![]() This version also uses the free community edition of Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 to create the dll plugins for the Xojo programming language. ![]() The new packaging of xojo plugins are shown and the older rbx extensions should no-longer be created. The second version contains many examples with the fundamentals, Module, Classes, and Controls. The first version of this book was an introduction and is out-of-date. Program Plugins with Xojo on Windows* is a complete rewrite of the previous book. ![]() The end result is not ambiguous and not one size fits all.Version 2.0 (April 2015) of the book *I Wish I Knew How to. You pick the best fit, clear up some of the ambiguity and iterate towards a final solution. It quickly responds pointing out key ambiguities in your requirements (compile errors) and giving you several possible solutions ranked by how AI matches them with your requirements. Perhaps not as vague as some of the questions raised on this forum You give it your rather vague requirements. Imagine an AI that can communicate in, say, English, but has a vast data store and high speed brute force processing power. I think that is analogous to how computer languages might develop. I can spend more time concentrating on the program rather than the syntax. Now I throw in pretty scrappy code, get the compiler results back instantly, and then tidy up the errors. When I started programming I wrote my code with great attention to detail, making sure every character was correct, just because it took so long to get the results back from a compile. That is absolutely perfect for calculations, production line control and so on where you can precisely specify the problem but that is not always easy to do. It is our current programming languages that really only deliver "one size fits all" results. Or just the same old same old as one size fits all. Hope you're going to be happy with ambiguous results then. Don't expect garbage to turn into anything but garbage.Īgreed Garbage In Garbage Out, but if the input is valid then there can be several different ways to process it and get useful output. He wrote that if you want to get a program right, you write it twice and throw the first one away and that Pascal was his first effort, Modula addressed what he saw as flaws in Pascal though I can't say that my dislikes are his, for all I know Modula may be even more rigid than Pascal. Funny thing is that Nick Wirth wrote in Byte that Pascal should be thrown out for Modula 2. To me it's more than a little 'retentive' in a strait-jacket sort of way. Better to me languages supported what I wanted right down to the fundamental ways they worked as opposed to using support features added-on. I had to code it like that and get around basic itself to do what I wanted. The basic I know and loath has nothing like C structures. If some people tried and failed to implement what they didn't understand so well, that is hardly judgement on the what. Properly used, forth is very easy to write right from the start just on how forth words are defined. The work went fast, the system and apps were solid. I learned forth in 83-84 and got work writing forth in 88-89. ![]() I didn't get paid to write C until 1992 and that was C++ which is C enhanced to something else. Well this elitist wrote basic for money and at times not from 1980 clear to 1999 counting support for work earlier started. You can of course find lots of scenarios where BASIC would be a really poor choice. I've even rescued a couple projects by starting again in BASIC, after some snob of a developer decided it was below them and blew the budget.įor any number high level, limited scope tasks, where BASIC or some BASIC like language, is a better choice than the alternatives. If I need to test a plain text network protocol (mail servers, DNS etc), I'm probably going to use BASIC. If I want a bespoke UI for a SCPI control interface, I am probably going to use BASIC. ![]() If I want to quickly knock up an interface for a SQL backend, I'm probably going to use BASIC. If the only others you know are RPG and Cobol then sure, Basic is just great!Įlitest claptrap. The 'best' language is the one that best fits the requirements. You would need to define, "better." Programming languages are a tool. How many people do you know who choose Basic when they know a better language? It is fit for people who don't know better. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |