I used VB 6 a while ago before I started learning some real languages. However, I still can't get over how much easier it was to make GUI applications in VB, despite how much the language itself sucked. Window toolkits for other languages are horrible to use and rarely come with a real visual editor - Tk sucks ass, Swing sucks ass, win32 API in C is either a pain in the ass or I can't figure out a good way to do it...
I haven't tried MFC or any .NET shit yet. How the hell do people write real Windows apps? Should I try something else?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-14 22:04
C# supposedly makes it easy to do...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-14 23:27
Flash ;P
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 3:18
QT or GTK+
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 17:47
C# is easier than the WinAPI. Not that that's saying much...
I'd steer clear of MFC in general, but that's just me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 17:53
All toolkits suck. If you want to program guis without getting the urge to rip your guts out you want a visual editor. GNUStep has recently released Gorm, which fits the bill.
Nobody writes desktop apps anymore anyway, it's more fun to write web apps - not least because you get a decent language specifically for writing guis (HTML + CSS in case you didn't figure it out). Hopefully one day the desktop will become completely irrelevant and no one will have to worry about shitty shitty toolkits anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 13:06
did any of you use e17? it has a separate language for gui logic and i find it very interesting.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 15:46
>>7
I've heard lots of talk about e17. I guess I'll have to have a look at it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 17:42
e17 has been in the work for what, six years now?
The EFL could be godly, but this late in the game, I doubt they'll ever get any penetration.
That's not much different from what they said about Python about five-ten years ago, you know. "Sounds good, but it's too slow. It'll never be useful..." It just doesn't matter if they take their time on an open-source project - if it becomes useful, it'll be a success.
The Reiser series also took years and years to develop.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 20:17
>>9
people seem to be interested in it. so it's not exactly 'this late in the game' the existing guis aren't that great.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 20:48
MitScheme w/ Win32 Gtk
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 21:05
More liek MzScheme with MrEd. Still a shitty toolkit, but slightly less shitty than others since you have the power of Scheme to back you up.
>>6 you get a decent language specifically for writing guis
May I mention Mozilla's XUL, an even more GUI-oriented simple language (an XML language) using CSS for styling and JavaScript for GUI logic and client-end logic if you so desire, connected against a server via SOAP or similar, or compiled together with Gecko and your program if you're l33t enough to figure how (I'm not, don't ask how).
>>16
Just stop being a stupid fanboy and realize GUI applications, even those who were ported and run on GTK, are faster and more stable on Windows.
>>1
C#.NET is worth trying if you like VB6. Very similar look and feel of the VB6 editor. You still have the ability to drag and drop components and hook on event functions for quick and easy development as you could in VB6. A good plus is that the generated code for hooking the events is not totally hidden from the programmer so you can look at/alter the generated code as you see fit.
Due to the design for the .Net framework, with a common intermediate language (CIL or IL) that all code compiles too for execution in .NET, there are many languages you can develop in. C# and VB.NET are the 2 main languages and they, mostly, differ only in the syntax they use, that is to say in terms of what functionality you can program they are almost identical. So the VB.NET language provides the feel of VB6 syntaxially but removes the limitations that made VB6 awkward/sucked/limited. Might be worth noting VB.NET and C#.NET both use garbage collection (as Java and VB6 do).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-04 13:53
One thing to note about the whole multi language thing in .NET. As an individual, you might not care about it, managers might think it's bad (zomg no standardized convolution-I mean langauge!), but the OTHER developers who will be using the code you write DO find it a godsend. Likewise, you'll discover just how useful it is when you have to work with third-party code and libraries.
Name:
ihavenoname2005-12-26 4:04
omg i haven't even learned vb yet
i'm a failure
*sigh* and only 4 more years till i have to get a job
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-26 19:03
Don't worry, you can't get a good job with VB.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-27 14:09
Don't worry, VB is easy
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-27 23:50
Don't worry, VB is actually looked down upon by serious programmers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 5:57
Don't worry, VB's syntax sucks and it's like the disadvantages of a scripting language without the advantages of a scripting language, but you can indeed get a joob with it and it's indeed easy to learn.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 7:00
Don't worry, VB jobs are out there but learning it sure is alot of work just to get paid minimum wage.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 14:17
You don't need to learn VB to get a job programming it. I went to an interview for a VB job and told them the same thing I told them in my application letter: that I didn't know VB. They hired me, and I learned the so-called language in the week before I was due to start. I'd rather be using a better language, but we've all gotta start somewhere.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-31 11:39
VB.NET is C# with irritatingly verbose syntax and a very slightly different feature-set.
