Author Topic: SDK and BASIC  (Read 490 times)

John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
SDK and BASIC
« on: 10. January 2017, 05:25:15 »
Quote from: Josť Roca
Paul and I have also adaptaed to it quikly because we are also SDK programmers. We like to use compilers that allow us to program the way we want, instead of becoming "gadget" users.
I think that most DDTer's will remain using PowerBASIC, and the ones that will switch, will choose another compiler like Pure Basic with many "gadgets". Anything but learning SDK proramming.

I would have thought Josť would have got it by now that BASIC programmers want to program in BASIC not C which is what he is referring as SDK programmers.

John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #1 on: 11. January 2017, 03:52:36 »
Q. I'm curious if you have experimented with COM outside VB6?

Q. Do you prefer a BASIC that requires knowledge of the Windows API to be useful?

Q. What language do you use on a regular basis to get your tasks done?



John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #2 on: 11. January 2017, 08:05:49 »
Quote from: Petrus Vorster - PlanetSquires
Most of the DDt'ers , like myself have no choice but to stick with Powerbasic at the moment.
Only a handful of them has the skills to join the SDK brigade, who is regretfully centuries ahead in programming.
Its not nice to admit that I don't always catch much of the stuff you sometimes discuss, but those gadgets, bells and whistles that came with useful tools like Firefly made "reasonable" programming accessible to many of us, or else i probably would still be using an abacus.

All we bunch of gadget dependents can do right now is pray Paul comes up with a new firefly for FB with all JosŤ's latest Cwindow developments and gadgets.
Lol, its much easier to drive a car and drive it well than having to design and build it first if you know what i mean.

ZXDunny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #3 on: 11. January 2017, 16:58:32 »
Q. I'm curious if you have experimented with COM outside VB6?

Yes, used it a lot in various projects. COM absolutely stinks.

Quote
Q. Do you prefer a BASIC that requires knowledge of the Windows API to be useful?

I prefer a BASIC that requires no knowledge of any APIs in order to perform any task you care to try.

Quote
Q. What language do you use on a regular basis to get your tasks done?

Delphi/FPC, Visual Studio C++/GCC, XCode Obj-C.
 

John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #4 on: 11. January 2017, 20:16:16 »
Quote
Yes, used it a lot in various projects. COM absolutely stinks.

Okay, does COM stink more than .NET?

I see COM as Office glue and other popular Windows library interfaces. (PDF, Crystal Reports, QuickBooks, ...)



« Last Edit: 11. January 2017, 20:19:40 by John »

ZXDunny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #5 on: 13. January 2017, 12:13:45 »
Quote
Yes, used it a lot in various projects. COM absolutely stinks.

Okay, does COM stink more than .NET?

I see COM as Office glue and other popular Windows library interfaces. (PDF, Crystal Reports, QuickBooks, ...)

.NET is a better framework than COM, without a doubt. COM was just painful to use inside other languages, whereas .NET is an entire platform. That doesn't mean that .NET is worthwhile - it's not. It's still slower than native code (though coming close these days) assuming your native code is also managed, which is rarely worth the bother.

I prefer C++ tbh, and that's saying something.

John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: SDK and BASIC
« Reply #6 on: 13. January 2017, 18:59:45 »
The biggest problem I have with Windows 64 bit is if you follow Microsoft's direction with .NET and CLR, everything before it and what built the company and its following is lost.

I`m too old to start over with Microsoft`s new directions.
« Last Edit: 13. January 2017, 23:05:35 by John »