🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Ross <pdetagyo@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu> wrote:

>By all means, avoid VB4 like the plague.  It is a 
>complete and utter piece of shit.

These are words I just *love* to read. Especially the shitty bit. Beautifull! In
fact, I even printed your article and put it on the desk of my boss, who
actually *likes* VB.


---
 Wilbert van Dolleweerd    "One fine day
 E-mail : wam@pi.net        The chaos subsides
          sardaukar@pi.net  Bleeds into awareness
 Tel: +31 412 630074        And a lifetime of surprise"

In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
>
>Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what 
>Java is.. I have heard the following:
>
>- Java is an interpreter for the JavaScript scripting language.
>
Sounds likely, but don't know.

>- Java produces p-code (or someting similar) for Internet Java browser to 
>interpret.
>
Pretty much.

>- Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is 
>C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance 
>object hierarchy.

Partly right.
>
>- Java is all of these
>
>All revelations gratefully received ....
>

I've read a bit on Java, haven't used it (yet).  My understanding is that Java, 
the language, is an object-oriented language much like C++ except lacking all 
the baggage, compromises, concessions, etc. of C++. Java compiles to bytecodes, 
p-code, that is interpreted (or otherwise used) by a *browser*.  But it could 
also be interpreted by a compiler on any system, yielding a native executable.

The main thing is that this thing is seriously portable! The user's machine is 
irrelevant, your program will run on anything that can run a suitable browser. 
Highly OO-able too.

I guess the idea being promoted is the ability to field active, interactive, 
animated www pages, and further, the promise of using needed software that you 
don't own, you just rent for a while.  But to me, the idea of a widely 
supported, good programming language is pretty exciting alone.

Ken

Ken Irving wrote:
> 
> In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
> >
> >Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what
> >Java is.. I have heard the following:
> >
> >- Java is an interpreter for the JavaScript scripting language.
> >
> Sounds likely, but don't know.

No.  JavaScript was originally Netscape's LiveScript.  Later, Netscape and Sun entered into some 
agreement (not sure of what form it was) to codevelop(?) JavaScript.  Although similar, they do 
differ in a number of ways.  Check comp.lang.java and comp.lang.javascript.  

> 
> >- Java produces p-code (or someting similar) for Internet Java browser to
> >interpret.
> >
> Pretty much.

Java produces platform independent bytecode.  It is then up to the end-"interpreter" to "finish"
the compile for the endmachine.

> 
> >- Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is
> >C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance
> >object hierarchy.
> 
> Partly right.
> >
> >- Java is all of these
> >
> >All revelations gratefully received ....
> >
> 
> I've read a bit on Java, haven't used it (yet).  My understanding is that Java,
> the language, is an object-oriented language much like C++ except lacking all
> the baggage, compromises, concessions, etc. of C++. Java compiles to bytecodes,
> p-code, that is interpreted (or otherwise used) by a *browser*.  But it could
> also be interpreted by a compiler on any system, yielding a native executable.

Correct, which makes debugging it wonderful :)

> 
> The main thing is that this thing is seriously portable! The user's machine is
> irrelevant, your program will run on anything that can run a suitable browser.
> Highly OO-able too.

I wonder how long it'll take before apps start talking to each other using some
derivative of Java across a heterogeneous network.  Would be interesting to see programs
become somewhat dynamic, uncaring of the end-machine.  Hrrrmmmmmmmmm


-- 
 /----------------------------------------------------------------------\
<> Stephan K. Zitz                  <>  My mind is my best friend...    <>
<> mailto:zitz@texas.net            <>  And my worst enemy.             <>
<> http://www.texas.net/~zitz       <>                                  <>
<>..................................<>..................................<>
<>  "Intelligence is the ultimate aphrodisiac" -- Timothy Leary         <>
 \----------------------------------------------------------------------/

In article <823335327.28831@williaj.demon.co.uk>, andrew@williaj.demon.co.uk 
says...
>
>hraiser@cloud9.net wrote:
>
>>Chung Hong (chungh@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>>: So what?  VB will still be a messed up mutated language with severe limits
>>: and incredibly frustrating to use, especially when compared with the other
>>: development tools out there like Delphi.  If you've used VB and Delphi 
both,
>>: you'd realize that VB has much deeper problems than what including a new
>>: VB-compiler will be able to resolve. 
>
>>  No compiler can compensate for a weak, cumbersome, limited language like
>>(Viusal) Basic.  Delphi has an excellent environment, but nothing on heaven
>>or Earth can make me go back to coding Pascal.  Smart money is on Latte,
>>Borland's upcoming Java based programming environment, based on the Delphi
>>front end.
>
>
>Isn't Java an interpreted language?

No, it's just implemented that way. There is nothing in the Java language 
definition that prevents compiling Java, and, in fact, a just-in-time compiler 
for Java can yield 2x-15x speed improvements.
	-- Pete

dump the stupid slobbish VISUAL BASIC!!! DOS rules. program in C++ for 
DOS and not Windows. ok.