On the plus side, it's not nearly the joke that VB6 and prior were. On the minus side, it's still VB.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 14:10
Why Why Why doesnt VB just die!!?!!
When it first came out i thought it would just be like the language beginners learn but now you find nearly every job application asking for it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 17:53
>>30
VB would never have existed in the first place if Bill Gates weren't a 3rd rate programmer who happened to know BASIC.
I love job applications that list VB as a requirement. Those are the jobs that I know I don't want, because they're in corporate departments catering to moronic management who doesn't understand how software development works. AKA, DOOOOOOOOOMED project factories.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 0:18
>>31 speaks truth
Bill Gates is much better at "marketing" than "programming" which kinds of explains his success and why all of you so called "good" programmers are treated like shit at your workplace. What are you idiots gonna do anyways? LOL
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 21:20
I'm more of a web programmer.. and i've been using asp.net written with vb.net and C# for quite abit.. been touching more Object and more object stuff..
Someone list out of language so i can research on them..
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates actually didn't really know about it until it was shown to him by engineers. I recall a story where they showed it to him for the first time and he exclaimed something like "This will change how applications are made!"
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 11:05
>>35
Incorrect. Gates and Allen first went into business writing buggy BASIC interpreters for various platforms.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 12:54
>>36
speaks truth.
BASIC IS WHAT STARTED IT ALL. AAHAhahahahahAHAHAHAH MICROSHAFT INDEED
Name:
joe2006-01-09 20:05
fuck the GUI
go Turbo Pascal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 21:48
Be a man and use objective C.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 5:43 (sage)
Be a heterosexual man and use plain C.
Name:
Sakamura2006-01-17 19:00
Java
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 5:33 (sage)
>>41
He said language, not money sucking consultancy.
Name:
gir2006-01-18 20:54
Learn Pascal for a month because its easy, no longer because no one uses it anymore. Then C because its a beautiful language and Java, PHP, Javascript, Actionscript, C++, C#, and many more other languages are based on it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 21:02
try visual basic.net or visual c#.net, using visual studio 2005
they have a similar interface to VB for making GUI apps, and a better language
.Net is a completely different platform - VB.Net is almost source compatible with but not an extension from VB6. So STFU you uneducated simpleton.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 8:15
>>1 You raise an interesting problem. My guess is you want a "better VB". That is a language which is just as good at the things VB is good at, and doesn't have as many of the warts... Well... it turns out that for a particular set of problems (simple little gui apps) VB is better in some areas. So unless you find that you can't do the things you want to in it I doubt you will find another language which you are happy with.
Languages don't all try to solve the same problems. As I said before, VB isn't that bad for simple gui apps. The pain comes when you want to create a bunch of custom widgets to make the display look really nice. Or when you need to build up complex data structures with intresting interactions. Or when things are just too slow. Or threading... The list goes on and on.
I suggest that if you are serious about trying other languges you first work out what you don't like about VB and what kinds of things you would be prepared to live without. If you aren't ready to learn a new way of doing things, and new types of programs that you can create, then don't even bother going over.
You'll end up getting pissed off and going back to VB while complaining to everyone that all the other platforms suck and VB is so much better than everything else.
Visual Studio.net's implementation of VB is actually pretty cool.
Unlike VB6 which isn't truely an object-oriented program language (Let's face it. It's not. Don't fucking argue.), VB.net makes everything so much easier. Not only that, but it is far superior to VB6 in almost every way, and might actually be a programming language worth being called a programming language.
...But if you're cool, you'll go with C++, C#, or Java.
VB.net and C# are pretty much on a par with each other. Each has a couple areas of functionality that the other doesn't, it's true. But when it comes to commonly used functionality, they've both go it.
Of course, C# is the more experimental language, with Anders Hejlsburg at the head, and I find its terser syntax vastly preferable to VB's verbosity.
