since there are times in the embedded world that dropping down into assembly is helpful. I picked up ADA at my last job, it was used to program some scientific equipment oddly enough. I've played around with COBAL a bit and I don't hate it. I love D-lang but I'm afraid it won't ever hit main stream. Rust is awesome, but it's a 180° from JavaScript that I have to use daily, so it takes a minute to get back in the flow. To each their own
Matt McGuire wrote:
To each their own
Definitely. I have my opinions, but while I might sideeye a Perl developer the same way I wonder about what makes people pursue podiatry as a profession I won't judge them for it. *Somebody* has to code in the damn thing, after all. As far as basic, I came up the same way you did it sounds like. Good old Applesoft BASIC in my case. I'm glad that was "the bad old days" and not today. Still, line delimited languages give me a rash. And VB.NET's syntax with respect to things like lambdas leave me googling all the time because the syntax is nonsense, and clearly a bag on the side - it wasn't designed with them in mind but rather added to the grammar after the fact and it shows. There are sadly, folks who think running a scripting language (JS, Python), or a GC language (C#) on a 360kB system at 160MHz is a good idea. I am not one of those people. For starters, I don't care about RAD on an IoT device. I care about battery life.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I disagree with most of your comment - or rather the parts were pertinent to BASIC's form and coding style (not the bit about projects failing which is a sidebar at best). I've had to embed too many arrays into a single line of basic code to ever be okay with their syntax.
The only other language it could have been written in would have been pure C (not C++).
I challenge you to produce C code that generates different assembly instructions than I can produce in C++ code. You can literally write the same code in C++ that you can in C. You just do it differently.
Real programmers use butterflies
You young programmer just can't grasp the real differences between procedural code and OOP. Try to understand, that us old dinosaurs (programmers in their 60's) use to write apps which would run on 1 megabyte RAM (not Gigabyte), run on a hard-drive which was only 20 megabytes in size or worse in a 1.44 megabyte floppy disk. I wrote my first compiler for the Commodore 64 (using a Basic compiler) which only has 64 Kilobytes of Ram. I wrote a complete POS software package for a video rental store which ran on a Kaypro computer with 2 floppy disks (no harddrive) and 640 KB ram. You learn something from writing code for computers with so little hardware capability. Todays programmers gasp if they had to use a PC with less than a core i7 and 32 Gb ram. I am shocked at how slow and bloated Visual Studio is today. No wonder why programmers need the best PC possible. My core development tools (Powerbasic and my GUI framework with its own Visual Designer) allows me to quickly write apps on almost PC I have around the house. Give me an old Windows 98 computer with 64 meg Ram (not GB) and I likely still could code on it with acceptable speed of development. There are "real" C programmers today, that their entire development system would likely run on a PC which Visual Studio developers could even get their development tools to install on, none the less actual run. I was actually one of those college students who when given a choice to punch out Fortran cards or code in a Basic interpreter on a green screened Terminal, was amazed at how quickly I could write code in that Terminal using simple old Basic. I don't use an interpreter anymore. I use a native code compiler for Windows, which allows me to compile at lightning speeds even tens of thousands of lines of code. I barely have time to take on sip of soda (not a coffee drinker) during the compile cycle for 50,000 lines of code, none the the less take a coffee break. Install the latest Visual Studio (if even possible) onto a PC with only 4 GB ram and less than a core i3 CPU) and with no SSD and see how long it takes you to to even run VS, none the less compile app of significant size. OOP adds overhead to an app and also makes following code flow more challenging. Read an interesting blog post by an engineer at Intel on Intel's website about the significant problems object oriented coding brings when trying to debug code.