***************************************************************************
*     Thou Shalt not look upon my signature, vermin !!                    *     
*                                                                         *     
*     The El la Graphic Artiste.                                          *     
*     Programming := Pascal,C/C++,Assembly,Basic...                       *     
*     Computer Science/Pre-Med/Mathematics ... What a great Career.       *     
*     Reached at oaohc@cunyvm.cuny.edu / oaohc@cunyvm.bitnet (temp.)      *     
*                oaganso@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu                            *     
*                ooliha@130.253.192.89   :) hahahahahaha      		  *
***************************************************************************


On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, R. Neal wrote:

> In article <4f3hi7$390e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, stevez1@ibm.net wrote:
> <snip>
> >to the reliance on Windows for so many basic functions. However, if
> >your application is only counting in a loop, Delphi will blow VB
> >away.  We don't get too many of those type of jobs, though :(.
> >
> >Steven R. Zuch
> >Cogent Management Inc.
> 
> Steve: 
> In some benchmarks I have done, VB and Delph are roughly equivalent in speed 
> for counting in a loop.
> 
> R. Neal
> rneal@ibm.net
> 
> 
> 

In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
>
>Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify 
what 
>Java is.. 

The most pure hype since...Windoze 4.0.

I doubt that Sun's site will have a history of Java:  a language
in search of a use.

John

>Steve:
>In some benchmarks I have done, VB and Delph are roughly equivalent in >speed for counting in a loop.
>
>R. Neal
>rneal@ibm.net

I have done, and seen tests of this nature, and Delphi is at least 4 
times faster in a simple counting loop.

I once wrote an app in VB that read a simple text file. I've since 
converted the app to Delphi, and Delphi does it 25 times faster, on the 
same machine.

Dave

qnguyen@parker.bio.uci.edu (Quoc Thang Nguyen) wrote:

[snip]

>Persuasive argument. Have you taken into account the size of 
>VBRUNxxx? And the time it takes to load? And the 1.4MB+ of 
>files you have to distribute with (in VB4.0)? And the 
>VBXs? And the OCXs? That surely makes the executables 
>"miniscule" (sic) in size!

MS has an FAQ re: VB4 distribution size, whereby they state
that many of the VB OCXs will be part of the next operating
system.  Not only can MS do this and incorporate VBRUN
directly into the next Windows, they can even incoporate
the VB language as the "batch programming language". It
must nice having such monopolistic power.  MS can kill
development tools and applications by incorporating them
into the operating system, just like IBM once bundled software
with their mainframe boxes.  History repeats itself.

[snip]

Steven R. Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.

Richard Pitts wrote:
> 
> >Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what
> >Java is.. I have heard the following:
> 
> Don't dump VB.  Most of what you listed is true of Java except
> for creating EXE's.  It doesn't now, and probably never will.

Don't bet on that I have already heard 4 compiler vendors talk of native code Java compilers.
 
> Java is for internet programming - completely hardware
> independent.  All you need on the client side is a Java virtual
> machine (expect to see most internet browsers to include this
> support in the future).

Java was initialy developed for embedded systems and a real-time Java standard is already available. 
 
> Microsoft is responding to this with VB Script.  An internet
> programming subset of VB.

Not really, VB script provides a framework for dowloading and executing scripts. It is not solely for 
Internet applications any application could utilise the VBSript engine and many vendors could compile 
their script language down to a VBScript compatible form (and Java is one that Microsoft claim will 
become available).
 
> Problems with both Java and VB Script: limited functionality of
> all types including limited database and file access; security
> concerns (i.e. executable code downloaded directly into memory
> and executed - virus check that!), performance over the net, etc,
> etc.

Java has a novel approach to security which is hard to denounce.
 
> If you need to do internet programming, wait for VB script and
> leverage your VB knowledge there.  Java is just like C++ so
> expect a steeper learning curve.

The Java learning curve is much easier than C++, no pointers, garbage collection, thread-safe 
primitives.
 
> If you aren't doing internet programming, stick with VB!

Or think about getting a good book on Java and reading in your spare time.
    Java!
    Tim Ritchey
    New Riders (Indianapolis, Indiana)
    1-781562-055332
-- 

with StandardDisclaimer; use StandardDisclaimer;
package Sig is
--,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
--|Simon K. Johnston - Development Engineer (C++/Ada95) |ICL Retail Systems |
--|-----------------------------------------------------|3/4 Willoughby Road|
--|Unix Mail: skj@acm.org                               |Bracknell          |
--|Telephone: +44 (0)1344 476320 Fax: +44 (0)1344 476302|Berkshire          |
--|Internal : 7261 6320   OP Mail: S.K.Johnston@BRA0801 |RG12 8TJ           |
--|WWW URL  : http://www.acm.org/~skj/                  |United Kingdom     |
--`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
end Sig;

er,

I'm boycotting VB4 and am MAH at u$ for ruining what used to be a good 
product. However, the changes (I would call them enhancements) you 
describe are good ones if:

they are documented so other language developers can use them and, they 
reflect a commitment to the break through VB represented back in 1992.

However, IMHO, the C (++ if you prefer) at usoft are ruining VB because 
they can't stand the heat. If gates had the vision he thinks he has he 
would not let it happen. 

