Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
Well, I was just stating my point. At college the taught us that it's better thinking in the future rather than thinking in the past. But we can't fight against little spare time.
Posts: 602
Threads: 27
Joined: Oct 2004
doing it the way ado wants it to be... hm that's how you create bad software. i wonder why everybody wants to use vb. isn't there any alternative? like say c/c++, there's plenty of gui editors for various gui libraries including the vc buildin mfc editor (which is of course tedious to use and pretty crappy). doing it fast != doing it well
quote="NecrosIhsan"]
![[Image: yagl1.png]](http://www.nodtveidt.net/yagl1.png)
[/quote]
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 170
Joined: Nov 2003
Nice flamebait attempt, marzecTM. Too bad I ain't fallin' for it.
If you feel you can do a better job in C++, then by all means, what do us experienced VB coders know...feel free, go right ahead and try. We'll see you in 2008 when you've reached beta status. :rotfl:
na_th_an: it's always wise to plan for the future, which is exactly what we're doing anyways. No one's got any guarantee that mingw is going to be around forever or will update with the changes to Windows, but we DO know that Microsoft's compilers always stay with their operating systems, so writing this in VB6 and then porting it to VB.NET later will be a sure thing. But for the time being, .net is still in its infancy and Win32 will be supported for at least the next 5 years, as consumer-level 64-bit processors are still also in their infancy...and those that exist have "legacy" support for 32 bit applications anyways. 
Doing it fast != doing it well.
Doing it right = doing it right.
Doing it fast has nothing to do with either doing it well or doing it right. Just because C++ coders take three years to make a proper app doesn't mean us VB coders have to take the same amount of time. You can deal with the miniscule low-level crap like setting up a window, constructing/deconstructing objects, and manually handling messages...the rest of us will let the compiler handle the grunt work while we build the application itself. 
OH marzecTM, one last thing...the next time you insult my abilities, I may just get offended.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Posts: 602
Threads: 27
Joined: Oct 2004
all i wanted to say is that coding an app the fastest and most comfortable way possible results most often in a bad piece of software, this was neither an attack on you or your abilities nor was it meant to harm any vb coder. i find it funny that if one mentions c/c++ in front of a vb coder he/she instantaniously feels like having to say that c/c++ is crap and one needs at least 10 man years to develop a full application. what a piece of crap... but hey feel free to feel offended...
quote="NecrosIhsan"]
[/quote]
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 170
Joined: Nov 2003
I find it funny that one mention of someone writing software in VB to a C++ coder prompts them to whine about how bad the software is going to end up being. Besides, I never said anything about C++ being crap. It has its place, as does every language. GUI applications are just where C++ has to take a back seat to VB, and everyone knows it, even if they don't want to admit it.
On a side-note...the language one is most comfortable with is the language in which they write the BEST software, not the worst. I have no idea how you came up with the idea that writing a program in one's most comfortable language would somehow make it bad, when common sense says otherwise. :???:
And PS: don't take what I say too harshly, as I'm probably a little edgy right now. Rhiannon and I are both very sick so my patience is pretty thin right now.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
There is some kind of VB hating community which I don't understand. VB is the best compiler for GUI applications. And you can make a lot with it. That VB is simple and almost everyone can code shit on it doesn't make everyone code shit on it. Talented programmers can create great programs using any compiler. VB is no exception. Then only difference I can see between coding the IDE in VB and C++ is that you take 10 times less in VB, as long as you are a great coder. And Nek & Aetherfox know what they have between their hands.
The first version of FB was coded in VBDOS. That comes to show that it's not the tools, it's the artist what matters 
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 170
Joined: Nov 2003
The same kind of thing exists everywhere. In the indie RPG communities, there is great hatred for creators who use RPG makers like RM2K3 rather than actually coding their own RPG. In RPG Maker communities, there is great hatred for RPG Maker users who use default resources rather than either making or ripping other's work off, and there's a LOT of hatred in RM2K circles for the default combat system...all the "elites" think people should spend countless months developing a proprietary "events" system (which is completely unexpandable and exceptionally difficult to debug). PASCAL zealots hate the C communities but laugh at the BASIC communities, C communities hate the BASIC communities but see the PASCAL communities as something of patronized children (and thus inferior to themselves), BASIC communities hate the C communities but get on the good side of ASM communities because they know that most their languages are slow, ASM communities just hate everybody but themselves, and since they have no rivals, they fight amongst each other.
