@Paul - RE: Aurora's role?

[Kale]

I was just wondering about the role of Aurora in todays programming circles. I have a few questions.

Is Aurora going to be similar to C/C++? in that it is supplied with a small number of built-in libraries and you have to code everything else using the OS's API? or is Aurora going to evolve into a 'batteries included' type language such as Python which comes with an enormous amount of built-in libraries.

What is the primary goal of developing Aurora? (Money aside ) Do you see Aurora as a 'serious' language, used mainly for app development or primarily as a game/multimedia programming language? Or both? I would love to know your goal for it.

Also, about those 'batteries', do you plan on included libraries (classes) such as:

Sound (wavs, mp3, mod, etc..)
CD Audio (play, pause, etc..)
Image (creation, manipulation, etc..)
Network (Create Server, Send/Receive Data, etc...)
Sort (Sort Arrays, Linked Lists, etc..)
Threads (Create, Kill, etc..)
Particles (2D and 3D)

Sorry if these are already included, i'm at work and not in front of my computer, i'm just having a brainstorm.

Regards,

[Zen]

Kale.

A while back me and Parker started a joint project called CCL (Common Class Library) which is a free download of common classes such as networking class, http protocol class, raw sockets class, xml class, threads class etc etc. Although it has been on hold for quite some time now, Me and Parker are intending to finish the project off. I think the download is still hanging around in the software projects section. But it only has limited classes at this moment.

Lewis

[GWS]

Hey Zen .. I'm surprised you haven't got a class class by now ..ÂÃ, 

I doubt Aurora will have broad appeal beyond the 'anorak class' with it's OOP structure.
Time will tell, but I'd much prefer a procedural version.

I'd better shut up .. I'm a member of the 'muzzled class', not even instantiated .. so I'll not waste anyone's time with my opinions ..

Graham

[Kale]

Hey Zen .. I'm surprised you haven't got a class class by now .. 

I doubt Aurora will have broad appeal beyond the 'anorak class' with it's OOP structure.
Time will tell, but I'd much prefer a procedural version.

I'd better shut up .. I'm a member of the 'muzzled class', not even instantiated .. so I'll not waste anyone's time with my opinions ..

Graham

You wanna sell your shares in Aurora then? I'll buy 'em.

[JR]

Hey Zen .. I'm surprised you haven't got a class class by now .. 

I doubt Aurora will have broad appeal beyond the 'anorak class' with it's OOP structure.
Time will tell, but I'd much prefer a procedural version.

I'd better shut up .. I'm a member of the 'muzzled class', not even instantiated .. so I'll not waste anyone's time with my opinions ..

Graham

You don't have to use classes if you don't want. See an small example using pure SDK style coding:
http://www.ionicwind.com/forums/index.php?topic=728.0

What is needed is collection of include files with the API declarations, constants, etc., such the one Sapero is doing, and some improvements to the language such static variables, allowing for easier reusability of the procedures. Because despite of Paul's reply saying that a static variable in C is really a global variable, I'm refering to the kind of static variables available in Basic, that keep its values between calls and are only accessible by the code inside the procedure where they have been declared. Global variables are a nightmare if you intend to write reusable procedural code.

[GWS]

Sorry Kale .. reserved for another member ..ÂÃ, 

Graham

[GWS]

Thanks JosÃÆ'Ã,© .. but look at the length and complexity of your code ..ÂÃ, 

Code would need to be a lot more straightforward than that I feel - something like 10 statements for a 'Hello' in a proper window.

Of course you can't just plug and play chunks of code in any old program if there are globals at work - but you get used to cutting and pasting, and checking that everything is functional.

best wishes,

Graham

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

Grahams not understaning of OOP aside

Is Aurora going to be similar to C/C++? in that it is supplied with a small number of built-in libraries and you have to code everything else using the OS's API? or is Aurora going to evolve into a 'batteries included' type language such as Python which comes with an enormous amount of built-in libraries.

