Re: Pure basic: has anyone ever heard of, or used it?
@frastlin: You may have to wait quite a while.
Or you could get a Mac, and learn Swift.
Unix is written mostly in C. In fact, C was designed for implementing Unix.
You can learn C and C++ incrementally. Learn C so that you know what that language provides. Then learn C++ so you know what that provides (objects, exceptions, templates, runtime dynamic allocation, first-class functions, all that jazz). You'll also be able to use all these nice well-written implementations for useful things like strings, algorithms, structures, etc. like a proper industrialist. But you've got to start somewhere.
@camlorn: I guess we'll have to see how portable your librar
y ends up being. That's the real test; as soon as you discover that some "Unspecified" behaviour in STL makes a subtle difference to the way your library behaves depending on the compiler in use, or a helpful exception right in the middle of a stack unwind leaves you with no option but to abort hard, you've hit the nail of dangerous abstractions on the head.
I did take a brief look at C++ 11, but the only takeaway from it that I got that really mattered was that the C++ committee has clearly decided to please all the industrial and academic types with even more bewildering levels of syntax sugar to support the very latest language features, and that some of the best bits of Boost had been pulled in to make the language slightly more portable. Progress! One of these days I'll sit down and try to actually figure it out, but right now I'm not convinced you actually require C++ for anything; by the time you've turned off all the dangerous and/or unpredictable bits you're back where you started, basically C with a few more syntactical conveniences, and a few nice standard library routines. Not to say you can't use them if you really are careful, just that again, for some folk, it doesn't warrant the use of C++. We can certainly agree that C/C++ is more mainstream than PureBasic though, but of course by itself that's no reason not to use it, either. For me, it's clear why I use C, but if "C but prettier" is what people want, why not let them have it? Tcl is "C but prettier" too (actually, Tcl 8.6 finally introduced OO, but you can easily leave it out if you choose) and I use that, irrespective of popularity.
As to my comment about Python evolving into Java: the primary argument given by Pythonistas seems to me to be that Java encourages "Cookbook" design, by providing
all the libraries for every conceivable use case. Well, just look at Python 3 and the enormously expanded base classes. It's not Java yet, but it must soon turn into it. As you said there are market forces at work, and yes, the runtime is really slowing down. This is bad for server applications, so they'd better work on it.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