It's just plain and simple human nature I suppose. But as I've been saying for years...the compiler is immaterial...it's what the coder can do with the compiler that makes the difference.
Oh, I almost forgot...Conservatives hate the Liberals because Liberals believe that self-responsibility is better and Conservatives believe in total and absolute external control, and Liberals hate the Conservatives because the Conservatives are simply wrong.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Posts: 115
Threads: 11
Joined: Jun 2004
I'd vote for VB6 for many of the reasons expressed.
Heck, I use it for plenty of non-GUI applications as well, from CGI EXEs to compiler front-ends to data cleansing filters. So I'm plenty biased, sue me!
I'm more concerned about the ability to port FB to non-Windows platforms. Ouch, I thought that was the main reason FB's Noble Creator (no, that's not sarcasm, quite the contrary) was sacrificing ActiveX and other Windows productivity technologies.
Maybe the answer would be to take some halfway decent existing U/Li/BSD-nix Basic compiler and construct an intermediate "bootstrapping" compiler comparable to the PDS/VBDOS level?
Of course you have to worry about the myriad executable formats in the *nix world too...
Portability continues to be a be-atch as you start thinking it through.
You know, everyone pisses and moans about Windows and VB6, but look at the range of years worth of systems from Win95 to Me and NT 4.0 to Server 2003 I can deploy my VB6 code to without recompilation. There's some real stability here, matched and exceeded only by DOS I suspect. Thank you Raymond Chen http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/ and company.
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 170
Joined: Nov 2003
XP presents a few minor problems with VB6, but most of which can easily be solved with the latest VS service pack. The only problem I've yet to see go away is in regards to VB's resource editor...VB application resources in XP get mangled and thrown around like rag dolls. I've had to rewrite portions of some of my games because of it. However, for this type of thing, such problems aren't an issue...it's not like this would use any of the techniques I used in the games I wrote back in the heyday of Windows 98.
When it comes to Linux though, I'm up for assisting IDE development as well, as I'm somewhat familiar with a few GUI toolkits in Linux. The only thing I can't really stand about Linux development (I can list things all day about things I hate in Linux in general) is the lack of consistency. Hell, the *nix world is a trough of inconsistency. I've been hoping for an easy-to-use Linux compiler for ages now, but since one's never appeared, I've pretty much told *nix to go screw itself. If freeBASIC is eventually ported to *nix, then not only will I personally embrace *nix and begin the long process of bringing more decent apps to the *nix world, but I'll convince others to do the same.
In the meantime though...let's kick ass in Windows.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Posts: 602
Threads: 27
Joined: Oct 2004
Quote:I'm more concerned about the ability to port FB to non-Windows platforms. Ouch, I thought that was the main reason FB's Noble Creator (no, that's not sarcasm, quite the contrary) was sacrificing ActiveX and other Windows productivity technologies.
Maybe the answer would be to take some halfway decent existing U/Li/BSD-nix Basic compiler and construct an intermediate "bootstrapping" compiler comparable to the PDS/VBDOS level?
Of course you have to worry about the myriad executable formats in the *nix world too...
Portability continues to be a be-atch as you start thinking it through.
porting fb to linux should be pretty "easy", you just need to do the following:
* compile fb on win32, and grab the asm files
* rewrite the win32 portions of fb's runtimelib for linux and compile
* assemble and link the files from win32 (asm) with the fb rtl and some additional stuff like the clib on linux, there you go
about that myriads of executable formats, there's really just 2-3 that are used today, in fact it's only one that dominates the linux world called ELF. so i really don't see a problem at that point.
btw, v1c hand over the asm files and the fbrtl source code so i can port that crap to linux heh...
quote="NecrosIhsan"]
[/quote]
|