>>58
You must love bloatware and be a stupid microsoft user
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 1:34
>>59
You must whine "GPL" until software becomes free and be a homosexual linux user.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 2:42
70mb? isn't that the size of xemacs?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 9:57
>>60
ROFL... Nope, I'm not from the GNAA either, I like BSD, MPL, etc., truly free licenses. [Hopes to start another license war] Oh and I use commercial software too, and my workstation OS of choice is Windows NT, if that helps. This has nothing to do with disliking stupidly bloated useless shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 16:19
>>62
Are you trying to imply that the GNAA is against Free software? They are not, they release all their spam tools under Free licenses.
You may mock, but having BASIC interpreters built into home computers of the 80s was what set them apart from games consoles and initiated the programming industry as we know it today.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 6:52
Where did you guys get 70mb from? The .Net redistributable 2.0 is 22.4 MB.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 9:09
>>66
after decompression, maybe?
the JRE is like 9 mb but expands to 100+ mb "for speed purposes" lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 9:47
After programming both for a couple of years, I much prefer c#/.net to java. It just seems cleaner and better thought out, you know?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 21:39
>>68
That's what we in fuck industry call "second mover advantage". Still, C# is nice and with a Free (as in freedom) implementation around too. Unlike javur.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 5:31
>>69
Sun had 10 years and many oppurtunities to fix Java. They chose to fuck it up more instead. Even with a chance to learn from C#, they choose to keep fucking up. These days, Sun is just a company that relies on spam marketing big numbers (zomg!!!1!!1oneone 64 cores!!!!!!), drumming up publicity on pointless things (google toolbar, WTF. You can get that without any shit smeared on it, thank you very much.), assaulting sites with comment spam on their 'awesomeness' (guess they did learn something from JBoss), smearing shit all over java.net, trying to get free labour and then stealing all your work, and screaming "choice, choice, choice" on said spam marketing outlets, despite the fact that 90% of decision makers simply do not give a fuck unless your company is about to tank. Oh wait, maybe that's a sign that Sun IS about to tank.
Fact: Vendor independence and "choice" is the absolute lowest priority for the overwhelming majority of companies. For one thing, they know where they'll end up buying all the support from anyway, even years later. They've also been burned enough times by Java's marketing bullshit that they know better.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 6:06
Sun always says how productive and fast Java is.
Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you lack.
Technically, Java is an overgeneralized, overengineered piece of bloat, and its strict, strong OO bites.
>>42
What are you talking about? Consultancy is the bomb, literally. You cash in, getting paid to give your _advice_, and watch others bomb when they ignore it.
>>71
Strong OO bites????? Would you rather have super strong typing? Like ML? *ick*
I'd rather have strong OO or at least a language that opens additional features only when needed (raises a C++ flag)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 22:34 (sage)
Strong OO versus strong typing?
It's clear >>73 doesn't know what he's talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 4:58
>>73
More like you watch every stupid management sucker follow everything you say turning their project into an underperforming, overbudget, late-running piece of shit while you flail around making excuses like "OO, platform independence, best practices and other stupid shit".
The majority of consultants are full of shit. The majority of those also happen to promote Java. I propose an object type specified to distinctly cater for them; this type will be called "Jackass".
A decent technical consultant will understand the problem first, then can and will explain the practical benefits, cavaets and implications of doing something without having to resort to marketing handwaving like best practice, vendor independence, MVC, more OO and other bullshit. Pro-Java consultants love to ignore the problem and just start shitting their bullshit around with no clue what their talking about. Lines like (true story), "JBoss isn't an appserver, just EJB, you still need <our service here>" Hey, dipshit! This JBoss Application Server thing sitting in front of us must be just our imagination then!
Just because C++'s type checking blows goats doesn't make it not strongly typed
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 12:23
No language which allows arbitrary casting can be considered strongly typed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 12:30
>>75
| "JBoss isn't an appserver, just EJB, you still need <our service here>"
I'm going to add something else here: while JBoss did start out as just an EJB container, it grew into a complete appserver. This highlights yet another problem with most Java fanatics- their knowledge is stuck in the past. They just plain never fucking learn anything anymore, the world just passes them by. I constantly meet people who have absolute NFI that there are other collection classes besides Vector.
Sun likes to tout how their certifications never expire as an advantage over the MS ones. I think it's a fucking good idea that MS forcibly expires your certs after a few years; forces the bozos who rely on pieces of paper, to stay reasonably up to date. Maybe if you beat it into their heads enough times they'll learn.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 13:37
>>80
Which definition of strongly-typed are we talking about here?
