Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

looking for new language [cringes]

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:14

i'm looking for a new language.. but there are some things i need it to have. i come from a procedural basic - vb background, so

1. i want a nice IDE.

2. i can probably deal with a more 'interesting' language - complexity isn't really an issue as long as it's within reasonable grounds.

2. default XP theming, something vb6 does not have.

3. compiles to win32 and does not require any framework larger than a few megs (.net, java are out).

4. money is no issue.

i've got nothing on for the next month or so, so i can put in time learning things too. i just need some suggestions as to what would be good in my situation.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:30

1. Notepad.
2. C is interesting
2. C  uses the default XP theme
2. C helps you with counting skills
3. C does not require a ``framework,'' only ENTERPRISE LEVEL languages require ``framework''s
4. Notepad is free

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:44

>>1
1. Allegro Common Lisp
2. Then you'll like Common Lisp.
2. You're on thin ice already, what with wanting an IDE. Don't push it, mister.
3. Useless.
4. Free version, professional versions.

Unlike C, you'll learn something.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:44

Learn Common Lisp and Haskell. For XP theming, use the wxWidgets library. For the IDE, emacs for Common Lisp is all you need, Haskell (GHC) comes with its own, or alternatively just use Eclipse and get the appropriate packages.
Also read SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:45

Anyone notice how >>1 has two ``Point 2''s?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:54

The answer is emacs.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:56

>>5
I invented using two ``Point 2''s.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:56

Haha, so awesome how people always recommend those esoteric toy languages to others who OBVIOUSLY aren't interested in theory but more in getting stuff done, which is near impossible in anything /prog/ usually suggests.

Trolls or just plain idiots, you decide.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 16:59

>>6 >>8
The answer is plain idiots.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:00

>>5
Anyone notice how both >>2 and >>3 mentioned it?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:00

The plain is idiot answer.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:03

>>4
How dare you recommend Emacs to an undeserving GUIfag like >>1?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:19

>>12
I'm a troll.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:20

>>4

Eclipse? Eww, java.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:22

>>13
Oh, sorry. Carry on, then.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:30

VB? First you'll have to learn to forget everything you learned about "programming" (lol).

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:31

>>16
At least OP hasn't been spending his time getting brainwashed by Ctards.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:35

protip: a language is none of the things you listed in the OP

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:43

well, ideally, the new vb would compile to w32 and there'd be no issue. unfortunately, it doesn't, and there is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:43

>>18
2. i can probably deal with a more 'interesting' language - complexity isn't really an issue as long as it's within reasonable grounds.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 17:58

delphi compiles for w32 or .net

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 18:29

>>21
same thing.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 19:16

>>22
in this case, no they're not, .net needs massive framework, w32 doesn't, as .net only compiles to intermediary language to be compiled on runtime. so, .net produces .net code only whereas a w32 compiler produces w32 code.

although, they are the same thing in that the .net is compiled at runtime into w32 code [at the expense of massive memory usage and varying performance]

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 19:44

>>1

Tough call. I was looking for something similar a while ago and came up blank. So I used C++ in the meantime.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 20:20

>>24
That's a pretty massive fail you've got there.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 20:50

>>23
IIRC, Vista comes with the .NET redistributable already installed.  And arguably, C/C++ have their own massive runtime libraries already installed too. So there's really no difference whether you use the already installed .NET runtimes or the C/C++ runtimes.

Also, your "language" requirements are just plain stupid. inb4 YHBT YHL HAND.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 21:46

.net is clumsy and slow. solution; delphi.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 22:17

I still prefer using C++ and Python and lots of other languages for my leet haxx

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-12 22:33

massive framework? as people have already mentioned, it's all fucking built in, it's transparent. why do you fucking care about not using .net?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 0:52

>>27
Delphi is clumsy and slow. Use JavaScript.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:06

>>30
Javascript is clumsy and slow, use VB

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:16

>>31
VB is slow and clumsy, use LISP.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:18

LISP is slow and clumsy, use LISP

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:19

LISP is slow and clumsy, use LISP

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:19

LISP is slow and clumsy, use LISP

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:20

LISP is slow and clumsy, use LISP

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:20

Recursion is slow and clumsy, use recursion.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:32

Recursion is slow and clumsy, use recursion.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:33

Slow is recursion and recursion, use clumsy.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-13 2:34

Recursion is recursion and recursion, use recursion.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -