Re: Open source C++ Bot

[Barabajagal]

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.

[Win32]

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.

"Contend with C", that made me laugh.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

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.

[Warrior]

(even though he was totally wrong )

* Warrior pulls hair out

[brew]

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.

"Contend with C", that made me laugh.

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?

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?

safe memory management. 'nuff said.

[Barabajagal]

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

[brew]

but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?

safe memory management. 'nuff said.

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.

[Warrior]

but don't you think C# and other .NET langauges is overkill? What is the point of all that?

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.

[MyndFyre]

Who said programming needs to be programmer-friendly?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featuritis
That, right there, is what I think about .NET and OOP.

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.

[brew]

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.

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

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.

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?

[MyndFyre]

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:

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.

(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.

[Warrior]

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.

[Warrior]

Why should it not be?

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.

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.

[Barabajagal]

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.