Gary

Ohima Agans-Oliha <oaganso@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> decided to
share with us the infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>dump the stupid slobbish VISUAL BASIC!!! DOS rules. program in C++ for 
>DOS and not Windows. ok.

C++?? Aarrrgghhh. The youngsters today don't know what _real_
programming is. C++ is nothing compared to Assembly.

Jens
--
Everything I said are the opinions of someone else.
I just cut-and-pasted.

Jens Balchen jr.       http://www.sn.no/~balchen
balchen@sn.no          ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/balchen/

> - Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is
> C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance
> object hierarchy.

I wish. No .exe files, only .class files which the Java interperter understands. This the idea 
behind portability.

>- Java is an interpreter for the JavaScript scripting language.

No, Java is a C++ like programming language.  JavaScript is a scripting language based on 
Java. 


>- Java produces p-code (or someting similar) for Internet Java browser to
>interpret.

The Java compiler creates machine independent byte code that requires an interpreter 
which implements the Java Virtual Machine.  It's not just used for dynamic web pages.  We 
use it for everything on our servers.


>- Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is
>C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance
>object hierarchy.

No, the Java compiler creates byte code.  You can mark speed critical portions of your 
code to use the just in time compiler, in which case the interpreter will compile the 
marked code to machine code on the fly.  But the interpreter is always required.

Your description of the language is right on.  Java is C++ without the baggage, no 
pointers, no operator overloading, etc.

For more info check out the comp.lang.java newsgroup (it's a high traffic group).


-- 
Tim Pearson
mailto:timpe@starwave.com
http://www.starwave.com/people/timpe/

--
It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money.  And I
guess that's what I like about it.  It's easy.  Just sitting there,
rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
						-- Jack Handey

balchen@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.) writes:
>Ohima Agans-Oliha <oaganso@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> decided to
>share with us the infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>>dump the stupid slobbish VISUAL BASIC!!! DOS rules. program in C++ for 
>>DOS and not Windows. ok.

>C++?? Aarrrgghhh. The youngsters today don't know what _real_
>programming is. C++ is nothing compared to Assembly.

Assembly? You piker Jens! I'll have you know that this post was toggled 
in to the front panel of a PDP-8, and I've only just upgraded from a 
Babbage difference engine. Assembly, ha!

Luke
-- 
Luke Webber

* Note: The opinions expressed by Luke Webber are in no way supported *
*       by his employers, Luke Webber Consulting Services             *

I find Visual Basic to be a nice complement to my C++ tools, as I'm sure
Delphi and similar are.  Admittedly Delphi can "put the pedal to the
metal" somewhat more than VB. 

Elliott

In article <4f6mi5$qts@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, rneal@ibm.net (R. Neal) wrote:
> In some benchmarks I have done, VB and Delph are roughly equivalent in speed
> for counting in a loop.

This reminds me of a Goon Show gag.

MB. How far is it to Paris?
NS. Roughly 3 miles.

MB. How far is it exactly?
NS. 4 Miles.

MB. Then we will go roughly.

PS. GUI speed is roughly the same for 16Bit, 32Bit, C++, Delphi and
    VB. (but VB is a totally yucky language, with lousy syntax holes)

Vince
=====

In article <4f92nd$1e3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>MS has an FAQ re: VB4 distribution size, whereby they state
>that many of the VB OCXs will be part of the next operating
>system.  Not only can MS do this and incorporate VBRUN

MS (or rather Dave Cutler, I think that was his name) is working
hard on getting NT 4.0 to run well with only 8Mb of RAM installed.
This time he's trying to incorporate GDI into the kernel, reducing
memory footprint and increasing speed/performance.

The sizemaniac aka VB 4.0 doesn't fit into that strategy.

>must nice having such monopolistic power.  MS can kill
>development tools and applications by incorporating them
>into the operating system, just like IBM once bundled software
>with their mainframe boxes.  History repeats itself.

I fail to see how that strategy can help MS sell operating systems.

In case you haven't noticed, MS' selling point these days is that
"we have all the applications", if they kill them off, developers
are highly likely to develop for other platforms.

Delphi 1.0 has features that might surface in VB5 or 6, and 2.0
will be shipping this month...

Delphi 2.0 has form inheritance, multithreading, an even more optimizing
compiler (check their web page for details. It's awesome!) and improved
database controls (Delphi 1.0 already beats VB4 hands down).


-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

Tim Arnold wrote:
> 
> > - Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is
> > C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance
> > object hierarchy.
> 
> I wish. No .exe files, only .class files which the Java interperter understands. This the idea
> behind portability.

The source code is portable in either case... how the code is executed
at run-time is just a matter of semantics (and, yes, there are 
performance/space issues).  Either way, you need "something" (either 
an interpreter or compiler) to run the code on whatever platform
you are porting to.

