i have a question:

I decided to remake a bot in C++ and now im having trouble with the BigInteger part. Is there a BigInteger.dll anywhere? I've tried making my own dll but it just didnt work.

whatsa BigInteger.dll?
If you're trying to dittle dattily with numbers larger then 64 bit, I recommend you treat your number as a raw chunk of memory, and develop some carry algorithms which handle it in 32 or even 64 bit chunks. You don't have to give up yet on making your own biginteger.dll... though you really shouldn't make it a dll.

Its C++, it can handle unsigned integers.  I don't see why your having this problem.

The first Google hit for "BigInteger c++" is this. There are a lot more, too. You shouldn't have any trouble finding something.

@Brew: It's for NLS, and trust me, you do NOT want to make your own system. I tried, and it's hell.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17060.msg173324#msg173324 date=1190922233]
@Brew: It's for NLS, and trust me, you do NOT want to make your own system. I tried, and it's hell.
[/quote]

I did one in highschool to prove to my C++ teacher that it could. Took half an hour to get multiply working. Maybe you just took a bad approach to it?

No, I got adding, subtracting, and multiplying, all in PowerBASIC.
See https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/index.php?topic=16942.0

Adding and subtracting is the easy part. Multiplication and division is harder. Powers are hardest.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17060.msg173324#msg173324 date=1190922233]
@Brew: It's for NLS, and trust me, you do NOT want to make your own system. I tried, and it's hell.
[/quote]
Ah, I see. Heh. Do any of you remember Ante who used to post here? A few days ago he was telling me about making his own bigint calculator (apparently his goal is to calculate pi to the 5000th digit?) in vb6. It was a disaster. He used a string to store the value. I suggested to first use C++ to make this, and to treat it just as any other block of memory. He thought that it would be TOO hard (it would take some playing around with copymemory, but the end result would be much better). Somehow, just somehow, he's got it to work (I would have lost the willpower a quarter of the way through with the addition function) with just about everything, including exponents and modulus. I'm not quite sure what to think about it...

I have 4 million digits of pi in a text file ;)

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17060.msg173350#msg173350 date=1190947044]
I have 4 million digits of pi in a text file ;)
[/quote]
and what purpose did that serve?

Taking up 4 megs.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17060.msg173338#msg173338 date=1190932967]
Adding and subtracting is the easy part. Multiplication and division is harder. Powers are hardest.
[/quote]
The most important ones are power and powmod. The rest can come or go. :)

Well I'm now using Java's big integer class, lol.

But it seems to be throwing exceptions when i get to this line of code:
[code] array<unsigned char> ^hashB = Sha->CalculateHash((array<unsigned char>^)(B->toByteArray()));[/code]

which is part of this block of code:
[code] array<unsigned char> ^hashB = Sha->CalculateHash((array<unsigned char>^)(B->toByteArray()));
array<unsigned char> ^uBytes = gcnew array<unsigned char>(4);
for (int i = 0; i <= 3; i++)
uBytes[i] = hashB[3 - i];
java::math::BigInteger ^u = gcnew java::math::BigInteger((array<signed char>^)uBytes);[/code]

The error message(s) reads:

[code]
A first chance exception of type 'System.ArrayTypeMismatchException' occurred in vjslib.dll
A first chance exception of type 'System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException' occurred in mscorlib.dll
[/code]

The same error message (sometimes) comes up when i get to this line of code as well:

[code] java::math::BigInteger ^B = gcnew java::math::BigInteger((array<signed char>^)serverKey);[/code]

Is this a bug? (i have heard of some bugs within the BigInteger & BigDecimal class)

wow way to use managed c++. game over man.

He's right, use C# instead

Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.

Learning C++ does not involved managed .NET C++.

[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?

I beg to digress. Using C++ is a good way to ensure portability between platforms, such as between Windows and Linux. To date, C# isn't quite portable for the Linux platform, unless one makes use of Mono. And even then, Mono is still in the developmental stages. Until Mono becomes fully developed, C++ is the best option for developers. Managed .NET C++ however isn't a good option, because that'd still require the use of Mono if one wanted to port it to the Linux platform.

interpreted - omglol

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

No, it has its place. If you're writing an operating system, or a high performance DBMS, you should use C/C++. In any other case, you should use a higher level language.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17060.msg173591#msg173591 date=1191594845]
No, it has its place. If you're writing an operating system, or a high performance DBMS, you should use C/C++.[/quote]

Or also in cases of portability.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17060.msg173591#msg173591 date=1191594845]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

No, it has its place. If you're writing an operating system, or a high performance DBMS, you should use C/C++. In any other case, you should use a higher level language.
[/quote]
[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17060.msg173629#msg173629 date=1191677781]
[quote author=Camel link=topic=17060.msg173591#msg173591 date=1191594845]
No, it has its place. If you're writing an operating system, or a high performance DBMS, you should use C/C++.[/quote]

Or also in cases of portability.
[/quote]

C/C++ is only portable if you code in a portable manner. This includes using cross platform UI kits and the like. It may be portable in the sense that it has no runtime but it's certainly not a compile once run anywhere type situation.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17060.msg173591#msg173591 date=1191594845]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

No, it has its place. If you're writing an operating system, or a high performance DBMS, you should use C/C++. In any other case, you should use a higher level language.
[/quote]

This was mostly a joke, but I agree with you here for the most part. I really yearn for the day where C/C++ is restricted to low level programming, and with some higher level code earlier on in the kernel. The advantages are there, both in Java and C#.

Let's make stuff modern imo.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.

[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.[/quote]

I'm not sure how much validity that holds now days, though.

[quote author=betawarz link=topic=17060.msg174290#msg174290 date=1193680954]
[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.[/quote]

I'm not sure how much validity that holds now days, though.
[/quote]
Well at my company and at all the companies I talk to they use mostly C but sometimes limited C++.  I know Sony is using C/C++ and Nintendo does it for DS (one of my current titles).

[quote author=betawarz link=topic=17060.msg174290#msg174290 date=1193680954]
[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.[/quote]

I'm not sure how much validity that holds now days, though.
[/quote]
Pretty much all major titles are written in C or C++.  Even nowadays.

There are a lot of things that C# simply can't do - for instance, let's look at using SSE.  C# really can't express any way to even hint at using it. 

C++ also has support libraries for intrinsic garbage collection (it's not terribly hard to do).  C# has a much cleaner syntax, but C++ can be much more expressive; for instance, it allows for partial specialization with templates, and it also permits non-type parameters for templates. 

If I had the option, I might choose D as an alternative to C or C++.  For an indie title, C# might be a viable option.  But for a commercial title, I'm not feeling it when it comes to C#.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17060.msg174293#msg174293 date=1193687061]
[quote author=betawarz link=topic=17060.msg174290#msg174290 date=1193680954]
[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.[/quote]

I'm not sure how much validity that holds now days, though.
[/quote]
Pretty much all major titles are written in C or C++.  Even nowadays.

There are a lot of things that C# simply can't do - for instance, let's look at using SSE.  C# really can't express any way to even hint at using it. 

C++ also has support libraries for intrinsic garbage collection (it's not terribly hard to do).  C# has a much cleaner syntax, but C++ can be much more expressive; for instance, it allows for partial specialization with templates, and it also permits non-type parameters for templates. 

If I had the option, I might choose D as an alternative to C or C++.  For an indie title, C# might be a viable option.  But for a commercial title, I'm not feeling it when it comes to C#.
[/quote]

I'm not feeling you.

[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.
[/quote]

Where did I state it was a weak language? I state it's users are weak. Learn to read before attempting to reply please.

Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174296#msg174296 date=1193688366]
Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, you're wrong. All professional programs are made in C/++, assembly, and/or *sometimes* C# (because they want to be hip, MS is pushing C# so therefore they use it and become tools in the process). Anything else made with a different language is a joke. C is intended for people who know what they're doing. Professional software development companies know what they're doing. OOP users, for the most part, don't.

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070809/teched-day-2-lolcode/

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17060.msg174300#msg174300 date=1193692769]
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070809/teched-day-2-lolcode/
[/quote]

LOLCode is an exception.
CAN HAS SUM LOLULARCODE?
I'm pretty sure Leaky is going to piss his pants when he sees that link :)

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174297#msg174297 date=1193689984]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174296#msg174296 date=1193688366]
Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, you're wrong. All professional programs are made in C/++, assembly, and/or *sometimes* C# (because they want to be hip, MS is pushing C# so therefore they use it and become tools in the process). Anything else made with a different language is a joke. C is intended for people who know what they're doing. Professional software development companies know what they're doing. OOP users, for the most part, don't.
[/quote]

brew, your continued insistence that you'll never learn C# puts you at a deficiency to argue this point.  C# isn't just "hip" - it's got a lot of development "best practices" that are not only included, but enforced by the compiler, resulting in greater development efficiency.  But, it can also destroy you if you don't "know what [you're] doing."

World of Warcraft is written in very effective, object-oriented C++.  This is very clear from the disassembly of the game.  Are you going to say that Blizzard is not a "professional software development company" since they're OOP users, and therefore don't know (for the most part) what they're doing?

The fact is, OOP is the best software development practice we know to currently exist in terms of business models.  It incorporates human factors (objects can be conceptualized by humans, leading to abstraction, a key necessity for heuristics), defines relationships among data, and improves software maintainability when used correctly.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174297#msg174297 date=1193689984]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174296#msg174296 date=1193688366]
Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, you're wrong. All professional programs are made in C/++, assembly, and/or *sometimes* C# (because they want to be hip, MS is pushing C# so therefore they use it and become tools in the process). Anything else made with a different language is a joke. C is intended for people who know what they're doing. Professional software development companies know what they're doing. OOP users, for the most part, don't.
[/quote]

You're so retarded on so many levels it's amazing.

