1  2  |   Order by index

Sep 28, 2004, 7:06pm

[View Quote] > Im just sure I got told by someone with a Ph. D about a day ago that VB was
> a good language to develop in for single-project apps.

No, it's only advantage is rapid development. As with all languages,
there are things that can be done faster, bug testing is your friend,
yadda yadda. VB should not be used as a catch all though, just because
a person with a docterate said so.

I would recommend Python before VB. As always, portability comes before
everything else.

Java, C, C++, Python, PASCAL (I think?)

If you know what you're doing, Java is easier than VB. Doesn't let you
get away with shitty coding though.

But if you need to deploy bug-laden programs in a few days worth of
time, VB is the way to go. To the max.

Sep 28, 2004, 7:13pm

Well thats fine by me because the same guy is teaching us Java, C, C++ and
ASM.

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 1:20am

[View Quote] > Well thats fine by me because the same guy is teaching us Java, C, C++ and
> ASM.

ASM is not portable.

Sep 29, 2004, 6:17am

Hi everyone:

[View Quote] Also, what will become with DSTV if you don't renew Ry?

Cheers for now everyone :-)

PC

Sep 29, 2004, 9:05am

ya know what... i honestly dont care :)

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 2:24pm

So you think that Windows is always sufficient in the computing world? BS.

[View Quote] > ya know what... i honestly dont care :)
>
> - MR
>
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 2:33pm

Of course not, but its very good for a majority of things.. C++ is sufficent
for everything.

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 3:25pm

And C++ is entirely portable and widely used in both commercial and open
source envoronments.

Not that the two are mutually exclusive...

[View Quote] > Of course not, but its very good for a majority of things.. C++ is sufficent
> for everything.
>
> - MR
>
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 4:17pm

[View Quote] Only portable to the extent of the standard; anything else added in may
or may not be portable.

Sep 29, 2004, 4:35pm

Uhh why isn't ASM portable?

John

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 5:26pm

[View Quote] Different operating systems, different processors.

Sep 29, 2004, 6:36pm

in other words its utterly pointless going for total compatability because
it simply aint gonna happen.

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 6:54pm

[View Quote] Java bytecode.

Sep 29, 2004, 6:58pm

Hmmm good one... but that would need a compiler to interpret it correctly,
so doesnt exec directly unless you compiled it to an EXE... hence losing the
compat.

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2004, 7:06pm

[View Quote] > Hmmm good one... but that would need a compiler to interpret it correctly,
> so doesnt exec directly unless you compiled it to an EXE... hence losing the
> compat.

So install an intepreter. The bytecode itself is portable as long as
you have the correct version of the interpreter installed. You can move
it from one machine to the other without having to recompile it, which
is as portable as it gets.

Sep 29, 2004, 7:48pm

And slow...

- MR

[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2004, 12:51am

[View Quote] > And slow...

Python might be another language of choice, then, if speed is a major
concern over extreme portability.

1  2  |   Order by index