Are there compilers out there for Java?  If so, where can I get my
hands on one for Windows95 ?  Thanks in advance...
-- 
James V. Reagan
jreagan@mcs.net
http://jreagan.pr.mcs.net

In article <4f8akg$i3k@druid.borland.com>, Pete Becker
<pete@borland.com> writes
>>Isn't Java an interpreted language?
>
>No, it's just implemented that way. There is nothing in the Java language 
>definition that prevents compiling Java, and, in fact, a just-in-time compiler 
>for Java can yield 2x-15x speed improvements.
In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!
Pat
-- 
Pat White
email: pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk
Phone; 44+(0)1925 266113

In article <4f90uk$eic@usenet2.interramp.com>, visualware@interramp.com 
says...
->In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
->>
->>Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify 
->what 
->>Java is.. 
->The most pure hype since...Windoze 4.0.
->I doubt that Sun's site will have a history of Java:  a language
->in search of a use.
->John

Sun does indeed have Java info on their site. And Java does have a use. It 
can be used on the Web for many different applications (Can we say: Hot 
Java???) Java is not hype, it is a powerful language. Although I will admit 
Windows 4 was hype.

-Just a thought
-=Tequila@lainet.com

mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) wrote:

>In article <4f92nd$1e3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>>MS has an FAQ re: VB4 distribution size, whereby they state
>>that many of the VB OCXs will be part of the next operating
>>system.  Not only can MS do this and incorporate VBRUN

>MS (or rather Dave Cutler, I think that was his name) is working
>hard on getting NT 4.0 to run well with only 8Mb of RAM installed.
>This time he's trying to incorporate GDI into the kernel, reducing
>memory footprint and increasing speed/performance.

>The sizemaniac aka VB 4.0 doesn't fit into that strategy.

My point was that MS can, and IMHO will, incorporate more
OLE2 and OCXs into their next operating system, and therefore,
the need to distribute so much run time stuff with VB 4 will
not be required.  VB may even become bundled with the
next OS, just like QBasic became bundled with DOS.


>>must nice having such monopolistic power.  MS can kill
>>development tools and applications by incorporating them
>>into the operating system, just like IBM once bundled software
>>with their mainframe boxes.  History repeats itself.

>I fail to see how that strategy can help MS sell operating systems.

>In case you haven't noticed, MS' selling point these days is that
>"we have all the applications", if they kill them off, developers
>are highly likely to develop for other platforms.

My point was that if a third party has a nice software program,
MS may be able to incorporate the best of such into the
operating system.  Development languages may fall into
this area.  MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
developers felt.

>Delphi 1.0 has features that might surface in VB5 or 6, and 2.0
>will be shipping this month...

>Delphi 2.0 has form inheritance, multithreading, an even more optimizing
>compiler (check their web page for details. It's awesome!) and improved
>database controls (Delphi 1.0 already beats VB4 hands down).

Thanks for the info.  What does that have to do with my comments?
Delphi does have many features that VB does not.  But, MS is
not goint to incorporate Delphi into their Desktop suite, or their
operating system, unless they buy Borland, and Gates learns
to love Pascal over Basic :).

luke@ozramp.ozramp.net.au (Luke Webber) wrote:

>balchen@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.) writes:
>>Ohima Agans-Oliha <oaganso@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> decided to
>>share with us the infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>>>dump the stupid slobbish VISUAL BASIC!!! DOS rules. program in C++ for 
>>>DOS and not Windows. ok.

>>C++?? Aarrrgghhh. The youngsters today don't know what _real_
>>programming is. C++ is nothing compared to Assembly.

>Assembly? You piker Jens! I'll have you know that this post was toggled
Paper tape punch on your Flexowriter jammed, or just showing off? ;-)

>in to the front panel of a PDP-8, and I've only just upgraded from a 
>Babbage difference engine. Assembly, ha!

>Luke
>-- 
>Luke Webber

>* Note: The opinions expressed by Luke Webber are in no way supported *
>*       by his employers, Luke Webber Consulting Services             *

Regards,
Bengt Richter

andrew@williaj.demon.co.uk (Andrew J. Williams) wrote:

>hraiser@cloud9.net wrote:

>>Chung Hong (chungh@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>>: So what?  VB will still be a messed up mutated language with severe limits
>>: and incredibly frustrating to use, especially when compared with the other
>>: development tools out there like Delphi.  If you've used VB and Delphi both,
>>: you'd realize that VB has much deeper problems than what including a new
>>: VB-compiler will be able to resolve. 

>>  No compiler can compensate for a weak, cumbersome, limited language like
>>(Viusal) Basic.  Delphi has an excellent environment, but nothing on heaven
>>or Earth can make me go back to coding Pascal.  Smart money is on Latte,
>>Borland's upcoming Java based programming environment, based on the Delphi
>>front end.


>Isn't Java an interpreted language?

My 2 cents' worth of HO on this last one:

Yes, but maybe not on all platforms. Someone is apparently
planning to make a Java chip. Shades of UCSD Pascal! Someone
made a chip for its p-code too. Wasn't it Western Digital?
(or what was going by that name at the time).

But pretty soon mainstream CPU chips will probably have big
paged caches where you can lock in an interpreter as easily
as you lock a segment in ordinary memory now. Then the difference
between interpreted and not will fade and become a matter of
who designed the best byte code instruction set for the job at hand.