I mean honestly, I've tried to sit in the sidelines and remain neutral about your overwhelming stupidity but it's gotten too hard.

Please only respond to anything I say unless you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174296#msg174296 date=1193688366]
[quote author=Krush[LM] link=topic=17060.msg174289#msg174289 date=1193679422]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg173563#msg173563 date=1191554357]
[quote author=iNsaNe link=topic=17060.msg173559#msg173559 date=1191553715]
Yeah, I'm back to C#. I'm much further with it in C# anyways but I just thought I'd try out C++ to learn it a little.
[/quote]

It's like going from a Supermodel to a Hooker. C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it.

Are you weak?
[/quote]

Most games are coded in C/C++ so I wouldn't call it weak.
[/quote]

Where did I state it was a weak language? I state it's users are weak. Learn to read before attempting to reply please.

Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.
[/quote]

Well I thought the comment "C++ is a nasty language, only the weak use it." was implying the code and the user of it are weak.

Anyways we shouldn't get off topic, all I was merely stating is that a majority games (pc, console) are made with C/C++. I know for a fact all DS games are coded in that and if they use C++ at all it's "Limited C++" since it can't support a lot of the languages features.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174304#msg174304 date=1193695525]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174297#msg174297 date=1193689984]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174296#msg174296 date=1193688366]
Additionally, games being written in C/C++ do not detach from the fact that it's just a horrible language. Both of them.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, you're wrong. All professional programs are made in C/++, assembly, and/or *sometimes* C# (because they want to be hip, MS is pushing C# so therefore they use it and become tools in the process). Anything else made with a different language is a joke. C is intended for people who know what they're doing. Professional software development companies know what they're doing. OOP users, for the most part, don't.
[/quote]

You're so retarded on so many levels it's amazing.

I mean honestly, I've tried to sit in the sidelines and remain neutral about your overwhelming stupidity but it's gotten too hard.

Please only respond to anything I say unless you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
[/quote]
I'm sorry Warrior. You are wrong. You have failed on so many levels. How is somebody retarded for not going along with your opinion? If C/C++ is as bad as you say it is, why do people use it? I really don't get your logic sometimes. Admit it, C > C#. Sorry kiddo, I'm not the kinda guy who would jump on the .NET bandwagon because it's made by microsoft, and it's new. I don't like OOP, ok. :/
Myndfyre: You do present a valid point. Sure, Blizzard knows what they're doing, and they do a good job using OOP (i guess) but in my opinion people would be so much more productive using C. So many people using anything .NET and/or java are complete retards, it's hard to not take notice of the coorelation between the two. Sure, if someone is good with OOP they can make great programs, just as good if not better then C. But think about it, when's the last time anyone in the Java forum said "pointer", or "address" and not "class". Doesn't it get annoying? It bugs me out, all these kids thinking they are the shit because they know some OO language that compiles to what isn't nearly close to what actually happens in the computer. They're only good for high-level applications, so while they're making some useless turbo-oo program, us C coders could create the .NET architecture they love oh-so-much, not to mention entire the OS itself. Please. Name one actually IMPORTANT thing made with .NET. Name ONE kernel made with an OO language. Hard, huh? k

EDIT **
Krush, you shouldn't get too upset over Warrior's comments. He's just trolling like his usual self
I'm sure he isn't stupid enough to actually believe that C# is superior.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
How is somebody retarded for not going along with your opinion? If C/C++ is as bad as you say it is, why do people use it?
[/quote]

I'd be willing to theorize that it's because .NET, and it's entire mindset is a fairly new concept. Something that's probably over your head though, I wouldn't want to confuse you.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]Admit it, C > C#. Sorry kiddo, I'm not the kinda guy who would jump on the .NET bandwagon because it's made by microsoft, and it's new. I don't like OOP, ok. :/
[/quote]

You're also not the kind of person who would write any sort of meaningful code. You're going to be swimming in a virtual pool of half assed attempts at programs, maybe a few gems here and there but overall you're going down the road to perpetual failure.

You should be hoping I rub off on you.


[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]but in my opinion people would be so much more productive using C.
[/quote]

Why? What about C makes people more productive? Let's see some reasons brew. I doubt you even know that language well enough to adequately defend it.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
But think about it, when's the last time anyone in the Java forum said "pointer", or "address" and not "class". Doesn't it get annoying? It bugs me out, all these kids thinking they are the shit because they know some OO language that compiles to what isn't nearly close to what actually happens in the computer.
[/quote]

You talk a lot but say very little. Java and C# have evolved passed the need to reference such stone-age terms like pointers. Sure, the functionality is there and it is used when appropriate but it doesn't change the fact that it's a potentially dangerous area of programming and is best avoided when it yields marginal results compared to some of the managed code offerings.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
They're only good for high-level applications, so while they're making some useless turbo-oo program, us C coders could create the .NET architecture they love oh-so-much, not to mention entire the OS itself. Please. Name one actually IMPORTANT thing made with .NET. Name ONE kernel made with an OO language. Hard, huh? k
[/quote]

The Singularity Kernel was written by Microsoft Research in C#. JNode is a Java Operating System. Hell, through my research I've even found kernels written in D.

C++ is not very hard to use when writing a kernel, you just need to adequately re implement the relevant parts of the runtime.

I'm sure you know next to nothing about Operating System Development, or low level programming in general so you bringing this up is pretty irrelevant.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
but in my opinion people would be so much more productive using C.
[/quote]
Do you have any numbers to back this up?

When creating large software systems, the more that we can hide the details of the low-level implementation, the better.  That's why we create libraries, why we don't reimplement things like strcmp every time we write new software, and and that's why languages are evolving to hide these details from the users.

Where is the productivity difference between:
[code]
if (strcmp(&szUserNameIn, &userRef) == 0)
and
if (string.Compare(usernameIn, userRef) == 0)

or

typedef struct tagPACKET_HEADER
{
  unsigned char magic;
  unsigned char id;
  unsigned short length;
} PACKET_HEADER, *PPACKET_HEADER;

and

public struct PacketHeader
{
  public byte Magic;
  public byte ID;
  public ushort Length;
}
[/code]

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
So many people using anything .NET and/or java are complete retards, it's hard to not take notice of the coorelation between the two.
[/quote]
Arguably, you could say this about pretty much any language.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
Sure, if someone is good with OOP they can make great programs, just as good if not better then C.
[/quote]
And someone who is not skilled in OOP can make clusterfuck programs. 

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
But think about it, when's the last time anyone in the Java forum said "pointer", or "address" and not "class".
[/quote]
Actually, Java has a "NullPointerException" which is generated whenever an object reference is null.  Incidentally, most things dealt with in Java are objects, not classes.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
Doesn't it get annoying? It bugs me out, all these kids thinking they are the shit because they know some OO language that compiles to what isn't nearly close to what actually happens in the computer.
[/quote]
It's also annoying when I see kids who think they're the shit for knowing low-level languages.  But you don't see me filibustering about it....  ;)

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
They're only good for high-level applications, so while they're making some useless turbo-oo program, us C coders could create the .NET architecture they love oh-so-much, not to mention entire the OS itself.
[/quote]
Perhaps.  But while you're spending countless man-hours reimplementing the OS and the .NET Framework and the Java runtime, I'll have made (by myself) 10-15 business-centric applications.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
Please. Name one actually IMPORTANT thing made with .NET. Name ONE kernel made with an OO language. Hard, huh? [/quote]
I suppose it depends on how you define "important."  My company is a .NET shop, and we generated around US$4mil in revenue this year for a company of 30 (not bad, $133k per employee in revenue) creating web applications for clients who all thought that what we were making for them was important enough to justify that kind of money.

As for kernels, are you aware that Windows is an object-oriented OS?  A core component of the kernel is called the "object manager."  When you're working with a HANDLE in C, what you're actually working with is a reference to a pointer to an object inside the object manager.  DirectX is an object-oriented framework supported by hardware directly.

C was chosen as the primary implementation language for Windows because it is accessible from many other runtimes; it's low-level enough to interface with hardware without too much difficulty, but it's also fairly easy to write other languages in such a way so as to interact with C without much trouble.  The fact that in C# I can write:
[code]
[DllImport("user32.dll")]
public static extern bool EnumChildWindows(
  IntPtr hwndParent,
  EnumChildProc lpEnumFunc,
  IntPtr lParam);

public delegate bool EnumChildProc(IntPtr hWnd, IntPtr lParam);
[/code]
to mirror the equivalent Windows API and then call the function precisely as I would if I were writing C is a testament to this flexibility and the correctness of this design decision by the Windows engineers.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174310#msg174310 date=1193702359]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
How is somebody retarded for not going along with your opinion? If C/C++ is as bad as you say it is, why do people use it?
[/quote]

I'd be willing to theorize that it's because .NET, and it's entire mindset is a fairly new concept. Something that's probably over your head though, I wouldn't want to confuse you.
[/quote]
So that means, people all really do love OO deep down inside and they'd rather use that then the kind of programming that's been around and accepted for over 50 years? Of course, .NET is so-over my head. That's why it seals off people from using "dangerous" features, such as pointers. Amirite?

[quote]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]Admit it, C > C#. Sorry kiddo, I'm not the kinda guy who would jump on the .NET bandwagon because it's made by microsoft, and it's new. I don't like OOP, ok. :/
[/quote]

You're also not the kind of person who would write any sort of meaningful code. You're going to be swimming in a virtual pool of half assed attempts at programs, maybe a few gems here and there but overall you're going down the road to perpetual failure.