-
You young programmer just can't grasp the real differences between procedural code and OOP. Try to understand, that us old dinosaurs (programmers in their 60's) use to write apps which would run on 1 megabyte RAM (not Gigabyte), run on a hard-drive which was only 20 megabytes in size or worse in a 1.44 megabyte floppy disk. I wrote my first compiler for the Commodore 64 (using a Basic compiler) which only has 64 Kilobytes of Ram. I wrote a complete POS software package for a video rental store which ran on a Kaypro computer with 2 floppy disks (no harddrive) and 640 KB ram. You learn something from writing code for computers with so little hardware capability. Todays programmers gasp if they had to use a PC with less than a core i7 and 32 Gb ram. I am shocked at how slow and bloated Visual Studio is today. No wonder why programmers need the best PC possible. My core development tools (Powerbasic and my GUI framework with its own Visual Designer) allows me to quickly write apps on almost PC I have around the house. Give me an old Windows 98 computer with 64 meg Ram (not GB) and I likely still could code on it with acceptable speed of development. There are "real" C programmers today, that their entire development system would likely run on a PC which Visual Studio developers could even get their development tools to install on, none the less actual run. I was actually one of those college students who when given a choice to punch out Fortran cards or code in a Basic interpreter on a green screened Terminal, was amazed at how quickly I could write code in that Terminal using simple old Basic. I don't use an interpreter anymore. I use a native code compiler for Windows, which allows me to compile at lightning speeds even tens of thousands of lines of code. I barely have time to take on sip of soda (not a coffee drinker) during the compile cycle for 50,000 lines of code, none the the less take a coffee break. Install the latest Visual Studio (if even possible) onto a PC with only 4 GB ram and less than a core i3 CPU) and with no SSD and see how long it takes you to to even run VS, none the less compile app of significant size. OOP adds overhead to an app and also makes following code flow more challenging. Read an interesting blog post by an engineer at Intel on Intel's website about the significant problems object oriented coding brings when trying to debug code.
C++ is not an OO language. It is a multiparadigm language. Someone taught you C++ poorly, from the sounds of it. I don't even use OO in C++ that often. I use generic programming Again, I don't care about OO, GP, or whichever paradigm you use. I challenge you to produce one piece of C code that generates assembly that I cannot write in C++. And OO doesn't produce any overhead you don't ask for.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
There are languages I refuse to use for fear of picking up bad habits. Perl is one. Python* is another. And then there's BASIC :~ I'd add assembly to the list except there are unfortunately, rare instances where I need it. *Python isn't as bad an offender as the others, but its array handling and use of significant whitespace are deal breakers for me. I don't like to holy roll. Sure I have my favorite languages (C++, C#) and languages I hate but grudgingly accept (like Javascript), and ones that just aren't my cup of tea but I'll use them if I must (Java). Still, I try to be fair, and I believe that most languages have their niche. Even Perl, if I'm being generous, but that doesn't mean I'll use it and it doesn't mean I don't think there should be a better alternative. The ones I listed up top though - Nope. Just no. I will not use them, except perhaps to port something away from them. I have to have some sort of standards. Sometimes I wonder if I'm being overly picky though.
Real programmers use butterflies
I'm going to be Devil's Advocate I really like JavaScript / Typescript. Not because the language is the epitome of a well planned, cleanly architected, unambiguous and approachable language all kids should learn. It's not. It's a dog's breakfast. But because it works everywhere, it's not being owned by anyone, there's almost no religious wars going on around it, and because it's powerful, forgiving, and if you had to learn one language this one would be it. Full stack, front to back, every device (almost), every platform. I also like and respect Python. Again: not what one would consider the cleanest, sanest evolution of a language, but it, like JavaScript, works pretty much everywhere, has a huge following, masses of libraries, and most importantly, is a great language for those who want to generate results rather than become artists. The difference between building a deck so you can have a BBQ as opposed to building a fully automated food preparation machine. I just want my burger and a beer and I don't need to understand structural engineering to get this thing completed. Sure, Python is weird about spaces, but C-like languages are equally weird about closing brackets, and let's fact it - we all indent our code anyway. Maybe it was the 5 years in Purgatory doing FORTRAN that softened me but I find teaching a student how to code if/then statements or loops using Python to be less distracting than brackets for someone who's never seen code before. My pet peeve: convention over configuration. It's like having to geek out and understand the backstory of all the characters in a movie, deeply, before you can sit down and watch the movie. The constant "WTF is going on?" with things like Entity Framework, for instance, just kills my soul every time I realise that if I'm to step off that very, very narrow line they've set, there will be Pain and there will be Misery.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
There are languages I refuse to use for fear of picking up bad habits. Perl is one. Python* is another. And then there's BASIC :~ I'd add assembly to the list except there are unfortunately, rare instances where I need it. *Python isn't as bad an offender as the others, but its array handling and use of significant whitespace are deal breakers for me. I don't like to holy roll. Sure I have my favorite languages (C++, C#) and languages I hate but grudgingly accept (like Javascript), and ones that just aren't my cup of tea but I'll use them if I must (Java). Still, I try to be fair, and I believe that most languages have their niche. Even Perl, if I'm being generous, but that doesn't mean I'll use it and it doesn't mean I don't think there should be a better alternative. The ones I listed up top though - Nope. Just no. I will not use them, except perhaps to port something away from them. I have to have some sort of standards. Sometimes I wonder if I'm being overly picky though.
