bc9Basic (bc9Basic)
It probably doesn't qualify as it is a translator maintained by me.
As a BASIC coder for almost 40 years I LIKE BASIC syntax but realize the real power is in c++ so .....
James
bc9Basic (bc9Basic)
It probably doesn't qualify as it is a translator maintained by me.
As a BASIC coder for almost 40 years I LIKE BASIC syntax but realize the real power is in c++ so .....
James
Nope. cfanatic logic statement will still hold. C + WinAPI < VB.NetOriginally Posted by Elkvis
The windows Native API (which isn't WinAPI) does in fact pose a problem for many of its functions. But it's more productive to simply write a C wrapper around the functions you need to use and then just get your VB.Net to access that wrapper dll.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
yes, but that makes it necessary to abandon "pure" VB. developing in pure VB, accessing a native library is possible, but it is cumbersome and inconvenient. C#'s native library calling mechanism is only slightly less inconvenient.
What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
It's got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?
When you said native library I assumed you meant the Native Windows API. Not the WinAPI. Those functions are indeed usually inaccessible to .Net and either require a C wrapper, while others are simply impossible to be implemented.
The WinAPI itself (or any other external DLL) is rather easy to access otherwise and I don't fully understand what you mean by being cumbersome or inconvenient as opposed to C or C++ own woes when dealing with the WinAPI, which is known for its horrid names and convoluted libraries. The .Net P/Invoke is a rather simple and intuitive mechanism, while the MarshalAsAttribute under System.Runtime.InteropServices easily takes care of any type conversion if required.
I don't know of any language that hasn't to jump through hoops to make use of the WinApi. Any anedoctal evidence you may bring isn't evidence enough, because for each you come up with, I can probably come up with another than demonstrates the easy of use of P/Invoke and the MarshalAs attribute.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Python.
I have found that with C, Python, and a little bit of shell scripting, I have no conceivable need for anything else.
Code:while(!asleep) { sheep++; }
That was my attitude for a while: C for serious things or things that needed speed, Python for everything else.
Change that first selection to C++ and I'm in total agreement.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
C#. I detest that all my code is in one file and that I have to abuse DLLs and use them as interface headers at times but other than those and a few other minor quibbles I enjoy using the language.
Python as well.
But I do love C
Of course, I like C, but it doesn't come with a life jacket.
I like Python as well, but it's syntax is a little tight.
I started to learn language with C but when came to learn about Java, i got in love with Java. Java is much easy than C or C++ but C is still a native language for Java or others.
What I really love about Java is that, well, it reminds me of my favorite beverage. That's about it though...
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Let me add that I enjoy any language that has made me money.