You should be hoping I rub off on you.
[/quote]
Really? Did you ever see any of my work? Could you really say that about my code? How about you, Warrior. To be completely 100% honest, i've NEVER seen anything from you. Ever. You should be hoping you realize your huge mistake in this post and start trying to become a useful programmer. Actually, with that post of yours, it doesn't seem like programming is your nitche. Perhaps you should look into becoming a toilet scrubber

[quote]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]but in my opinion people would be so much more productive using C.
[/quote]

Why? What about C makes people more productive? Let's see some reasons brew. I doubt you even know that language well enough to adequately defend it.
[/quote]
Why C makes people more productive: (your question)
•They learn how to not buy into that OO bullshit
•They learn how to use common sense
•They learn low level computer internals

-What do they do with all this knowledge?
•End up working for a reputable software company, and end up making something useful

Why C is more productive: (my statement)
•Execution speed
•Smaller, faster code
•Memory usage

•Easier to read
•Faster to write
•Isn't heavily typed
•Pointers
•Takes less effort to create programs
•No gay classes, templates, etc, bullshit that wastes time
•Doesn't take extra shit to load namespaces (whatever tf they are), instances of classes, etc.
•Note: All of microsoft's core libraries are made with C

[quote]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
But think about it, when's the last time anyone in the Java forum said "pointer", or "address" and not "class". Doesn't it get annoying? It bugs me out, all these kids thinking they are the shit because they know some OO language that compiles to what isn't nearly close to what actually happens in the computer.
[/quote]

You talk a lot but say very little. Java and C# have evolved passed the need to reference such stone-age terms like pointers. Sure, the functionality is there and it is used when appropriate but it doesn't change the fact that it's a potentially dangerous area of programming and is best avoided when it yields marginal results compared to some of the managed code offerings.
[/quote]

Oh hyyy, i'm Warrior, i wonder what a pointer is? and wtf is an interrupt? i wonder how that RAM thingie in my computer is used, and how does my compooter werk with it?
Bah. I wouldn't have to know any of that. It's all ancient. Really, that doesn't concern me at all. I'm sure computers will continue to evolve without using low level langauges. I mean, what can't .NET do that C can do!?! *starts listing*


[quote]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174308#msg174308 date=1193701427]
They're only good for high-level applications, so while they're making some useless turbo-oo program, us C coders could create the .NET architecture they love oh-so-much, not to mention entire the OS itself. Please. Name one actually IMPORTANT thing made with .NET. Name ONE kernel made with an OO language. Hard, huh? k
[/quote]

The Singularity Kernel was written by Microsoft Research in C#. JNode is a Java Operating System. Hell, through my research I've even found kernels written in D.

C++ is not very hard to use when writing a kernel, you just need to adequately re implement the relevant parts of the runtime.

I'm sure you know next to nothing about Operating System Development, or low level programming in general so you bringing this up is pretty irrelevant.
[/quote]
Singularity Kernel: Well done, MS. I've never heard of it up until this point. I wonder how it's doing without that .NET architecture runtime crap?
JNode OS -- Probably uses 3gb of ram to idle (see: java's omfg-everything-is-an-object-insane-ram-usage) and slow as your head (interpreted)

uh..

<Warrior[x86]> First off, both C/C++ are unmanaged. This means you have less control over the programs execution

ok

Mynd: You make a good point. It's all the programmer's preferance. So maybe you can make some good stuff with OOP; I wouldn't like it. The end user who doesn't know the difference would though reguardless of what is used. As for the productivity difference question: it takes 6 less keystrokes :D And the structs: You don't need to have those two aliases... and i prefer to specify my types explicitly so it does exactly what I want it to do.

So I may be wrong about java's classes/objects, it doesn't make a difference to me. It's still oop that i hate equally :] And I do know that Windows is an object oriented OS-- perhaps that's why it's so unstable. I was refering to unix/linux when I said that.

[quote]•Easier to read[/quote]
[quote]•Takes less effort to create programs[/quote]

Jokes right?

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174313#msg174313 date=1193705122]
So that means, people all really do love OO deep down inside and they'd rather use that then the kind of programming that's been around and accepted for over 50 years? Of course, .NET is so-over my head. That's why it seals off people from using "dangerous" features, such as pointers. Amirite?
[/quote]

Jesus brew, the very language you're propping up C++ is an object oriented language. I mean, do I really have to go on from there?

[quote]
Really? Did you ever see any of my work? Could you really say that about my code? How about you, Warrior. To be completely 100% honest, i've NEVER seen anything from you. Ever. You should be hoping you realize your huge mistake in this post and start trying to become a useful programmer. Actually, with that post of yours, it doesn't seem like programming is your nitche. Perhaps you should look into becoming a toilet scrubber
[/quote]

Lol.


[quote]
•They learn how to not buy into that OO bullshit
•They learn how to use common sense
•They learn low level computer internals

-What do they do with all this knowledge?
•End up working for a reputable software company, and end up making something useful
[/quote]

I'm sure there are tens.(that's it tens) of companies willing to hire someone who does not use an Object Oriented programming model.

[quote]
Why C is more productive: (my statement)
•Execution speed
•Smaller, faster code
•Memory usage
[/quote]

All of these are when there is an ideal programmer present. Additionally, we're in the age of quad-core processors man. This argument doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore.

[quote]
•Easier to read
•Faster to write
[/quote]

Subjective, subjective

[quote]
•Isn't heavily typed
[/quote]

Don't press so hard.

[quote]
•Pointers
[/quote]

Present in C#.

[quote]
•Takes less effort to create programs
[/quote]

Lie.

[quote]
•No gay classes, templates, etc, bullshit that wastes time
•Doesn't take extra shit to load namespaces (whatever tf they are), instances of classes, etc.
•Note: All of microsoft's core libraries are made with C
[/quote]

Why do you continue to post when you have no idea "(whatever tf they are)", that's laughable.

[quote]
Oh hyyy, i'm Warrior, i wonder what a pointer is? and wtf is an interrupt? i wonder how that RAM thingie in my computer is used, and how does my compooter werk with it?
Bah. I wouldn't have to know any of that. It's all ancient. Really, that doesn't concern me at all. I'm sure computers will continue to evolve without using low level langauges. I mean, what can't .NET do that C can do!?! *starts listing*
[/quote]

Yet, I'm sure I am infinitely more knowledgeable than you in low level systems programming. You're so barking up the wrong tree.

[quote]
Singularity Kernel: Well done, MS. I've never heard of it up until this point. I wonder how it's doing without that .NET architecture runtime crap?
[/quote]

What? Singularity has a low level implementation of the runtime(in a nutshell). Can you post something coherent?

[quote]
JNode OS -- Probably uses 3gb of ram to idle (see: java's omfg-everything-is-an-object-insane-ram-usage) and slow as your head (interpreted)
[/quote]

You do know Java is JIT'ed correct? Of course you don't, you're brew.

[quote]
<Warrior[x86]> First off, both C/C++ are unmanaged. This means you have less control over the programs execution
[/quote]

Are you denying this?
Are you denying the fact that you can access information about virtually anything of a managed program?

Perhaps you should read up on reflection

It's good to know you and the useless troll devcode tried to come up with something cute, but it falls flat in light of my greatness.

[quote author=Hell-Lord link=topic=17060.msg174314#msg174314 date=1193705788]
[quote]•Easier to read[/quote]
[quote]•Takes less effort to create programs[/quote]

Jokes right?
[/quote]

No. Not a joke. Those two statements are subjective though, so you can take it for fact or fiction. It doesn't really matter to me. I prefer C's syntax anyday over others

[quote]
Jesus brew, the very language you're propping up C++ is an object oriented language. I mean, do I really have to go on from there?
[/quote]
I am propping up C. Sure, I code in C++, I try to stay 100km away from anything object oriented at all times.

[quote]
I'm sure there are tens.(that's it tens) of companies willing to hire someone who does not use an Object Oriented programming model.
[/quote]
Tens of thousands*

[quote]
All of these are when there is an ideal programmer present. Additionally, we're in the age of quad-core processors man. This argument doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore.
[/quote]

Quad core 64 bit processors, 4 GB of ram, etc all serve one purpose: make more resources for people to suck down like cum
Don't you get it? Don't you see the cycle? Hardware companies make a new better product, software companies find a way to fill them. So on, so forth. Your computer is obsolete in about 2 years. Sad, isn't it? Perhaps it's sort of a mutual agreement to end up with more profits (omg, it's called the economy)



[quote]
•Isn't heavily typed

Don't press so hard.
[/quote]
I actually giggled while reading that.
Heh. Don't you ever find types annoying? I do.

[quote]
Yet, I'm sure I am infinitely more knowledgeable than you in low level systems programming. You're so barking up the wrong tree.
[/quote]
I'm completely sure about that.

[quote]
Are you denying this?
[/quote]
yes
C++ can create fully managed code. Using OOP, that is. I don't like it, but it's just there.
A truly smart programmer wouldn't let it become unmanaged. Why would a person need OO to manage code?

[quote]
It's good to know you and the useless troll devcode tried to come up with something cute, but it falls flat in light of my greatness.
[/quote]
Every dumb thing you say makes you look that more stupid
Current stupid-ness points: Over 0xFFFFFFFF

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174316#msg174316 date=1193705928]
[quote author=Hell-Lord link=topic=17060.msg174314#msg174314 date=1193705788]
[quote]•Easier to read[/quote]
[quote]•Takes less effort to create programs[/quote]

Jokes right?
[/quote]

No. Not a joke. Those two statements are subjective though, so you can take it for fact or fiction. It doesn't really matter to me. I prefer C's syntax anyday over others
[/quote]

Keep trying brew.
It's a FACT I can be more productive on C# than on C/C++.

