Author Topic: programming??? (Read 20658 times)

eerrrr · « **Reply #25 on:** 2001-09-03 12:12:00 »

fice: Hmm, I think I'll try to download Delphi 6 from a friend with a high bandwidth connection. I dont know anyone with one though, so I guess I'll try Delphi 4 Standard.

chowderhead: ....did you have to put it that way? Lol, I'm just gonna be learning it in my spare time.

mirex · « **Reply #26 on:** 2001-09-07 11:31:00 »

People please, dont write sooo many words, I dont have nerves for reading it. And i would like to, coz it is about programming. But i cant

Something from me:
As i see it, language can be easy, or good. Like with easy one itll be hard to code something good. But easy ones are good for start.
So ill try to rate them, 1-easy 10-good. Higher number => harder & better.

2 - Basic(terminal)
6 - Pascal(terminal)
6 - Delphi
8 - C++(terminal)
8 - Visual C++
10 - Assembler

(terminal) means that it is old, dos like, you wont create any pretty windows with them

any corrections are welcome

eerrrr · « **Reply #27 on:** 2001-09-07 20:49:00 »

Hmm, thanks mirex. I'm still having trouble getting hold of Delphi. I didnt know PC Plus did DVD cd's so I cant use them. I'll ask my computing teacher if I can use the school PC's to download it, and get it on disc somehow.

ficedula · « **Reply #28 on:** 2001-09-07 21:44:00 »

PC Plus only recently started doing DVD coverdisks, and they still do CD versions as well, though obviously the CD disk doesn't have as much on it as the DVD.

Languages that're harder also aren't necessarily any better! Assembler is THE hardest "language" short of straight binary, but on a modern PC there's very little advantage to it over C++ or Delphi; modern CPU's do so much optimisation that hand coded assembler is only rarely any better. Plus, I'd put Delphi on a par with VC++ at least; doesn't have some things (Templates, Macros), but does have some other things (reliable RTTI, sets, etc). And unlike VC++ it runs on Linux (Yes, I know C++ code runs on Linux, of course, but if you've written in VC++ it's probably not going to).

Likewise, an easy language isn't necessarily less good. I'm biased, of course (but with reason), but I'd say Delphi is very nearly as easy to learn as VB (not really much difference) - but you can do an awful lot more with it once you're familiar with the language.

Oh, and most languages nowadays can create visual programs. True, it's easier in Delphi, or VC++ (or C++ Builder), but even a command-line C++/Pascal compiler could be used to create a windows app.

[This message has been edited by ficedula (edited September 07, 2001).]

Alhexx · « **Reply #29 on:** 2001-09-07 23:50:00 »

mirex: So Visual C++ has got 8 points? That's good! I'm going to learn it, or better: I've already started...

- Alhexx

ficedula · « **Reply #30 on:** 2001-09-07 23:55:00 »

*I* wouldn't've given it 8 points...

Srethron Askvelhtnod · « **Reply #31 on:** 2001-09-08 03:45:00 »

I can hear dagsverre now.

Quote

Microsoft manages to do everything possible wrong in their MFC framework. They have esentially stripped away what is beutiful with C++, you have to program directly to the Windows API instead of using some middle-layer like the rest of the world does. I feel it's a bit prehistoric, really... Also, the compiler itself lacks a lot of C++ features (for instance decent template support).

[This message has been edited by Srethron Askvelhtnod (edited September 07, 2001).]

The SaiNt · « **Reply #32 on:** 2001-09-08 11:01:00 »

Quote

Originally posted by ficedula
Languages that're harder also aren't necessarily any better! Assembler is THE hardest "language" short of straight binary, but on a modern PC there's very little advantage to it over C++ or Delphi; modern CPU's do so much optimisation that hand coded assembler is only rarely any better.

True to some extent. However, when you're programming something where every second counts, you might consider doing it with assembler. Besides, with Assembler you can do all the required optimizations immediately when new processors with new "features" are out. On a side note, I can't think of anyone sane enought to write in direct binary

Quote

Originally posted by ficedula
And unlike VC++ it runs on Linux (Yes, I know C++ code runs on Linux, of course, but if you've written in VC++ it's probably not going to).

Exactly, I don't understand why you guys mix up Visual C++ & C++. Visual C++ is just C++ with lots of "graphics" and libraries premade for the Windows enviroment(another of Msft's sales gimmicks). Visual C++ is just "C++ packaged and endorsed for use with Msft products"

Quote

Originally posted by Srethron Askvelhtnod as a quote of dagsverre
They have esentially stripped away what is beutiful with C++, you have to program directly to the Windows API instead of using some middle-layer like the rest of the world does

Lol. With that you find a whole bunch of idiots in the world memorizing the MFC classes. When asked to do something different, they say, "Eh, it's not in my MFC manual, so it isn't possible. We'll wait till Msft thinks of a workaround"

Alhexx · « **Reply #33 on:** 2001-09-08 14:13:00 »

(I'm feelin' like a damn rookie here

)

- Alhexx

chowderhead · « **Reply #34 on:** 2001-09-08 17:30:00 »

Alhexx: You ain't the only one!

Anonymous · « **Reply #35 on:** 2001-09-09 05:16:00 »

I didn't notice Java mentioned anywhere in this topic. Java IS object oriented. The syntax is very similar to C++. There are tons of guides and examples for it on the web. Its platform independant, for those of you guys and gals that don't know that means that "in theory" it could run on any computer. And best of all its free

.