What is the primary goal of developing Aurora? (Money aside Wink ) Do you see Aurora as a 'serious' language, used mainly for app development or primarily as a game/multimedia programming language? Or both? I would love to know your goal for it. Smiley

We already have built in libraries/classes for many tasks.  Database, 2D, 3D, etc.  The goal of Aurora originally was to be a continuance of ideas I had when writing IBasic and was inspired by a friends learning of C++.  It's not meant as "another C" which would be pointless.  We do have braces to mark blocks, and the * to denote a dereference operation.  But only because they are common in many languages.  I could have used any character

Aurora also addressed some of the many shortcomings that IBasic had.

As the language progressed I adopted many of the same principles of OOP that C++ had.  Because they were understood by many programmers and a widely accepted norm.  The language evolved through the alphas into an OOP language that is easy to code for if you understand the principles of object oriented programming.

Aurora will also be cross platform.  I've tried to keep the classes generic enough that you'll be able to compile the code directly in the linux version.  Provided you don't use direct API calls in your source code.

Also, about those 'batteries', do you plan on included libraries (classes) such as:

Sound (wavs, mp3, mod, etc..)
CD Audio (play, pause, etc..)
Image (creation, manipulation, etc..)
Network (Create Server, Send/Receive Data, etc...)
Sort (Sort Arrays, Linked Lists, etc..)
Threads (Create, Kill, etc..)
Particles (2D and 3D)

All of the above.  We already have linked list,image and dictionary classes built in.  Sound is next on the list after 3D is more complete as it is one of my many areas of interest.  And I have been playing with point sprites as a basis of a particle engine

So Aurora's primary goal is to be a gneral purpose OOP language suitable for any programming task with emphasis on built-in functionality.  The beta will bring much needed documentation and all will be alot clearer.

On a side not: Some users that came from the IBasic side are dissapointed that I didn't make another 'hand-holding' script kiddie like language.  Children grow up and languages evolve.  If OOP isn't for you then there is a wide variety BASIC like languages to choose from on all platforms. Some of them even free. Some good, some bad.   Emotions of some of these users get high but in the end Aurora is just a tool, and if it fits use it.  If not then find another tool.  I'm not a fan of PASCAL like languages, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place in the world. 

Paul.

[kryton9]

Graham, believe me I was in the same boat as you. I still don't understand much that is in Aurora. I too loved ibasic and BASIC in general-- as it is so pleasing to look at and to code in. But OOP really does have its advantages. Not in simpler applications and for those you can write straight procedural style, but when you start doing anything that requires some coding length and complexity you appreciate the OOP stuff. I realize that and so decided to jump out of the boat and go into the water. And I didn't drown, but I sure did ask and do ask for life savers.

I think once the help and tutorials are all finished, you will find Aurora a blast to use. Even the IDE has lots of cool things in it that you need to sort of explore or read up on the forums to tap in too. As the language progresses and those systems have the support in place aside from the great help here on the forums. I know it will be a lot easier to use and learn aurora.

Just stick around as you are doing and keep trying out the waters, every week you can see Aurora just blossoming with lots of cool features, it is amazing and going to be super fun and a great alternative to what else is out there.

[John S]

Kale,
I think physics lib was also to be included.

I joined to write a linear algebra lib and use in engineering apps.  I just side tracked with life and work.

GWS,
The water's fine just jump in with both feet.  Pick up an C++ tutorial an you'll get the idea.

[GWS]

Thanks for the encouragement guys .. .. it's just so damned ugly ..ÂÃ, 

If I see a steel-blue one-piece tool that will cut and carve smoothly and efficiently to my creative requirement, compared to a complex gadget with micrometer adjustments, sliding guide bars, and umpteen attachments, plus a two inch thick user guide, I should naturally be happier with the smooth steel device.

ll keep looking at developments, but it's just too off-putting at the moment - I can't bring myself even to read a page or two of it - I keep saying Oh no!..Yeuk .. good grief! and stuff like that ..