The functionality is present. It's easy to harness the power of C#, and considering you blast it for it being high-level and it's ease of use you support my argument.

Shut the fuck up plz

[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174318#msg174318 date=1193706131]
Shut the fuck up plz
[/quote]

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174317#msg174317 date=1193706098]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174316#msg174316 date=1193705928]
[quote author=Hell-Lord link=topic=17060.msg174314#msg174314 date=1193705788]
[quote]•Easier to read[/quote]
[quote]•Takes less effort to create programs[/quote]

Jokes right?
[/quote]

No. Not a joke. Those two statements are subjective though, so you can take it for fact or fiction. It doesn't really matter to me. I prefer C's syntax anyday over others
[/quote]

Keep trying brew.
It's a FACT I can be more productive on C# than on C/C++.

The functionality is present. It's easy to harness the power of C#, and considering you blast it for it being high-level and it's ease of use you support my argument.
[/quote]

Okay, good for you? I prefer C.

[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174318#msg174318 date=1193706131]
Shut the fuck up plz
[/quote]

I think she was talking to you

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174301#msg174301 date=1193693090]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17060.msg174300#msg174300 date=1193692769]
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070809/teched-day-2-lolcode/
[/quote]

LOLCode is an exception.
CAN HAS SUM LOLULARCODE?
I'm pretty sure Leaky is going to piss his pants when he sees that link :)
[/quote]


i pissed my pants

LOLCODE FTW

C is there for it's simplicity and it's ability to mess about with low level tasks. It's silly to presume it would be as effective as say C#, C++, or even Python in industry. C is good, maybe even the best for low level errands and arenas where you require control over every minute detail of your application's operation, but it too quickly becomes excessively verbose and excessively complex to be viable. C is simply not in a position to compete with other more powerful languages available. Programmer time is expensive, and few employers are likely to want to pay through the nose for some vaunted idea of productivity and functionality that has been proven false countless times in the commercial realm.

[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174326#msg174326 date=1193707737]
C is there for it's simplicity and it's ability to mess about with low level tasks. It's silly to presume it would be as effective as say C#, C++, or even Python in industry. C is good, maybe even the best for low level errands and arenas where you require control over every minute detail of your application's operation, but it too quickly becomes excessively verbose and excessively complex to be viable. C is simply not in a position to compete with other more powerful languages available. Programmer time is expensive, and few employers are likely to want to pay through the nose for some vaunted idea of productivity and functionality that has been proven false countless times in the commercial realm.
[/quote]
which is why nearly the entire industry still uses C/++

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174327#msg174327 date=1193707922]
[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174326#msg174326 date=1193707737]
C is there for it's simplicity and it's ability to mess about with low level tasks. It's silly to presume it would be as effective as say C#, C++, or even Python in industry. C is good, maybe even the best for low level errands and arenas where you require control over every minute detail of your application's operation, but it too quickly becomes excessively verbose and excessively complex to be viable. C is simply not in a position to compete with other more powerful languages available. Programmer time is expensive, and few employers are likely to want to pay through the nose for some vaunted idea of productivity and functionality that has been proven false countless times in the commercial realm.
[/quote]
which is why nearly the entire industry still uses C/++
[/quote]

You quote something which contradicts your stance, your opposition to Object Oriented Programming.

C++ and C# are both heavily OO programming languages, they are praised by squiggly in her quote and you agree with her?

Do you enjoy failing or is it an accidental thing?

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174329#msg174329 date=1193708812]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174327#msg174327 date=1193707922]
[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174326#msg174326 date=1193707737]
C is there for it's simplicity and it's ability to mess about with low level tasks. It's silly to presume it would be as effective as say C#, C++, or even Python in industry. C is good, maybe even the best for low level errands and arenas where you require control over every minute detail of your application's operation, but it too quickly becomes excessively verbose and excessively complex to be viable. C is simply not in a position to compete with other more powerful languages available. Programmer time is expensive, and few employers are likely to want to pay through the nose for some vaunted idea of productivity and functionality that has been proven false countless times in the commercial realm.
[/quote]
which is why nearly the entire industry still uses C/++
[/quote]

You quote something which contradicts your stance, your opposition to Object Oriented Programming.

C++ and C# are both heavily OO programming languages, they are praised by squiggly in her quote and you agree with her?

Do you enjoy failing or is it an accidental thing?
[/quote]

iuno if i'd call c++ a heavily OO programming language...
sure the OO is there but it's not forced like c# meaning it's optionally conditionally OO.. meaning you can choose exactly how much OO it is...

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17060.msg174330#msg174330 date=1193708913]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174329#msg174329 date=1193708812]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174327#msg174327 date=1193707922]
[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174326#msg174326 date=1193707737]
C is there for it's simplicity and it's ability to mess about with low level tasks. It's silly to presume it would be as effective as say C#, C++, or even Python in industry. C is good, maybe even the best for low level errands and arenas where you require control over every minute detail of your application's operation, but it too quickly becomes excessively verbose and excessively complex to be viable. C is simply not in a position to compete with other more powerful languages available. Programmer time is expensive, and few employers are likely to want to pay through the nose for some vaunted idea of productivity and functionality that has been proven false countless times in the commercial realm.
[/quote]
which is why nearly the entire industry still uses C/++
[/quote]

You quote something which contradicts your stance, your opposition to Object Oriented Programming.

C++ and C# are both heavily OO programming languages, they are praised by squiggly in her quote and you agree with her?

Do you enjoy failing or is it an accidental thing?
[/quote]

iuno if i'd call c++ a heavily OO programming language...
sure the OO is there but it's not forced like c# meaning it's optionally conditionally OO.. meaning you can choose exactly how much OO it is...
[/quote]

You must be one of brew's friends.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174315#msg174315 date=1193705866]

[quote]
•Isn't heavily typed
[/quote]

Don't press so hard.
[/quote]

LoLWuT?

O.o do you have a magic keyboard? where the pressure applied to your keys is applied to your code?

that's the only way i can think of for you to misunderstand that...


[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174331#msg174331 date=1193709050]
You must be one of brew's friends.
[/quote]

because i make a statement that's contrary to what you believe?

[quote]
LoLWuT?

O.o do you have a magic keyboard? where the pressure applied to your keys is applied to your code?

that's the only way i can think of for you to misunderstand that...
[/quote]

It's a joke, but yes my keyboard is magic.

[quote]
because i make a statement that's contrary to what you believe?
[/quote]

No, because you made a statement agreeing with brew. Therefore, it's logic you're one of his friends. It's impossible that two people unrelated to each other could share an equal mental retardation.

Not to mention your statement (like most of brews statements) is incorrect.

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17060.msg174332#msg174332 date=1193709112]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174315#msg174315 date=1193705866]

[quote]
•Isn't heavily typed
[/quote]

Don't press so hard.
[/quote]

LoLWuT?

O.o do you have a magic keyboard? where the pressure applied to your keys is applied to your code?

that's the only way i can think of for you to misunderstand that...
[/quote]

Stop talking plz, I mean, it's not as though I support Warrior, but come on, you're bloody annoying

In fact, you should immediately close your account, that would be best

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17106.msg173869#msg173869 date=1192480464]
i'd be interested in contributing im in the process of learing c/c++ also and eventually i plan on making a connection library in those languages just like i did in vb and php....

if you guys decide to go through with it let me know
[/quote]

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17120.msg174084#msg174084 date=1193058694]
lol i don't work for cox and i do DSL tech support iuno what cox internet uses...

basically my checklist goes like this

unplug modem
plug modem in
go to google
hang up
[/quote]

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17054.msg173284#msg173284 date=1190838688]
I could never figure pack out so i did it a different way...
[/quote]

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17054.msg173298#msg173298 date=1190849621]
o.O last i saw asp it looked more like visual basic than c#..... and asp sucks anyways.. you should learn php
[/quote]

Especially when you make stupid posts like that

Can't expect anyone to take you seriously after seeing those

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918

Not that I agree entirely with Linus or am supporting any of brew's argument, but I read this a while back and thought I'd throw this in here. Enjoy  8).

Linus is correct, he chooses C in the absence of any other practical language.
By practical language I mean one which has stood the test of time as a systems level language.

That and the fact that Linux is written in C.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=17060.msg174335#msg174335 date=1193709896]
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918

Not that I agree entirely with Linus or am supporting any of brew's argument, but I read this a while back and thought I'd throw this in here. Enjoy  8).
[/quote]

You understand that that post was made in reference to a topic about Git... which, coincidentally, is a component of the linux kernel

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174333#msg174333 date=1193709345]
[quote]
LoLWuT?

O.o do you have a magic keyboard? where the pressure applied to your keys is applied to your code?

that's the only way i can think of for you to misunderstand that...
[/quote]

It's a joke, but yes my keyboard is magic.

[quote]
because i make a statement that's contrary to what you believe?
[/quote]

No, because you made a statement agreeing with brew. Therefore, it's logic you're one of his friends. It's impossible that two people unrelated to each other could share an equal mental retardation.

Not to mention your statement (like most of brews statements) is incorrect.
[/quote]

hmm im going to have to reply with another LoLWuT?


so your claiming
[quote]Not to mention your statement (like most of brews statements) is incorrect.[/quote]
that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!


also

mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP

and  squiggly what the hell does my tech support check list have to do with me being retarded?.... you've obviously never done tech support for DSL companies... that's all you do :D unplug modem plug it back in bam connected.... and all of my posts were on topic... and wern't flame wars
your posts arn't that much better than mine.. just more of them

[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17060.msg174338#msg174338 date=1193710222]
that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!
[/quote]

Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.