Also, there are situations where interpreted bytecode can actually
go faster than HLL compiled to native machine language, strange
and contradictory as that might seem. E.g., when you call Format in
Delphi, you are running a little interpreter for the format string.
This can be faster or slower than doing the separate conversions
and string concatenations yourself, depending on how optimized
the interpreter is (i.e., if it just turns around and makes the
same calls you were going to do, there is no gain, but otherwise
you have effectively used an interpreter to avoid overhead).

Regards,
Bengt Richter

>In article <4f90uk$eic@usenet2.interramp.com>, visualware@interramp.com 
>says...
>->In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
>->>
>->>Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify 
>->what 
>->>Java is.. 
>->The most pure hype since...Windoze 4.0.
>->I doubt that Sun's site will have a history of Java:  a language
>->in search of a use.
>->John
>

There is plenty of good info on Java on the sun home page.

let me ramble few and not probably precise things about Java from 
top of my head: (mostly from reading different articles around over lunch)

Java It has similar syntax to C++, but considered to be have avoided some
of C++ weaknesses, Java has GC. there is a white paper on the sun site
that lists all theses things. 

There is what is called a Java applet, and there is what is 
called a Java application.

A Java applet is downloaded from the server to the client when you use
the Java-aware browser, and click on an area on the screen that 
causes the download to start, the client then tells the server to 
download the applet code, the applet is a stream of what is called 
Java byte code (J-code) , the browser reads this byte code stream 
and interpret it on the fly , and execute it. a Java
applet has more restrictions to it for security reasons, an applet for 
example can not access files on the client machine, and it executes 
entirly inside a virtual machine on the client, there is also some 
encoding that can be somehow inserted to the byte stream by the server
(sort of server-validation-signature) so that the browser can make sure
this is a legal Java byte code to protect against forign viruse 
inserted in the applet.

Some people are doing work to also be able to compile the byte code
on the fly to make it more efficient, (compiled code runs faster
than interpreted code) this means once the applet is downloaded to 
the client, as the browser is iterpreting J-code, a backgorund
run time compilation of the code can be in progress (compile in memeory
on the fly), since the code need to be compiled once, and then the 
compiled code can be used over and over by the browser (such as
hot-Java browser) on the client side, resulting in faster execution
of the applet.

There is also some work on C++ compilers that will allow Java code to 
be inserted right in the source code of C++, resulting in the ability 
to mix Java and C++ togother !  

Java applications however are compiled code, Just like C++ applications,
using a Java compiler, Java application can access the
external environment, such as files, etc..., 

The interest in Java is becuase it is platform independent, 
supposed to be ideal for client/server applications.

So, there seem to be lots of work into how Java can be used to
build client/server system, how to intergate it into data base
systems on the server, and stuff like that.


Nasser

Luke Webber wrote:
> Assembly? You piker Jens! I'll have you know that this post was toggled
> in to the front panel of a PDP-8, and I've only just upgraded from a
> Babbage difference engine. Assembly, ha!
> 
> Luke
> --

Oh yeah! My dad programmed machine tools with jumpers and contact pins. 
What are these switches? _That_ is feeping creaturitus!

-- 
Bruce H. Johnson
Corporate Knowledge, Inc. -- Your knowledge transfer specialists.
corpknow@earthlink.net       Los Angeles, California
http://www.business1.com/cki/

In article <4f63bc$97a@news.service.uci.edu>,
qnguyen@parker.bio.uci.edu (Quoc Thang Nguyen) wrote:
>In article <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>   gcopelan@cyberramp.net (George Copeland) wrote:
>>Multithreading, eh?  You really think you are ready to 
>>write a multhreaded application?  Given that you don't 
>
>Enlightening point of view. Then, why Microsoft is marketing 
>Win95 and WinNT to developers as operating systems capable 
>or running multithreaded programs? Why is their next 
>generation of apps multithreaded? They must be utterly 
>ignorant of the basics of project management, no doubt.

I think it's because MS don't use VB themselves... :-)

(It seems that even MS use Delphi more than VB, just take a
look at ROADMAP.EXE included on a VB4 CD near you...)

-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) decided to share with us the
infinite reservoirs of stupidity:

>(It seems that even MS use Delphi more than VB, just take a
>look at ROADMAP.EXE included on a VB4 CD near you...)

you can say MS used Delphi for Roadmap, but to say they use it
"more" based on this is ridiculous.

Jens (balchen@sn.no)
--
Newbiehood is not a period of time, it's a way of life.

http://www.sn.no/~balchen
ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/balchen/

OH EDITH ... I THINK I'M HAVING THE BIG ONE. <clasping heart>

Please ... get real and get your facts straight will ya.  Every developer 
knows theres a language for all needs.  Fortuately ... VB fills 98% of 
anything you might need to do, and usually performs the job quite well.

Sorry if I offended you ... but ya just sent me into a tizzy ;-)

In article <4fef2l$4sck@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>>The sizemaniac aka VB 4.0 doesn't fit into that strategy.
>
>My point was that MS can, and IMHO will, incorporate more
>OLE2 and OCXs into their next operating system, and therefore,
>the need to distribute so much run time stuff with VB 4 will
>not be required.  VB may even become bundled with the
>next OS, just like QBasic became bundled with DOS.

