March 20, 2019, 01:44:31 am

News:

Own IWBasic 2.x ? -----> Get your free upgrade to 3.x now.........


Thoughts and ideas.

Started by Ionic Wind Support Team, May 27, 2007, 01:10:16 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ionic Wind Support Team

Amen to that brother.   ;)

With overtime I make about $21/hr compared to the less than $3/hr selling software.  And I am going to be working my ass off at work so I can get that 6 month bonus they give. 

And it's not a harsh opinion, just the facts man.  My programming time is now relegated to about an hour and a half in the evenings when I am not dog tired. Although I can get a lot done in an hour and a half some evenings.  And I check the forums during my lunch break.

There are some big changes to Emergence for the 1.6 release, might take a bit of time but you'll get it eventually.  For Aurora I consider it done codewise for 1.0 release, it is still the documentation that needs worked on. 

Paul.
Ionic Wind Support Team

Steven Picard


Brice Manuel

QuoteBruce
Brice, not Bruce (poor Bruce keeps getting insulted)

Quotejust like people are telling efgee not to knock Aurora until he's learned I think you should do the same for D.  D is a great C++ replacement but it is different than Aurora.
I am VERY familiar with D.  I have been using it for four years.  Please reread my posts.  I am replying to a post on the Aurora forums that is praising D.  I have not knocked D as a product.  I have pointed out that Aurora is not even officially released and it is unfair to compare Aurora to any language in an official 1.0 release.  I also pointed out that D was only officially released six months ago, and is itself still one of the new kids on the block.  

However, I have questioned the ethics (or lack of) in the versioning scheme being used by D, as it is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

QuoteI think D has some really great stuff in it.
Me too, I love the garbage collection.  But are the Aurora forums really the place to discuss the merits of D?

It boils down to if you don't like Aurora, don't use it.  We don't need the doom and gloom of people implying that Aurora and EBASIC are dead or soon will be.

peaslee

Quote from: Brice Manuel on July 12, 2007, 03:51:02 pm
QuoteBruce
Brice, not Bruce (poor Bruce keeps getting insulted)


Bruce is the cute one.   8)
Bruce Peaslee
"Born too loose."
iTired (There's a nap for that.)
Well, I headed for Las Vegas
Only made it out to Needles

LarryMc

LarryMc
Larry McCaughn :)
Author of IWB+, Custom Button Designer library, Custom Chart Designer library, Snippet Manager, IWGrid control library, LM_Image control library

efgee

Quote from: Brice Manuel on July 12, 2007, 03:51:02 pm
I have pointed out that Aurora is not even officially released and it is unfair to compare Aurora to any language in an official 1.0 release.



Quote from: Paul Turley on July 12, 2007, 03:41:05 pm
For Aurora I consider it done codewise for 1.0 release, it is still the documentation that needs worked on. 



So both languages can be compared  ;D

Steven Picard

Sorry Brice and Bruce.  :D 

Mike Stefanik

July 13, 2007, 05:38:23 am #32 Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 05:46:50 am by Mike Stefanik
Sure, compare them if you want. And frankly, for the Windows environment, I think Aurora is easier to use and definitely easier for someone who doesn't come from a C++ background to understand.

A really simple example. Want to use some Win32 API functions or a 3rd party DLL in your program? Good luck with D. You have to manually create an import defintiions (.def) file that maps the unmangled name to its mangled version (make sure you get the parameter sizes right!), run their implib tool to create an import library that's compatible with their linker, cross your fingers and hope it works. The problem is that their linker seems to be fairly brain-damaged and it expects every exported function name to be mangled, even when it's not.

And then lets move along to the fact that D has no IDE, no debugger, no user interface classes, the list goes on. If you're looking for a compiler that creates console mode applications, only works from the command line and you want the thrill of coding and debugging like it's 1987, then D just might be for you. Personally, I was not impressed. If you actually want to do anything productive on the Windows platform, Aurora is lightyears beyond it.

Edit: And frankly, if you really want the stuff that D offers like garbage collection, templates (generics), etc. then do yourself a favor and just learn C#. All in my opinion, of course.
Mike Stefanik
www.catalyst.com
Catalyst Development Corporation

Steven Picard

C# is what we use at work for most things.  With the exception of Visual Studio being sluggish and crashing on me quite often, the language itself is quite nice (I use VS 2003 and VS 2005).

I know eventually most software will go .NET.  It's inevitable.

As far as D vs Aurora.  I prefer Aurora because it is more tuned for casual programming (that's the BASIC part of it.)  I find it an extremely easy language to use compared to C++ (D is easier than C++).  My point was that D had some really nice ideas in it and I do consider it a valid replacement for C++ whereas Aurora is not a replacement for C++.  Aurora stands on its own quite nicely, IMO.

Mike Stefanik

July 13, 2007, 10:31:22 am #34 Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 10:39:07 am by Mike Stefanik
Quote from: Steven Picard on July 13, 2007, 07:49:29 am
My point was that D had some really nice ideas in it and I do consider it a valid replacement for C++ ...


Perhaps in an academic sense, purely in terms of the syntax of the language. But as a useful language for building real-world applications, D is barely off the plate heading towards first base. Compared to the professional development tools out there for Windows, Digital Mars' D compiler is like working with someone's university research project. Nifty in theory, not so nifty in practical use. I wouldn't want to develop even a relatively small dialog-based Windows utility in D, let alone a full-blown graphical application.
Mike Stefanik
www.catalyst.com
Catalyst Development Corporation

Steven Picard

Yes, you are right Mike.  The libraries are currently limited esp. in the Window's GUI department.  This is one of the reason's I haven't spent too much time with it.  It is still not practical to use for more than toying around with (although I'd like to see it succeed as a valid C++ replacement.)