It's like buying a car, taking the wheels off, taking out the seats, and dismantling the engine. Sure, it's still a car but what's the point?

You're not smart. I also hope you realize that the streams you're using to print to the said console (unless you're using printf(), a library member written in presumably C) are wrapped around classes and operator overloads.

You should only try to be a smart ass when you're actually smart.

[quote]
mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP
[/quote]

I'm having trouble believing there are two people as dumb as brew in this world. I mean one time is a fluke, the second time you need to ask yourself if the theory of evolution has room for regression.

[quote author=squiggly link=topic=17060.msg174334#msg174334 date=1193709767]
Stop talking plz, I mean, it's not as though I support Warrior, but come on, you're bloody annoying

In fact, you should immediately close your account, that would be best

Especially when you make stupid posts like that

Can't expect anyone to take you seriously after seeing those
[/quote]
click me
I honestly don't get what's stupid with his posts. You're annoying. Stop posting in this topic.

@Warrior:
[quote]
Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.
[/quote]

Okay, you're right. But, say if someone just starts a new project, in VC2005 and all. Does that mean, that the language it's being written in does not become C++ until at least one instance of OO is included? I understand where you're coming from, but that sounds pretty fuckin retarded y'know

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174339#msg174339 date=1193710737]
[quote author=Leaky link=topic=17060.msg174338#msg174338 date=1193710222]
that c++ is forced OOP? that if i choose not to use classes OH NO wtf was i thinking? if i choose not to use any of the OOP portions of c++ then im just SOL arn't i? darn i should have thought about that before i made this completly non OOP c++ program that prints Hello World to the console window!
[/quote]

Alright, I know this may be a little hard for you but there is no C++ without OOP. Considering that C++ is essentially C with support for formal object orientation.

It's like buying a car, taking the wheels off, taking out the seats, and dismantling the engine. Sure, it's still a car but what's the point?

You're not smart. I also hope you realize that the streams you're using to print to the said console (unless you're using printf(), a library member written in presumably C) are wrapped around classes and operator overloads.

You should only try to be a smart ass when you're actually smart.

[quote]
mental retardation is in fact sharable, but we don't share it it's just a very very commonly accepted fact that c++ is not forced OOP
[/quote]

I'm having trouble believing there are two people as dumb as brew in this world. I mean one time is a fluke, the second time you need to ask yourself if the theory of evolution has room for regression.
[/quote]

-.- not everything in c++ is object oriented and not everything non OO in c++ is in c....

and.. and... your fat! i like evolution so shush

Warrior said it spot on, one of C++'s main concepts is OOP without it it would be C with a few more features. It comes down i believe to its purpose. I don't understand how people can apply C to application development why waste hours instead of saving time and doing it in a higher level language.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174340#msg174340 date=1193710935]
Okay, you're right. But, say if someone just starts a new project, in VC2005 and all. Does that mean, that the language it's being written in does not become C++ until at least one instance of OO is included? I understand where you're coming from, but that sounds pretty fuckin retarded y'know
[/quote]

You missed the car analogy, try again.
Same for you Leaky.

You see where my theory that you both share the same brain is proven correct?

Another thing I felt I'd throw in.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-better

Stroustrup would agree with Warrior and disagree with brew had he been involved with this thread. And he's definitely a very intelligent individual.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=17060.msg174344#msg174344 date=1193712433]
Another thing I felt I'd throw in.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-better

Stroustrup would agree with Warrior and disagree with brew had he been involved with this thread. And he's definitely a very intelligent individual.
[/quote]Heh.  I'm having lunch with Stroustrup and attending his presentation Nov. 9th.  Which reminds me, I need to buy one of his books to get autographed.  I'm giddy... like I'm meeting a superstar.

There is no "best" programming paradigm, just because OO-programming is mainstream does not mean it's the only way to view a problem. Personally, I'm sick of seeing all these new 'high-level' languages and frameworks, it's just compensation for programmer intelligence (something that is already at a low).
Programming was never meant to be a simple feat, and I fail to see why it should become one for the sake of allowing any random computer geek into the field; the argument of "faster development time" just proves this point, if you're actually a skilled programmer (and more-so an intelligent person) the methodology you use is totally irrelevent, and to argue otherwise would mean you're simply not experienced enough in it.

As any professional developer would know, the task of writing code is a relatively small step in the overall development cycle. Hell, you could write your whole solution in assembly, presuming you're a fast typer and capable of switching between multiple levels of abstract thought.

I'm not actually against OO design, I use it, just not formally within the language (C++). Then again, I use alot of assembly aswell :)

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174350#msg174350 date=1193723762]
Programming was never meant to be a simple feat, and I fail to see why it should become one for the sake of allowing any random computer geek into the field
[/quote]

Why should it not be?

BASIC was designed exactly for the purpose of making programming easier. Look how well it did. It doesn't matter what specific people think, it matters what the masses cause to actually do well. Capitalistic societies suck that way.

To quote an old (well, not that old) phrase for programming: Keep it simple, stupid.

until i actually seriously started studying C++, i thought that BASIC languages were not that limited.

oh how wrong i was.

the way i look at it is, if you want to write a simple app for yourself or a few people to use, go with VB or other BASIC language... if you want a giant app which needs speed and stability, such as a server or a game engine, don't use BASIC, it's not meant for that.

[quote]
Why should it not be?
[/quote]
There needs to be just cause. People claim C is complex and 'hard' simply because they're idiots who don't know any better. The simple abstractions for languages are fine, just not the extent something like VB takes it to. C++ provided great language support for OO design, C# just killed it.

Actually, only Microsoft renditions of BASIC are really limited. Most other versions have powerful compilers that contend with languages like C. I really don't want to start arguing about this though, so this is all I'm contributing to this topic from here on out.

[quote]
Actually, only Microsoft renditions of BASIC are really limited. Most other versions have powerful compilers that contend with languages like C. I really don't want to start arguing about this though, so this is all I'm contributing to this topic from here on out.
[/quote]
"Contend with C", that made me laugh.

Listen brew -

When me and Warrior threw down in our last flamewar, we both made intelligent arguments and counter-arguments and (hopefully) came out with more respect for each other than was had before. I know that I have more respect for Warrior now (even though he was totally wrong :))

You on the other hand are talking a big game for someone who just learned about sscanf() in July (yeah I checked your posts).

I don't feel like arguing this more, I'm tired.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=17060.msg174357#msg174357 date=1193731579]
(even though he was totally wrong :))
[/quote]
[me=Warrior]pulls hair out[/me]

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174356#msg174356 date=1193729418]
[quote]
Actually, only Microsoft renditions of BASIC are really limited. Most other versions have powerful compilers that contend with languages like C. I really don't want to start arguing about this though, so this is all I'm contributing to this topic from here on out.
[/quote]
"Contend with C", that made me laugh.
[/quote]

Why would it? From what RealityRipple has shown me, his PowerBASIC is nearly the same thing as C with BASIC syntax. It could be quite low level if one wanted to. A language is a method of transmitting ideas, so really, all languages are the same except for the built-in limitations imposed by the compiler itself. Note: A language with BASIC syntax and a language like Visual Basic 6 are entirely different things, you don't get cute boilerplate window code in PowerBASIC

Anyways, I totally agree with Win32.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featuritis
That, right there, is what I think about .NET and OOP.
C++ is fine, I can stand it. To a point. Well implemented OO in C++ could work great in a program, but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174367#msg174367 date=1193773716]
but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?
[/quote]

safe memory management. 'nuff said.

HAHAHAHAA Featuritis! I'd never heard of that, but that's exactly what RCB has!

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=17060.msg174368#msg174368 date=1193773877]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174367#msg174367 date=1193773716]
but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?
[/quote]

safe memory management. 'nuff said.
[/quote]
Who said programming needs to be programmer-friendly? With C, if the writer makes a mistake with his memory management, then that sucks for him, maybe he shouldn't make mistakes. Besides, there are things called Debuggers y'know. If C is too hard for someone to understand or easy to make mistakes in, but C# isn't, then perhaps that person shouldn't be making software.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174367#msg174367 date=1193773716]
but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?
[/quote]

No, quite frankly it's a revolution in programming.
It gives the power to the programmer to control aspects of his program in unprecedented ways (well except for Java but who cares about them) and gives you the flexibility to implement the same idea over various languages in the .NET Branch.

In other words, all .NET languages are immediately interoperable and understand each other at even the most intricate levels.

That, and the language itself contains various advancements over even C++ in terms of raw feautures. They make the life of the programmer easier, ease of use means it takes you less time to write functional code. Time is money.

It's ridiculously easy to write a tool chain in .NET for any sort of project, it offers a rich UI experience coupled with the already ease of use of the .NET Framework.

The beauty of .NET is, if you don't like C#..use VB .NET, or C++/CLI, or IronPython/PHP/Ruby, or Boo, whatever. Hell, write your own .NET language.

Like Banana said, it offers the advantage of not having to worry about tracking memory or memory corruption.

This has plenty of advantages, first your programs are guaranteed a certain degree of performance since the Garbage Collector handles all of the loose ends of allocated memory. Secondly, for example in a Game programming environment where your code can  quickly become intertwined with various classes, it's a big advantage to have a Garbage Collected language cleaning up your messes of objects in hierarchal graphs.