We're also talking about a supposedly OO language here...whose base type is not object
In computer science and computer programming, the term strong typing is used to describe how programming languages handle datatypes. The antonym is weak typing. However, these terms have been given such a wide variety of meanings over the short history of computing that it is often difficult to know what an individual writer means by using them.
Programming language expert Benjamin C. Pierce has said:
"I spent a few weeks... trying to sort out the terminology of "strongly typed," "statically typed," "safe," etc., and found it amazingly difficult.... The usage of these terms is so various as to render them almost useless."
Most generally, "strong typing" implies that the programming language or implementation enforces some kind of constraints upon programs, preventing them from running code which uses data in an invalid way. For instance, an integer addition operation may not be used upon strings; a procedure which operates upon linked lists may not be used upon numbers. However, the nature and strength of these constraints is highly variable.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 10:30
Constraints aren't always useful, and unavoidable constarints are often a pain in the ass. You don't want to shoot your foot when programming. I find particularly disturbing how Java bitches when you assign 0 to a short. Holy fuck.
I think flexibility and expressivity are more important than being full of constraints if you're a good coder. And if one must cope with constraints, at least I want a "SHUT THE FUCK UP I KNOW LOL" per call switch to silent all exceptions and system warnings, like PHP's @ .
Why does it complain when you assign 0 to a short? Surely that is within range?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 12:42
do you guys even know what constraints are lol because this doesn't appear to be the case
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 13:57
>>85
Because it's a fag, of course it's within range, but OMG integer literals are int. Stupid compiler.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 15:15
Funny. My javac doesn't seem to have that problem.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-04 23:36
I haven't seen that in javac. It does complain when I implicitly downcast int or double, though, and it's an error, so it still makes them unusable. And it doesn't optimize 'a++; a++;'!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 6:05
>>88 >>89
That happened three years ago when I was checking Java out and decided it's not cool, maybe it doesn't happen anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 7:22
And it doesn't optimize 'a++; a++;'
Who cares? How can you even tell?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 10:04
>>91 Who cares?
Everybody in his/her right mind. It's an optimization a compiler could do without hurting development time or any other side effect, so it's an optimization you want done.
How can you even tell?
Very simple profiling.
Name:
Malevolyn2006-02-05 11:51
Use wxWindows and Dev-C++ for Windowed apps. Really easy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-05 12:51
Profiling? Let's talk about bytecode.public class Foo
{
int f(int x)
{
x++;
x++;
return x;
}
int g(int x)
{
x++;
int y = x;
y++;
int z = y;
return z++;
}
}
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 14:42
>>94
Of course it's lazy, Sun especially asked that all Java compilers should NOT optimize anything at all. Everything is optimized during the JIT compilation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 17:32
Everything is optimized during the JIT compilation.
That's not exactly bright.
If you think about it, a compiler is also just an optimization. So why load everything on the JIT?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-08 18:12
Sun especially asked that all Java compilers should NOT optimize anything at all.
Yet another retarded idea from Sun.
The JIT runs in the client every fucking time. Instead of spending 50 extra seconds in the development machine when compiling the release version, Sun makes users spend 1 extra second each, making the program look less responsive and lamer. If you have 1000 users that use your application 10000 times each, and that's not much really, this means Sun has wasted nearly four months of humanity's time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 8:15
It's worth noting that I do vaguely recall something about some optimization switches in javac (back when I had to deal with the horror).
So some form of optimization can go on during compilation. Does >>95 know what they're talking about (aka, links proving this, please).
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 8:40 (sage)
99
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 8:40
100GET!
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-09 10:13
>>95 >>96 >>97 >>98
If you go by anything said by those who signed their rights away to look at Sun's JVM source code, it's an extraordinary pile of junk.
Although it could just be a ploy for Sun to go "looks like you need more memory, hur hur! We gots some right here!" Have you seen the fucking prices Sun sells memory at?
A pre-JIT compiler (e.g. javac, csc) is supposed to reduce the work the JIT has to do to make its final compilation decision, NOT MORE. Static compilers have infinitely more time to make a decision, while the JIT has more current data.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-23 17:28 (sage)
If you know nothing, start with QB to get some basics down =P