I'm surprised Paul feels it necessary to deride a language he did so much to make into about the most useable system out there.ÂÃ,  'C' experts have probably always looked on Basic as a 'script kiddie like language' - but it continues to be one of the most used languages - ask Microsoft, although I can't get on with their VB 2005 either.

onwards and upwards,

Graham

[Bruce Peaslee]

Thanks for the encouragement guys .. .. it's just so damned ugly ..ÂÃ, 

Ah, beauty is the eye of the beholder. As I become "less lost", my code looks great!ÂÃ, 

Having said that, I could still use some hand holding. I don't mind studying on my own, but I have yet to find "Windows Programming in OOP". For example, I can never decide where the best place in code do define dialogs.

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

I'm surprised Paul feels it necessary to deride a language he did so much to make into about the most useable system out there.

Both IBasic and IBasic pro were mainly written in C, C++, and assembler.  You might consider it 'ugly' but it is the power and flexibility of the language that matters. I consider a properly written program in Aurora quite elegant actually, and easier to follow than some of the spaghetti code I've seen some BASIC users write, not saying that YOU wrote spaghetti code of course.

As for the most usable system out there?  Not by far.  Perhaps for you it was the most usable BASIC like language, but it is missing a number of important details for it to be a bit more accepted and used.  Most of those features I was forced to leave out to maintain compatibility with IBasic Standard.  At least now my hands are not tied to an existing code base.

If you don't like object oriented programming then Aurora, JAVA, C++, C#, ADA, DELPHI, smalltalk, Oberon, PHP, Visual BASIC, Modula-3, Ruby, etc.  will never be a 'fit' for you.  Aurora is not going to morph into a procedural language, nor was it intended to be a BASIC language.

Most of your posts here have been in the nature that Aurora isn't IBasic, or not BASIC enough for you.  And you are right it isn't.  It is Aurora which is an OOP language with syntax similar to other OOP languages. It has a lot of libraries for you to use, a llinux version in development, and an evolving 3D engine. 

On a side note.  Aurora has reached the point where I could easily write IBasic Standard in it.  If I were so inclined to port it, or had the reason to make another interpreter.

Paul.

[Shannara]

On a side note.  Aurora has reached the point where I could easily write IBasic Standard in it.  If I were so inclined to port it, or had the reason to make another interpreter.

Paul.

Or if someone else were inclined to make one or a compiler with Aurora .... now that would be neat.

[GWS]

You might consider it 'ugly' but it is the power and flexibility of the language that matters.

Can't agree - useability is a key feature.

not saying that YOU wrote spaghetti code of course

I'm not sensitive about my amateurish code ..

Aurora, JAVA, C++, C#, ADA, DELPHI, smalltalk, Oberon, PHP, Visual BASIC, Modula-3, Ruby, etc.ÂÃ,  will never be a 'fit' for you.

I think you're right ..

Aurora is not going to morph into a procedural language, nor was it intended to be a BASIC language

Shame ..ÂÃ, 

On a side note.ÂÃ,  Aurora has reached the point where I could easily write IBasic Standard in it.ÂÃ,  If I were so inclined to port it, or had the reason to make another interpreter.

Well it couldn't be called IBasic, but that's interesting, and there's only you who could do it
Would $1000 be enough of a reason ?ÂÃ, 

(ignore me being a bit caustic today - this country has just about avoided having several thousand people murdered by fanatical Muslims .. and our Goverment is still trying to placate them.)

all the best,

Graham

[kryton9]

Graham, I also found that looking at the code in the forum is alot different that copying and pasting it into the IDE.

It loses a lot of its eye soar in the IDE. The brace match color thingy makes it nice. You highlight a brace and will know where its corresponding brace is.

That is what I started doing and it really helped me in working with it and then I did the baby steps you can find in Aurora. Just start with those and study them.

Then add to them and before you know it you will be hooked.

Believe me I understand your sentiments, but everything Paul and the others have been saying about OOP is true and you do get used to the syntax. Another bright point, less commands to remember, end if or was it endif etc... it just a brace.

[GWS]

Gosh .. you guys are patient ..

I'll keep trying - Paul's never been known to create a bad system ..

all the best,

Graham

[Bruce Peaslee]

Gosh .. you guys are patient ..

Thanks, but you were pretty helpful to me in some other place.

The language is developing in no small part based on our input. You can never be too far out in front if the guy behind you has a great idea for the next update.