Additionally, when you use a .NET Language you get the entire set of class libraries which ship with the runtime. You get access to classes to deal with almost everything. Want to access the registry? There's a class for that. Want to use a List of items? Class for that. Use a hash table? Class for that. Windowing? 2D Drawing? Cryptology? Classes for all of that. Just have a look around it one day, you'll be very pleased.

Bottom line is: .NET makes the programmer's life easier, easier equals less time spent, time equals money. .NET saves you money.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174370#msg174370 date=1193774770]
Who said programming needs to be programmer-friendly?
[/quote]
Why should it not be?

There have been plenty of economic and business reasons given already for why it should be.  But you haven't offered one reason for why it shouldn't be.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174367#msg174367 date=1193773716]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featuritis
That, right there, is what I think about .NET and OOP.
[/quote]
[quote author=Wikipedia, emph. mine]Featuritis, creeping featurism, or the spoonerism feeping creaturism is a term used to describe software which over-emphasizes new features to the detriment of other design goals, such as simplicity, compactness, stability, or bug reduction.[/quote]
'Nuff said.  C#, .NET, and OOP in general emphasize these three design goals.

[quote]
That, and the language itself contains various advancements over even C++ in terms of raw feautures. They make the life of the programmer easier, ease of use means it takes you less time to write functional code. Time is money.
[/quote]

Isn't that the point of a RAD language? Why not use VB6, then?

[quote]
Featuritis, creeping featurism, or the spoonerism feeping creaturism is a term used to describe software which over-emphasizes new features to the detriment of other design goals, such as simplicity, compactness, stability, or bug reduction.
'Nuff said.  C#, .NET, and OOP in general emphasize these three design goals.
[/quote]

If you ask me, OOP isn't very simple. And it creates an entirely new potential for bugs, while destroying the old potential. Then again, think about it, the potential for bugs coorelates with the skill of the person writing the code.

N.B.: A new programmer learns from his mistakes. How then, if .NET languages reduce the potential of bugs, will that person learn to code the right way? It'll be just fine, because .NET makes it so. And when that person moves on into the corporate world and bring their habits with them.... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to use their products. Customers would be happy-- but clueless of the skill level required to make that "quality" program. Also, does that mean this less potential of bugs reduces that person's freedom to code the way he/she wants at the same time?

Clearly you know a lot about the corporate world of programming....

It kind of reminds me of what Grok said of me, oh so long ago:
[quote author=Grok link=topic=8286.msg77075#msg77075 date=1093307752]
He apparently wants to make lots of money and have a good life, big house, giant yard, wife with big titties and great legs, a home theatre, pool, etc.

I know this to be true because otherwise he would be using Linux.
[/quote]
(wow, that was > 3 years ago!)

Say what you want about the corporate world brew, but you obviously don't work in it.  Crazy thing is, I do.  Oh, and I'm a senior developer at my company.  Without a CS degree.  Started at the position at the tender age of 22.

In the corporate world, we actually sit down and talk about crazy things like code reuse, effective object modeling, software design, and cost effectiveness - you know, those things that you say make people poor programmers.

Lol I forgot to bring up Code reuse.

It's probably one of the top sellers for OOP in the books of the corporate world. Why do something twice when you can simple drop in a library, make a few calls, badabing badaboom.

Then again, there mere fact you suggest VB6 as a language shows that you not only don't know what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're doing in the programming world.

I seriously think people like you function for the sole purpose of indulging my need to laugh at those worse off than me.

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174354#msg174354 date=1193726233]
[quote]
Why should it not be?
[/quote]
There needs to be just cause. People claim C is complex and 'hard' simply because they're idiots who don't know any better. The simple abstractions for languages are fine, just not the extent something like VB takes it to. C++ provided great language support for OO design, C# just killed it.

[/quote]

No, it's because C is genuinely harder to use. Something harder to use, takes more caution, takes more planning, takes reevaluating, takes patching on a more frequent level than managed or even C++ applications.

This adds up and you find yourself wasting time better spent writing code in other parts of the project. Time is money. You're losing money.

It isn't just about the learning curve though, it's about moving past the unnecessary cruft from the past few years. Computers have evolved, programming has evolved, and therefore languages must evolve as well.

Take a look at C# without the .NET Framework, there's no doubting that when the ignorance about the Framework is eliminated from the picture that it's an incredible language. It's everything C++ should of been, and the only thing even worth touching (in the Cish world) is D at the moment.

I'll go back to my car analogy, why don't you drive a 70's rust bucket for the sake of it being harder? Hell, lose the power steering, seats, and wheels.
Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better.

Programming Languages are the same way, and I'd certainly take a sports car (C#) over walking on foot (C) any day.

Aren't OCX files pretty much Code reuse in VB6? As for older cars, my dad drives a 1947 Chevy Pickup ;D The car analogy is not a good one, because really old cars are really cool, whereas I wouldn't ever want to use older languages like APL or FORTRAN nowadays.

[quote author=Hands of a Government Man link=topic=17060.msg174378#msg174378 date=1193785270]
Aren't OCX files pretty much Code reuse in VB6?
[/quote]Yes, but OCX isn't the advent of Visual Basic - it's an ActiveX component library, which is tied to COM.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174377#msg174377 date=1193783371]
Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better.
[/quote]
exercise is good for the mind&soul

[quote]
In the corporate world, we actually sit down and talk about crazy things like code reuse, effective object modeling, software design, and cost effectiveness - you know, those things that you say make people poor programmers.
[/quote]

I would rather make that sweet generic .NET-looking gui with that time.
Code reuse, that's crazy! Like Win32 APIs. *me wonders what they're there for*

[quote]
Then again, there mere fact you suggest VB6 as a language shows that you not only don't know what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're doing in the programming world.
[/quote]
Time is money, ne? I can't think of a better way to make a program fast and neat-looking then with VB6.

[quote]
It isn't just about the learning curve though, it's about moving past the unnecessary cruft from the past few years. Computers have evolved, programming has evolved, and therefore languages must evolve as well.
[/quote]
We, people, have evolved, does that mean we stop using C? I'm pretty sure part of the reason why Japanese people have such high IQs (120 on average, i think) might be the fact that they have to read, write, interpret, and think in a language that's harder then BF. See: My response to "Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better".
Myndfyre: ok

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174380#msg174380 date=1193785632]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174377#msg174377 date=1193783371]
Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better.
[/quote]
exercise is good for the mind&soul

[quote]
In the corporate world, we actually sit down and talk about crazy things like code reuse, effective object modeling, software design, and cost effectiveness - you know, those things that you say make people poor programmers.
[/quote]

I would rather make that sweet generic .NET-looking gui with that time.
Code reuse, that's crazy! Like Win32 APIs. *me wonders what they're there for*

[quote]
Then again, there mere fact you suggest VB6 as a language shows that you not only don't know what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're doing in the programming world.
[/quote]
Time is money, ne? I can't think of a better way to make a program fast and neat-looking then with VB6.

[quote]
It isn't just about the learning curve though, it's about moving past the unnecessary cruft from the past few years. Computers have evolved, programming has evolved, and therefore languages must evolve as well.
[/quote]
We, people, have evolved, does that mean we stop using C? I'm pretty sure part of the reason why Japanese people have such high IQs (120 on average, i think) might be the fact that they have to read, write, interpret, and think in a language that's harder then BF. See: My response to "Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better".
Myndfyre: ok
[/quote]

I give up.

idiot.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17060.msg174379#msg174379 date=1193785401]
[quote author=Hands of a Government Man link=topic=17060.msg174378#msg174378 date=1193785270]
Aren't OCX files pretty much Code reuse in VB6?
[/quote]Yes, but OCX isn't the advent of Visual Basic - it's an ActiveX component library, which is tied to COM.
[/quote]
Never claimed it was. It's just very useful for efficiency in VB, and easy because it's an object ;D

[quote]
No, quite frankly it's a revolution in programming.
It gives the power to the programmer to control aspects of his program in unprecedented ways (well except for Java but who cares about them) and gives you the flexibility to implement the same idea over various languages in the .NET Branch.

In other words, all .NET languages are immediately interoperable and understand each other at even the most intricate levels.

That, and the language itself contains various advancements over even C++ in terms of raw feautures. They make the life of the programmer easier, ease of use means it takes you less time to write functional code. Time is money.

It's ridiculously easy to write a tool chain in .NET for any sort of project, it offers a rich UI experience coupled with the already ease of use of the .NET Framework.

The beauty of .NET is, if you don't like C#..use VB .NET, or C++/CLI, or IronPython/PHP/Ruby, or Boo, whatever. Hell, write your own .NET language.

Like Banana said, it offers the advantage of not having to worry about tracking memory or memory corruption.

This has plenty of advantages, first your programs are guaranteed a certain degree of performance since the Garbage Collector handles all of the loose ends of allocated memory. Secondly, for example in a Game programming environment where your code can  quickly become intertwined with various classes, it's a big advantage to have a Garbage Collected language cleaning up your messes of objects in hierarchal graphs.

Additionally, when you use a .NET Language you get the entire set of class libraries which ship with the runtime. You get access to classes to deal with almost everything. Want to access the registry? There's a class for that. Want to use a List of items? Class for that. Use a hash table? Class for that. Windowing? 2D Drawing? Cryptology? Classes for all of that. Just have a look around it one day, you'll be very pleased.

Bottom line is: .NET makes the programmer's life easier, easier equals less time spent, time equals money. .NET saves you money.
[/quote]
Broken down to: Programmer's are lazy and no longer skilled enough to deal with concepts beyond pretty pictures.