[This message has been edited by GattMan (edited September 09, 2001).]

ficedula · « **Reply #36 on:** 2001-09-09 15:01:00 »

Yes ... for learning stuff, Java is great. The performance is far too slow to use for any serious applications (on the PC anyway), but syntactically it's a lot better than C++. Still not totally consistent, but better at least.

GattMan · « **Reply #37 on:** 2001-09-09 19:34:00 »

In my programing class in Highschool and and my Intro to CS class here at college, the focus has been mainly on Java. In high school, spent sometime on basic and VB to get everyone used to the basic concepts of programing, then spent the majority of the time on Java. Here at college, we are working on Sun Solaris Workstations using Unix to program in Java. Java is very good to get yourself used to OO. Thats my $0.02.

ficedula · « **Reply #38 on:** 2001-09-09 20:32:00 »

Yeah, my uni taught us mostly Java as well. For learning OO I'd agree that Java's as good as any language, though I wouldn't use it by choice for many things.

eerrrr · « **Reply #39 on:** 2001-09-10 00:20:00 »

fice: Good work on the post count.

Man, this thread's actually staying on topic! Uhmmmm, dont mind me, carry on! See how long its goes...

Caddberry · « **Reply #40 on:** 2001-09-10 22:46:00 »

Ya know pizza is good.. LoL just a joke there this is gonna be on topic.. I want to learn VC++ someday i will VB is kinda lame but its still kinda cool.. I am gonna check out Delphi.. I will probably have to have my friend download it aswell... he wont mind.. And my god programming in straight Binary? i guess someone had to do it though.. where would you even find an assembler for that? pretty crazy..

ficedula · « **Reply #41 on:** 2001-09-10 23:09:00 »

Well, you think about it; what are assembly compilers written in? The very first ones? Couldn't write them in assembler, at least not to start off with, because nobody's written assemblers yet

To start off with, everything had to be written in binary ... until someone used their l33t binary skillz to code an assembler.

chowderhead · « **Reply #42 on:** 2001-09-11 06:37:00 »

All bow to the first great binary programmer!
How he hath bettered our very existence!
How he hath - er - ah, done good stuff for us!

*hmph* I couldn't imagine trying to do that-just getting used to school after being out 8 years is bad enough.

The SaiNt · « **Reply #43 on:** 2001-09-11 09:33:00 »

A lot of things today seem difficult because of the new was all of us are brought up in and educated.
Nowadays, most people have to use a calculator to crunch those big numbers.
What about the people who didn't use calculators back then?
It has been proven that the human mind is in fact able to calculate much faster than most computers. I'm not saying it applies to everyone, but I'm saying it's possible if we were brought up in the perfect conditions.

mirex · « **Reply #44 on:** 2001-09-11 11:57:00 »

I remember that my friend has a friend

and he used to code in pure binary. But he was programming on Z80, and there are fewer instructions, so twas easier to memorize.

Anyhow, I think its nothing more like learning some language. Just have to remember what number means what, and what will some combination do. I was not learning pure asm, and still i remember
$A8 $05 - mov ax, 5
$CD $21 - int 21h
and $DC was INC AX, or JMP ?.
If my memory serves me right.

Allhex: as far as i remember, there allways were these fights Pascal-fans vs C-fans.
I was pascal-fan, but then I got error message in pascal "Code segment too large" and I couldn't do anything with that, so I had to go to C++. Now I like them both. So fice, Im with you too. And I dont like M$

err: you surely have some crackers group somewhere near you, and they should have a Delphi in their list, so get it from them. Its the easiest way

Ant · « **Reply #45 on:** 2001-09-11 15:18:00 »

Doesn't everyone think that its pretty cool how most C compilers are written in C.

Poses the question "What came first, C or the C compiler?"

..Joke

ficedula · « **Reply #46 on:** 2001-09-11 15:34:00 »

IIRC Delphi is written in Delphi

The SaiNt · « **Reply #47 on:** 2001-09-11 15:52:00 »

Obviously the first compiler cannot come before the language itself

dagsverre · « **Reply #48 on:** 2001-09-11 17:34:00 »

Today's Java JIT compilers actually produce code that can be faster than C++ (with exceptions turned on and ALL functions declared virtual, that is) because JIT makes sure it is compile natively for the processor (like, if you have a P4 it will actually use all those exotice instructions...)

However, I don't like Java as a language because it's quite inflexible compared to C++. And it isn't really more pure OO than C++ either, for REAL OO one should look to Smalltalk, Ruby and the like...

About binary compilers: Back in the old days people could write something in Fortran, compile it, and then if something was wrong they'd change it directly in binary rather than recompile...resulting in a complete mess of course, that's why there's still stories about it...

To do basic cracking one has to know about it anyway...changing 0x74 to 0x75 to change "if" to "if not" (or was it the other way around) is a trusted trick to get around shareware programs (in other words, you change the test to "if not registered" instead of "if registered" and get full access).

Ant · « **Reply #49 on:** 2001-09-11 17:42:00 »

Thats cool Dag,

Do you know of any actual programs where that works?

Author Topic: programming??? (Read 20658 times)

Anonymous