You're talking 3-10 years from now...
Win95 didn't come with any OCXs and the same is true for NT 3.51.
I doubt we'll see any in NT 4.0 either...

So, when you distribute your app two years from now, you'll most likely
include those OCXs anyway, because the oldtimers who run NT 3.51 (because
they never adapted to the Win95 UI) still haven't caught on...

Installing a typical VB app (or any app with alot of DLLs and stuff) could
soon become a nightmare. What does your installation program do when faced
with a network? VB4 Enterprise simply ignores it, and stated that it
had to be installed separatly on each workstation. So much for the ease
of distributing OCXs?

The only good solution I found (while being a network admin) was to
install everything in one directory on the server. Nothing in SYSTEM or
other places. Share the directory and away you go... This does indeed
affect the users perception of the application's size!

>My point was that if a third party has a nice software program,
>MS may be able to incorporate the best of such into the
>operating system.  Development languages may fall into
>this area.  MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
>backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
>fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
>developers felt.

No. They licensed disk defragmenter from Symantec and the backup software
from Central Point (or Arcada?). These are stripped down versions of the
full package, so the customer is encouraged to buy the whole package...

In any case, not one of the applications you mentioned was made with VB,
nor did they use any OCXs.


-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

Ohima Agans-Oliha wrote:
> 
> dump the stupid slobbish VISUAL BASIC!!! DOS rules. program in C++ for
> DOS and not Windows. ok.
> 

You sound like u r living in the stone age. DOS is a thing of
the past.

mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) wrote:

>In article <4fef2l$4sck@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
>stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>>>The sizemaniac aka VB 4.0 doesn't fit into that strategy.
>>
>>My point was that MS can, and IMHO will, incorporate more
>>OLE2 and OCXs into their next operating system, and therefore,
>>the need to distribute so much run time stuff with VB 4 will
>>not be required.  VB may even become bundled with the
>>next OS, just like QBasic became bundled with DOS.

>You're talking 3-10 years from now...
>Win95 didn't come with any OCXs and the same is true for NT 3.51.
>I doubt we'll see any in NT 4.0 either...

Read differently from MS.

>So, when you distribute your app two years from now, you'll most likely
>include those OCXs anyway, because the oldtimers who run NT 3.51 (because
>they never adapted to the Win95 UI) still haven't caught on...

They better get use to the Win95 UI, because, based on what I read,  
MS plans to adopt it for the next version of Windows NT.

[snip]


>>My point was that if a third party has a nice software program,
>>MS may be able to incorporate the best of such into the
>>operating system.  Development languages may fall into
>>this area.  MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
>>backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
>>fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
>>developers felt.

>No. They licensed disk defragmenter from Symantec and the backup software
>from Central Point (or Arcada?). These are stripped down versions of the
>full package, so the customer is encouraged to buy the whole package...

How about the other items mentioned above.  Yup, they license some,
develope others.  But, if they like it, they get it, and bundled it 
into the OS.  Advantage of being a monopoly.

>In any case, not one of the applications you mentioned was made with VB,
>nor did they use any OCXs.

Not even MS markets VB for such apps.  They have other development 
tools.

The point is that Gates loves Basic.  In 1975, he and Paul Allen wrote
a version of BASIC that ran on the MITS Altair 8800 Computer.  They
then founded MS and wrote BASIC version for other platforms.  Gates,
IMHO, is not goint to drop BASIC.

It was bundled with MS DOS, and now is bundled in their Windows Office

Suite.  Next, IMHO, it will be bundled again, as part of the operating
system.  And even if they do not bundled all the OCXs and DLLs for VB 
in the near future, it will end up on a lot of PCs.  How many PCs have
VBRUN300 on it.

So, regardless of what Delphi does, or does not do, how fast it is,
how small it's exe's are, VB will be around for a long time.  It is,
and will continue to be a major developers tool in the Windows 
environment.

So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.
Ofcourse, that does not mean one should learn other programming 
languages.  Even Delphi.




>-- 
>=\
> *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
>=/

stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:

>
>So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
>no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.
>Ofcourse, that does not mean one should learn other programming 
>languages.  Even Delphi.
>

I as a Visual Basic programmer I agree.  To ignore any one one completely 
is like sticking one's head in the sand.  I am learning DELPHI and I will 
continue to use Visual Basic as well.  There are things that VB does real 
well and the same is true for DELPHI.  I also see the merits of keeping 
up my knowledge of XBase languages also.  I wish VO would be a friendlier 
environment than it is.  There are some really neat features in the old 
Clipper product which both VB and DELPHI could really use.  FoxPro and 
Visual Dbase may be better as far as XBase is concerned.  I admit I have 
stayed away from C and C++, I don't like the cryptic command structure 
preffering a more English like language.  I've got my hands full with the 
languages I am now using.  The mix of tools I do have can make up for 
insufficiency in that area.