Honestly, if you need the language/framework to protect you from memory corruption and memory managment altogether, you shouldn't be a programmer at all.


[quote]
No, it's because C is genuinely harder to use. Something harder to use, takes more caution, takes more planning, takes reevaluating, takes patching on a more frequent level than managed or even C++ applications.

This adds up and you find yourself wasting time better spent writing code in other parts of the project. Time is money. You're losing money.

It isn't just about the learning curve though, it's about moving past the unnecessary cruft from the past few years. Computers have evolved, programming has evolved, and therefore languages must evolve as well.

Take a look at C# without the .NET Framework, there's no doubting that when the ignorance about the Framework is eliminated from the picture that it's an incredible language. It's everything C++ should of been, and the only thing even worth touching (in the Cish world) is D at the moment.

I'll go back to my car analogy, why don't you drive a 70's rust bucket for the sake of it being harder? Hell, lose the power steering, seats, and wheels.
Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better.

Programming Languages are the same way, and I'd certainly take a sports car (C#) over walking on foot (C) any day.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's harder for you to use: You are one of those people.

You'd only be wasting time if you did not know what you were doing, which would imply the design phase has failed, nothing to do with the language.

Why would languages need to evolve? The .NET framework is hardly a language either, it's no different from any other library, like MFC. That said, all of your arguments fail if one was to simply write his/her own library, which many people do in the first place.

Your analogy makes you sound alot more like a user, rather than a programmer.


[quote]
Aren't OCX files pretty much Code reuse in VB6? As for older cars, my dad drives a 1947 Chevy Pickup  The car analogy is not a good one, because really old cars are really cool, whereas I wouldn't ever want to use older languages like APL or FORTRAN nowadays.
[/quote]
OCX, COM, DLL, EXE, they're all the same, PE format. Just depends on the interpretation.


[quote]
Why would it? From what RealityRipple has shown me, his PowerBASIC is nearly the same thing as C with BASIC syntax. It could be quite low level if one wanted to. A language is a method of transmitting ideas, so really, all languages are the same except for the built-in limitations imposed by the compiler itself. Note: A language with BASIC syntax and a language like Visual Basic 6 are entirely different things, you don't get cute boilerplate window code in PowerBASIC
[/quote]
Care to put that to the test?

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174384#msg174384 date=1193789159]
[quote]
Why would it? From what RealityRipple has shown me, his PowerBASIC is nearly the same thing as C with BASIC syntax. It could be quite low level if one wanted to. A language is a method of transmitting ideas, so really, all languages are the same except for the built-in limitations imposed by the compiler itself. Note: A language with BASIC syntax and a language like Visual Basic 6 are entirely different things, you don't get cute boilerplate window code in PowerBASIC
[/quote]
Care to put that to the test?
[/quote]

No. But I'm sure RealityRipple would. . .

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174384#msg174384 date=1193789159]
Broken down to: Programmer's are lazy and no longer skilled enough to deal with concepts beyond pretty pictures.

Honestly, if you need the language/framework to protect you from memory corruption and memory managment altogether, you shouldn't be a programmer at all.
[/quote]

Why implement the useless boilerplate code all together? Using .NET and other type safe languages you can make assumptions about the state of your program at all times. It's an advantage which can save you time when writing an extensive project.

What part of this are you not understanding? Are you so insecure about your programming skills that you'd take the hardheaded pseudo macho approach to programming as opposed to an elegant solution? You're over complicating things without a justified reason.

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174384#msg174384 date=1193789159]
You'd only be wasting time if you did not know what you were doing, which would imply the design phase has failed, nothing to do with the language.

Why would languages need to evolve? The .NET framework is hardly a language either, it's no different from any other library, like MFC. That said, all of your arguments fail if one was to simply write his/her own library, which many people do in the first place.

Your analogy makes you sound alot more like a user, rather than a programmer.
[/quote]

No, you waste time nontheless. Everytime you need to sit down and accommodate bad language design, you're wasting time. Every time you have to collect memory you're wasting time. Every memory leak is wasted time, every buffer overflow is wasted time. Things like this add up.

You simply don't have to simplicity and the power that the .NET Framework gives you. Interop against a family of languages is valuable as some of the languages could be put to use as scripting languages, since you can invoke the CLR into any running .NET program.

Why do languages need to evolve? Because the programmer evolves. I guarantee that the needs of programmers back when C was designed are radically different then the needs of the programmers now. It shouldn't even be a question that they need to evolve. Like Operating Systems, and even entire architectures revisions and improvements are made.

If you think C is a perfect language, and all the wisdom gained throughout the years are worthless then you're delusional. The answer is of course languages must evolve.

The .NET Framework is exactly this, language evolution.

Additionally, it's more than a set of libraries. It's an entire run time. From start to the end of execution the CLR is in complete control of every aspect of the program.

Memory is safe, members are known to every assembly communicating with each other. Best of all, it interops with unmanaged code rather easily.

You have the best of both worlds, you have the simplicity that C# (and other .NET languages) provide, you have security.

The fact is, the .NET Framework is the future of programming on the Windows platform. In the coming years we're going to see it being pushed more for the wonderful technology it is and integrated more tightly with Windows. This is already evident from the fact that it's actually bundled with Windows Vista.

If you're claiming that things like LINQ, WPF, and others don't make the programming experience better then I suggest you sit down and play a bit with the technologies.

It's easy to criticize something that you view from a distance. The saying goes "Once you used managed code, unmanaged code just doesn't cut it" (Ok so I made that up).

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174380#msg174380 date=1193785632]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174377#msg174377 date=1193783371]
Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better.
[/quote]
exercise is good for the mind&soul

[quote]
In the corporate world, we actually sit down and talk about crazy things like code reuse, effective object modeling, software design, and cost effectiveness - you know, those things that you say make people poor programmers.
[/quote]

I would rather make that sweet generic .NET-looking gui with that time.
Code reuse, that's crazy! Like Win32 APIs. *me wonders what they're there for*

[quote]
Then again, there mere fact you suggest VB6 as a language shows that you not only don't know what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're doing in the programming world.
[/quote]
[u]Time is money, ne? I can't think of a better way to make a program fast and neat-looking then with VB6.[/u]

[quote]
It isn't just about the learning curve though, it's about moving past the unnecessary cruft from the past few years. Computers have evolved, programming has evolved, and therefore languages must evolve as well.
[/quote]
We, people, have evolved, does that mean we stop using C? I'm pretty sure part of the reason why Japanese people have such high IQs (120 on average, i think) might be the fact that they have to read, write, interpret, and think in a language that's harder then BF. See: My response to "Why not just walk? It's harder, so it must be better".
Myndfyre: ok
[/quote]

Oh..god.. Are you kidding me? Visual basic is so fucking sloppy. It's almost better programming in LOLCode (seriously).

Uggg... if I must.

PowerBasic's compiler includes inline assembly, excellent variable types (BYTE, WORD, DWROD, QWORD, INTEGER, LONG, QUAD, etc...), multiple types of strings (STRING and ASCIIZ), Pre-declared APIs (you don't type in any of the delcares like you would in VB, they're all already declared and only the ones required are added into the program... it's pretty nifty), no runtime files except for any declares you make yourself, raw windows event messages control and handle all events, 64 bit native support, a DOS compiler, an attempt at a RAD system for GUIs (personally, I can't stand any of the IDEs in PowerBasic, but I'll get used to them eventually), Peek and Poke (memory reading/writing), EXE or DLL compilation, standard windows Resource files for all resources and version info, an excellent amount of constants (with a nice % prefix for all of them), requirement to convert variable types (not like VB's stupid long can equal string crap, you gotta manually convert using Str$ or Val), built in TCP/UDP commands... even a #BLOAT compiler message to create larger executables [basically poking fun at bloatware].

Give me something to make in pb (simple, please, I'm still learning the language :P) and I'll give you the code and the compiled program to compare against somethin in C. And as of yet, PB only works for windows, but they're apparently working on multi-platform stuff.

[quote author=Hands of a Government Man link=topic=17060.msg174389#msg174389 date=1193791789]
Uggg... if I must.

PowerBasic's compiler includes inline assembly, excellent variable types (BYTE, WORD, DWROD, QWORD, INTEGER, LONG, QUAD, etc...), multiple types of strings (STRING and ASCIIZ), Pre-declared APIs (you don't type in any of the delcares like you would in VB, they're all already declared and only the ones required are added into the program... it's pretty nifty), no runtime files except for any declares you make yourself, raw windows event messages control and handle all events, 64 bit native support, a DOS compiler, an attempt at a RAD system for GUIs (personally, I can't stand any of the IDEs in PowerBasic, but I'll get used to them eventually), Peek and Poke (memory reading/writing), EXE or DLL compilation, standard windows Resource files for all resources and version info, an excellent amount of constants (with a nice % prefix for all of them), requirement to convert variable types (not like VB's stupid long can equal string crap, you gotta manually convert using Str$ or Val), built in TCP/UDP commands... even a #BLOAT compiler message to create larger executables [basically poking fun at bloatware].

Give me something to make in pb (simple, please, I'm still learning the language :P) and I'll give you the code and the compiled program to compare against somethin in C. And as of yet, PB only works for windows, but they're apparently working on multi-platform stuff.
[/quote]
Just curious, does PowerBASIC support function pointers? And how about exporting functions?

