1  2  |   Order by index

May 30, 2002, 7:49pm

you mean to say: you 'can' type in vb, but you also can not.
to 'dim as' is optional

"kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in
news:Xns921EBB80A78B8kahatkahnewsdotcjbdo at 64.94.241.201:

> Note that VB *does* have typing, but it also has a type called
> Variant, which does not have typing, and it is considerably slower
> than a variable declared as a specific type, all serious VB
> programmers keep well at distance from it.
>
> KAH

May 31, 2002, 7:49am

I had to reset my OE cache to get chop at this (which had to be done)
because I couldn't decipher who said what in strike's post. I don't have any
comments on your bot, its the rant ... c'mon!!

Nothing nasty ... just information. If you (chazrad) don't read this then
fine, but you're getting stuff wrong and people are reading it. Not on
really.


> Or are you that incompetent to think that VB is an entity by itself and
> that the compiled exe contains all code necessary to run it?

Steady on tiger!

Just for the record, unless you've only seen a Standard Edition of VB, there
is are two main compilation options. P-Code is the old pre-VB5 method where
the "compiler" optimises the code at the highest level and then converts
that into a pseudo instruction set which is then interpretted at run-time by
the supplied libraries. These days, in the Pro and Enterprise Editions,
there is Native compilation for all code-based functions including memory
access and maths functions. The run-time libraries are still required for
app startup/shutdown, form and control handling and a number of the language
functions. However, the vast majority of the code is compiled into the
executable as machine instructions and the run-time calls are just execution
branch/returns.

>
> Or that that the VB distributables contain all the code to run your app?

Not quite sure what the focus of "distributable" is here. Naturally, being a
M$ product, VB is based on the MFC libraries, which are distributed as part
of an installation package. VB is a development platform for Windows ... so
it clearly needs windows. What is missing?

>
> Or that VB doesn't incur an enormous overhead because of it's lack of
> typing?
>
> Imagine the code necessary to check every time in a loop if the variable
> you give it is a char, word, double word and so on.

KAH's already stated this but VB is heavily typed ... just as much as any
language. The only difference is that the default data type for a variable
or a function return value if its not explicitly specified is the evil
VARIANT, which can hold most types of VB data (not user defined types though
I think) and it naturally carries with it a data type indicator. For
programmers that are either lazy or haven't had the experience from other
languages where typing is mandatory and developed the good habits required
for programming any language effectively, there will be a lot of variants
from non-declared variables and yes you'll get overheads. When you code
appropriately, there is none. This is always the one of the first things
VB-bashers throw up ... no data typing ... and its wrong. VB is a very typed
language with one "catch-all" exception. At the end of the day, its up to
the programmer to understand the tool and its pitfalls. You can force
declaration of all variables with one simple setting, so there is not excuse
for not declaring all variables and as a specific type.

>
> To have switch cases with open arrays instead of fixed words, try to
> write a parser that will arrange that for you maybe then you will
> realize the enormous price you pay for the userfriendlyness of basic.

There are equivalents in VB to managing char arrays (assuming that's what
you mean ... I struggled a bit) in C. No they're not as efficient, requiring
a function call to the run-time libraries (which will no doubt implement
exactly what you would do in C), but the code doesn't get any more
complicated and any cost in terms of performance really isn't as big as you
seem to believe. VB has switch equivalents, that are compiled to jump
tables, just like in C and any other language that supports them.

>
> I love basic, for it's ease of use, it let's me write a quick and dirty
> prototype of my idea. But to write a full blown enduser safe app in it?
> Not on my life. As easy as it lets me prototype it lets me f**k up an
> app in ways no debugger gets unrevelled in a 100 manhours.

See the paragraph on typing ... any further expression of my views on your
comments on this paragraph would almost certainly be construed as a flame
and that's not the point.

>
> For sure C++ is a pain the ass if you want to write something quickly,
> but for designing and maintaining serious software nothing beats it yet.

I don't think anyone has ever refuted that, but then I may have got bored
part way down a thread. BUT VB is used for both tactical and (to a much
lesser extent) strategic enterprise systems throughout the industry. Lefts
face it, for the most part bots are toys and there's no need to keep hacking
on VB when most people here just want to make bots.

>
> Furthermore don't forget most os's are written in C or C++ combined with
> assembly for a reason.

This is as irrelevant as the "AW isn't written in VB" remark before. Visual
Basic is described, by its manufacturers, as a development system for
Windows.

>
> If you want to slag someone do it well, or at least wait till you have
> seen the product, which i offer to you for a special price ;)

Totally agree! <cheeky grin>

>
> Enough, i've said my piece. I could really go on about this for hours
> because as most of the flamers i've seen sofar my knowledge is based on
> experience and not of selective reading of books.

Its a shame you take that view. You're not the only experienced programmer
here and some people are in a better position to judge certain technologies
than yourself. You don't know most of the people here and their background.
Its the irrational insistence on slating VB that gets a rise out of people
in the first place.

>
> Be happy with whatsoever, and anyday you want ot derise C

I definitely must've missed a post somewhere.

Grims.

May 31, 2002, 2:54pm

"chazrad" <petrossadeletethis at msn.com> wrote in news:3cf69e61
at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> you mean to say: you 'can' type in vb, but you also can not.
> to 'dim as' is optional

Yes, but any sane person will use it, and there is an option to force it
(Option Explicit). I program 3D in VB, so speed is important to me :-))

KAH

Oct 10, 2002, 9:03pm

Hey hey hey. Don't oversimplify. C/++ can be made as huge or small as the
owner has in power. VB is a set size. I guarantee you my C version of that
would be far smaller...

-J

[View Quote]

Oct 11, 2002, 3:30pm

"o0oiiijoshiiio0o" <joshua_trask at capecod.com> wrote in
news:3da60740$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Hey hey hey. Don't oversimplify. C/++ can be made as huge or small as
> the owner has in power. VB is a set size. I guarantee you my C version
> of that would be far smaller...

Don't reply to 5 month old threads, please :-)) And yes, I know one could
do a C version of that in no space, but that wasn't the point.

KAH

Oct 11, 2002, 6:29pm

Don't reply to people replying to 5 month old threads....Ignore them and everyone is happy..:) after all this is all just DejaMoo
"the feeling you've milked this cow before"

hehehe
Leo :)


[View Quote]

Oct 13, 2002, 7:43am

dont reply to replyies replying to 5 month old threads...im bored lol.

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index