-- 
Alexander Medwedew 
Computer Ventures, Inc. 
compvent@tribeca.ios.com 
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/

In article <4flmu1$3498@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>>So, when you distribute your app two years from now, you'll most likely
>>include those OCXs anyway, because the oldtimers who run NT 3.51 (because
>>they never adapted to the Win95 UI) still haven't caught on...
>
>They better get use to the Win95 UI, because, based on what I read,  
>MS plans to adopt it for the next version of Windows NT.

Yes, that's true, but... NT 3.51 is a full grown usable product. Some
people will hesitate before they upgrade, and may not even need to...

One year after 3.51 shipped, there are still people using 3.5 which is
totally uncapable of running apps using NT 3.51 and Win95's new custom
controls...

>>>this area.  MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
>>>backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
>>>fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
>>>developers felt.
>
>>No. They licensed disk defragmenter from Symantec and the backup software
>>from Central Point (or Arcada?). These are stripped down versions of the
>>full package, so the customer is encouraged to buy the whole package...
>
>How about the other items mentioned above.  Yup, they license some,

I'm not sure who developed the fax software e.g.. I do know it's not a
completed product, since there is no trace of bundled fax support with
NT... :-(

>The point is that Gates loves Basic.  In 1975, he and Paul Allen wrote
>a version of BASIC that ran on the MITS Altair 8800 Computer.  They

Yes, I know MS' history, but I fail to see how Gates can "love" BASIC,
after all, he developed that BASIC in a different language (machine
code?)! VB isn't remotely MS at all, it was aquired from another company (?).

Once they develop VB in VB, I'll take them seriously.

>Suite.  Next, IMHO, it will be bundled again, as part of the operating
>system.  And even if they do not bundled all the OCXs and DLLs for VB 
>in the near future, it will end up on a lot of PCs.  How many PCs have
>VBRUN300 on it.

And how many have legacy VBRUN100 and 200 on them? I don't know, the
only thing I'm aware of is that I've removed that crap from my disk a
long time ago. In any case, that big hunk of DLL doesn't exactly help
your app load fast?

As I mentioned, those files (in combination with VBXs and OCXs) are the
network administrator's nightmare.

>So, regardless of what Delphi does, or does not do, how fast it is,
>how small it's exe's are, VB will be around for a long time.  It is,
>and will continue to be a major developers tool in the Windows 
>environment.

But it shouldn't be. Delphi can be used for 100% of your Windows development
needs. VB can't match that. As you said yourself, apps such as backup
software, defragmenters, fax software and stuff like that, isn't what
VB was meant for... 

>So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
>no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.

You can't be fired for choosing MS, right.

I don't really care much about the "evil" MS debate. I prefer Windows NT
as my OS and want to use the best development tool available to make
apps for it. This happens to be Delphi.

MS haven't got anything in their arsenal that can match
Delphi's speed [speed of development, compilation and the finished product],
ease of use [just as good as VB on simple things, better when doing more
             advanced stuff]
and ease of maintanence [OOP provides better code reuse and incapsulation].

I've used VB3 for about a year, I also installed VB4 Enterprise and glanced
at it's features, and there was nothing that impressed me when compared
to Delphi. The data controls are still lumping around, the interface designer
is still a dog, it's still difficult to organise custom controls and the
only truly new thing was colored toolbarbuttons. :-)

When you choose a product based on the brand and not on it's merits, then
I would call you a fool. I guess that 85% of the world's population fall
into that category, but when you are trying to make money using that
tool, then you should take a closer look.


--
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

Ken Irving wrote:
> 
> In article <mac.318.3115D621@zeus.hsrc.ac.za>, mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za says...
> >- Java is an interpreter for the JavaScript scripting language.
> >
> Sounds likely, but don't know.

No.  JavaScript was (is) Netscapes Scripting Language "based on Java".  It was
originaly caleed LiveScript... you do not need Java to use JavaScript.


> >- Java produces p-code (or someting similar) for Internet Java browser to
> >interpret.
> >
> Pretty much.

Small correction: the Bytecodes run on the JavaVM. 
A browser is able to incorporate the Java VM - nothing dictates that Java 
must run in a browser (it's just most popular that way right now).  

> >- Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is
> >C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance
> >object hierarchy.
> 
> Partly right.

No executable is formed.  The compiler produces byte codes that execute on the JavaVM.
This means that the compiled code will run, unmodified on any computer that support 
the JavaVM.  I can compile on a SPARC an run the code on a Windoze '95 machine.


> I've read a bit on Java, haven't used it (yet).  My understanding is that Java,
> the language, is an object-oriented language much like C++ except lacking all
> the baggage, compromises, concessions, etc. of C++. Java compiles to bytecodes,
> p-code, that is interpreted (or otherwise used) by a *browser*.  But it could
> also be interpreted by a compiler on any system, yielding a native executable.

Borland has plans to produce a native compiler for Java (note: this removes the
portability of the Java application/applet).


> The main thing is that this thing is seriously portable! The user's machine is
> irrelevant, your program will run on anything that can run a suitable browser.
> Highly OO-able too.

Not just a browser - I use Java for application programming - you just need a 
JavaVM (available from Sun).


> I guess the idea being promoted is the ability to field active, interactive,
> animated www pages, and further, the promise of using needed software that you
> don't own, you just rent for a while.  But to me, the idea of a widely
> supported, good programming language is pretty exciting alone.