Yes.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174380#msg174380 date=1193785632]
I would rather make that sweet generic .NET-looking gui with that time.
Code reuse, that's crazy! Like Win32 APIs. *me wonders what they're there for*
[/quote]

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174384#msg174384 date=1193789159]
Honestly, if you need the language/framework to protect you from memory corruption and memory managment altogether, you shouldn't be a programmer at all.
Why would languages need to evolve? The .NET framework is hardly a language either, it's no different from any other library, like MFC. That said, all of your arguments fail if one was to simply write his/her own library, which many people do in the first place.
[/quote]

Let's say you need to parse XML.  Are you going to write an XML parsing engine each time you need to do so?  It's a fairly common need, since XML is (*gasp*) interoperable among disparate systems.  Of course you're not; you'll use a library.  Are you going to roll it just once?

You'll roll it according to the needs of your project.  But what happens when your needs change and grow, or what happens when you get another project?

You either have to adapt your XML parsing engine or rewrite it from scratch.  Both take time.

An object-oriented approach allows you to build a flexible engine.  Java and .NET both provide forward-only (XmlReader in .NET) and random-access (XmlDocument in .NET) XML reading implementations in their base class libraries.  Why should my company ever have had to waste the time in the first place to re-roll a library?  To demonstrate that I know what I'm doing?  Fuck, why don't I just write a compiler from scratch, rewrite the entire Windows API in assembly/C?  Wait, why stop there - why not rewrite the entire C library?  To hell with strcmp - I'm making myndfyre_strcmp()!

My company bills $125/hr to our clients for my time.  How can they justify the expense to our customers, who want to spend as little money as possible for as much functionality as possible?  "We want to make sure you're getting a good programmer."  Yeah, and then the client leaves.

At work I'm rated on the following: 1.) ability to make deadlines, 2.) effective estimation, 3.) ability to forward-think and plan for future changes, and 4.) producing a minimal number of defects.  That's what the client is paying for.  Apparently, my company doesn't care whether I can reimplement the Windows object manager.

brew, specifically: Where does the "competency" train end with you?  Why is the Win32 API the stopping point?  Why don't we make the "unit of code reuse" the C library?  Assembler?  Hell, why not machine code?  Assembler is just a mneumonic device.  

brew and Win32: On that note, since assembler is just a mneumonic device, why don't we just drop it entirely?  Program directly in machine code?

Seriously, nobody has answered my question: why should programming be difficult?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17060.msg174392#msg174392 date=1193792129]
[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174380#msg174380 date=1193785632]
I would rather make that sweet generic .NET-looking gui with that time.
Code reuse, that's crazy! Like Win32 APIs. *me wonders what they're there for*
[/quote]

[quote author=Win32 link=topic=17060.msg174384#msg174384 date=1193789159]
Honestly, if you need the language/framework to protect you from memory corruption and memory managment altogether, you shouldn't be a programmer at all.
Why would languages need to evolve? The .NET framework is hardly a language either, it's no different from any other library, like MFC. That said, all of your arguments fail if one was to simply write his/her own library, which many people do in the first place.
[/quote]

Let's say you need to parse XML.  Are you going to write an XML parsing engine each time you need to do so?  It's a fairly common need, since XML is (*gasp*) interoperable among disparate systems.  Of course you're not; you'll use a library.  Are you going to roll it just once?

You'll roll it according to the needs of your project.  But what happens when your needs change and grow, or what happens when you get another project?

You either have to adapt your XML parsing engine or rewrite it from scratch.  Both take time.

An object-oriented approach allows you to build a flexible engine.  Java and .NET both provide forward-only (XmlReader in .NET) and random-access (XmlDocument in .NET) XML reading implementations in their base class libraries.  Why should my company ever have had to waste the time in the first place to re-roll a library?  To demonstrate that I know what I'm doing?  Fuck, why don't I just write a compiler from scratch, rewrite the entire Windows API in assembly/C?  Wait, why stop there - why not rewrite the entire C library?  To hell with strcmp - I'm making myndfyre_strcmp()!

My company bills $125/hr to our clients for my time.  How can they justify the expense to our customers, who want to spend as little money as possible for as much functionality as possible?  "We want to make sure you're getting a good programmer."  Yeah, and then the client leaves.

At work I'm rated on the following: 1.) ability to make deadlines, 2.) effective estimation, 3.) ability to forward-think and plan for future changes, and 4.) producing a minimal number of defects.  That's what the client is paying for.  Apparently, my company doesn't care whether I can reimplement the Windows object manager.

brew, specifically: Where does the "competency" train end with you?  Why is the Win32 API the stopping point?  Why don't we make the "unit of code reuse" the C library?  Assembler?  Hell, why not machine code?  Assembler is just a mneumonic device. 

brew and Win32: On that note, since assembler is just a mneumonic device, why don't we just drop it entirely?  Program directly in machine code?

Seriously, nobody has answered my question: why should programming be difficult?
[/quote]


Programming isn't, It's how you plan your code, and how you restrain yourself; Coding isn't hard, It just takes practice and patients.

[quote author=Dale link=topic=17060.msg174393#msg174393 date=1193792296]
Programming isn't, It's how you plan your code, and how you restrain yourself; Coding isn't hard, It just takes practice and patients.
[/quote]
I don't disagree.  They seem to, though.

Some of you may laugh, but I've been taking a course for C++, and personally I've benefited, not because I learned the syntax better in a classroom environment; but because the books and the my professor gave me more knowledge on how to plan your code out and understand the inners of it. It's really a good experience.

Nice, you'll graduate to C# soon enough.
They all do.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17060.msg174392#msg174392 date=1193792129]
Let's say you need to parse XML.  Are you going to write an XML parsing engine each time you need to do so?  It's a fairly common need, since XML is (*gasp*) interoperable among disparate systems.  Of course you're not; you'll use a library.  Are you going to roll it just once?

You'll roll it according to the needs of your project.  But what happens when your needs change and grow, or what happens when you get another project?

You either have to adapt your XML parsing engine or rewrite it from scratch.  Both take time.

An object-oriented approach allows you to build a flexible engine.  Java and .NET both provide forward-only (XmlReader in .NET) and random-access (XmlDocument in .NET) XML reading implementations in their base class libraries.  Why should my company ever have had to waste the time in the first place to re-roll a library?  To demonstrate that I know what I'm doing?  Fuck, why don't I just write a compiler from scratch, rewrite the entire Windows API in assembly/C?  Wait, why stop there - why not rewrite the entire C library?  To hell with strcmp - I'm making myndfyre_strcmp()!

My company bills $125/hr to our clients for my time.  How can they justify the expense to our customers, who want to spend as little money as possible for as much functionality as possible?  "We want to make sure you're getting a good programmer."  Yeah, and then the client leaves.

At work I'm rated on the following: 1.) ability to make deadlines, 2.) effective estimation, 3.) ability to forward-think and plan for future changes, and 4.) producing a minimal number of defects.  That's what the client is paying for.  Apparently, my company doesn't care whether I can reimplement the Windows object manager.

brew, specifically: Where does the "competency" train end with you?  Why is the Win32 API the stopping point?  Why don't we make the "unit of code reuse" the C library?  Assembler?  Hell, why not machine code?  Assembler is just a mneumonic device.  

brew and Win32: On that note, since assembler is just a mneumonic device, why don't we just drop it entirely?  Program directly in machine code?

Seriously, nobody has answered my question: why should programming be difficult?
[/quote]
tl;dr
Why would anyone need to parse XML ? That sounds like something web browsers would need. Not your average application.
"To hell with strcmp - I'm making myndfyre_strcmp()!"
People do have legitimate reasons for re-implementing small, simple functions like strcmp. Just the other day, I had to make a reverse strcmp (it helped very much), but that's besides the point. Why make myndfyre_strcmp? That, and the entire .NET architecture are two very different things on very different scales. Bad comparison, if you ask me.

[quote]
Fuck, why don't I just write a compiler from scratch, rewrite the entire Windows API in assembly/C?
[/quote]
Because we run our applications in user mode, therefore we wouldn't have the memory access like we would need to implement the windows api. I understand what you're trying to say, but isn't this example a bit too over-the-top?

[quote]
brew and Win32: On that note, since assembler is just a mneumonic device, why don't we just drop it entirely?  Program directly in machine code?
[/quote]
That's not a bad idea, to be honest.
Why? Because, we all really should be coding in assembly, the first level of abstraction between our language and our machine's instruction set, and C should really be treated as one giant macro for assembly. For most, C speeds up development. It's great, but the layers of abstraction starts getting a little rediculous when we get to OO monsters like C#. There is little to no relation there with what happens in the processor.

I think brew has reached his stupidity quota for today.
Jesus christ, that was a wall of stupid.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174399#msg174399 date=1193795842]
we all really should be coding in assembly, the first level of abstraction between our language and our machine's instruction set
[/quote]

assembly is a language buddy, code in machine code if you're so hardcore.

I bet you and Win32 like to waste time together.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174399#msg174399 date=1193795842]
For most, C speeds up development. [/quote]

How do you figure?

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174398#msg174398 date=1193795674]
Nice, you'll graduate to C# soon enough.
They all do.
[/quote]

If that was aimed towards me, then it's too late. I've already fallen in love with C#; It's my primary language.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17060.msg174400#msg174400 date=1193795988]
I think brew has reached his stupidity quota for today.
Jesus christ, that was a wall of stupid.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17060.msg174399#msg174399 date=1193795842]
That's not a bad idea, to be honest.
Why? Because, we all really should be coding in assembly, the first level of abstraction between our language and our machine's instruction set, [/quote]

See, I think you don't understand what "abstraction" really means.  Assembly isn't an "abstraction;" there's a one-to-one mapping between machine code and the mneumonic forms expressed by assembly.

I'm locking this topic because it's clear from the statement that "we should program in machine code, ideally" that you're simply trolling.