Real programmers use butterflies
If you learn the language's idioms, you won't pick up any bad habits. Programming languages are like spoken/written languages, you have to think in the language. If you can treat programming languages like written and spoken languages, you won't pick up any bad habits. Don't be like this: "You can program Fortran in any language" :java:
~d~
-
Pretty sure I understand the language considering I've written parsers for both. Let me help you understand something - they're the same language. The only thing different is some superficial syntax. However, VB.NET's is not clean. C#s is. If anyone is paying a C# dev twice what they're paying a VB.NET give me their number. I have a bridge to sell them.
Real programmers use butterflies
You wrote: VB.NET's is not clean. C#s is. English is not French either but that does not mean that one of them not a clean language. Once again, I think you made my point. One simply cannot say something is bad without at least giving a brief explanation as to why. After programming for 41 years using many programming languages, I have great respect for the Basic language and it's evolutions.
-
You wrote: VB.NET's is not clean. C#s is. English is not French either but that does not mean that one of them not a clean language. Once again, I think you made my point. One simply cannot say something is bad without at least giving a brief explanation as to why. After programming for 41 years using many programming languages, I have great respect for the Basic language and it's evolutions.
When you're done embedding a 250 entry array into VB, all in a single line (because VB) come back and tell me it's clean.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
For its time (when procedural languages ruled the world), BASIC was a good beginner's language. Its modern variants (VB) have strayed so far from the original concept that the only things remaining are the name and some vestiges of the syntax. As far as I'm concerned, Python's significant whitespace is a deal breaker. The fixed-format lines in classical FORTRAN were bad enough, but at least they had some rationale behind them (punched card widths, etc.). I see no reason to repeat that in a modern language. I disagree about assembly language. As you mentioned, it is sometimes necessary, both for extremely low-level kernel stuff and for extremely high-performance code. It's also fun! :) JavaScript and other weakly-typed scripting languages are tools of the Devil. :) I shudder to think how much of our infrastructure is built over code that will run even with typos (though it won't do what you expect). Personally, I do most of my coding in C, C++, C#, and Java. As long as one can remain gainfully employed using the tools that one prefers using - why worry? The time to worry is when one sees these tools going out of fashion, and one is required to interface to the new-fangled stuff. However, given that new programs are still being written in FORTRAN and COBOL, I don't see C, C++, C#, or Java being abandoned any time soon.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Quote:
Personally, I do most of my coding in C, C++, C#, and Java.
Hear! Hear! Although the last decade or so has been only C# and Java, specifically JavaFX. JavaFX with Maven and the IntelliJ IDEA IDE can measure up to C# and Visual Studio any day of the week!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
-
When you're done embedding a 250 entry array into VB, all in a single line (because VB) come back and tell me it's clean.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
In C#, I'd break the array across multiple lines. In VB.NET I'd get a compile error for doing it, or put up with a bunch of nasty underscores. If embedding an array is something you're "not supposed to do" in VB.NET it's not a real programming language. We can declare arrays for a reason. You think everything proves your point. I find that hilarious.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
Matt McGuire wrote:
To each their own
Definitely. I have my opinions, but while I might sideeye a Perl developer the same way I wonder about what makes people pursue podiatry as a profession I won't judge them for it. *Somebody* has to code in the damn thing, after all. As far as basic, I came up the same way you did it sounds like. Good old Applesoft BASIC in my case. I'm glad that was "the bad old days" and not today. Still, line delimited languages give me a rash. And VB.NET's syntax with respect to things like lambdas leave me googling all the time because the syntax is nonsense, and clearly a bag on the side - it wasn't designed with them in mind but rather added to the grammar after the fact and it shows. There are sadly, folks who think running a scripting language (JS, Python), or a GC language (C#) on a 360kB system at 160MHz is a good idea. I am not one of those people. For starters, I don't care about RAD on an IoT device. I care about battery life.
Real programmers use butterflies
honey the codewitch wrote:
I don't care about RAD on an IoT device. I care about battery life.
pretty much the same, and keeping as close to real time as possible on those little chips.