The language is nice - needs more work though (it was released as a non-beta
product far to soon IMO).  Please loose the misconception that Java is just for 
the Internet - it was not originaly intended for the Internet... it just happens
to have taken off on the internet.  Nothing in Java requires the use of a browser
(like HotJava or Netscape).

..darcy

-- 
   D'Arcy Smith, Systems Analyst
   Applied Research in Computer Systems (ARCS) Laboratory
   British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), Burnaby, BC, Canada
   E-Mail: darcy@arcs.bcit.bc.ca        URL http://www.arcs.bcit.bc.ca
   Tel:  (604) 432-8281      		Fax:  (604) 436-1297

In article <4fkam0$g0b@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Jay Parrish <jparrish@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Please ... get real and get your facts straight will ya.  Every developer 
>knows theres a language for all needs.  Fortuately ... VB fills 98% of 
>anything you might need to do, and usually performs the job quite well.

No it doesn't!

No multithreading - which makes it unusable for producing shareware!

The number one selling point of shareware these days (in case you
haven't noticed) is that it takes advantage of the OS it runs on,
in the NT/Win95 world this means multithreading.

A newsreader should e.g. import news and email in the background,
a web browser should not cease functioning just because you decide
to download a file or print something, etc..etc...

Delphi OTOH fills 100% of anything I might need to do, and it always
does the job extremely well. Why on earth would I consider VB, and
why should the original poster not dump VB? VB is indeed inferior in every
possible evaluation category (no-one has so far said otherwise) and that
is perhaps what the conclusion should be?

-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

In article <Qb0Hx0JfF25J089yn@oslonett.no> mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) writes:

>>The point is that Gates loves Basic.  In 1975, he and Paul Allen wrote
>>a version of BASIC that ran on the MITS Altair 8800 Computer.  They

>>So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
>>no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.

>You can't be fired for choosing MS, right.

>I don't really care much about the "evil" MS debate. I prefer Windows NT
>as my OS and want to use the best development tool available to make
>apps for it. This happens to be Delphi.

>When you choose a product based on the brand and not on it's merits, then
>I would call you a fool. I guess that 85% of the world's population fall
>into that category, but when you are trying to make money using that
>tool, then you should take a closer look.


Most people -do- buy products based on brand and not on merit, and Microsoft 
understands this.  So does Peter Norton.  But I think that by-and-large 
developers do not.  Developers are fond collectors of software and frequently 
own (or "posess") or have recently evaluated copies of nearly everything.  If 
it's better, "cool!"  If it's not, "dog bait."  (Programmers have a peculiar 
but succint vernacular...)  

But the more revenue-producing software you own that was written in a 
particular system, the less likely you are to want to "dump it" for any 
reason.  That will always be the case in life.

Visual Basic won't die, and neither (now) will Delphi, because it would not 
make business sense for a lot of companies to let it do so.  And you won't see 
Microsoft doing any such thing because, hell, they SELL it and make a lot of 
MONEY from it.  :-)

/mr/
"Money wins in the end."

Pat White <pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
>language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
>is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
>interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
>is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
>Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
>were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!

OTOH, their DOS Basic compilers were fantastic.

>stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:

>>My point was that MS can, and IMHO will, incorporate more
>>OLE2 and OCXs into their next operating system, and therefore,
>>the need to distribute so much run time stuff with VB 4 will
>>not be required.  VB may even become bundled with the
>>next OS, just like QBasic became bundled with DOS.

>I doubt very much that VB will become part of the OS unless Mr. Gates
>in named our next Attorney General.  I can just imagine the anti-trust
>lawsuits flying out of the Justice Department.

so M$ buts all the OCX hooks into the OS - big deal.  we can make our 
code smaller and smaller and smaller...

Pat White wrote:
> In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
> language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which

I do some Fox (oh no..) programming also and have heard the stopper on 
compiling FoxPro is twofold. 1) Macro substitution creates code at 
run-time, and 2) the loosly type variables require some sort of 
wet-nurse app running to manage them (the interperetor).

These are not my Ideas, I just whanted to share.

Jay Parrish wrote:
> 
> OH EDITH ... I THINK I'M HAVING THE BIG ONE. <clasping heart>
> 
> Please ... get real and get your facts straight will ya.  Every developer
> knows theres a language for all needs.  Fortuately ... VB fills 98% of
> anything you might need to do, and usually performs the job quite well.
> 
> Sorry if I offended you ... but ya just sent me into a tizzy ;-)

good shit on being a pain in the ass, Delphi might be "better" depending 
upon your definition.  VB is a "better" marketed product.  Personally I 
hope that VB gets so stuffed with features that you need a cray to run 
it.  

Like it or not, VB is way bigger than Delphi and when someone who is new 
to programming want's to start I send then to VB - not delphi.  Most 
non-programming types have never heard of Delphi (or Borland) but I can 
go down the hall and talk to the director and he has heard of VB.

Which just reinforces my feeling that to be a serious VB developer,
you have to know C.  Hacking and working around VB's brick walls is
fun and somewhat gratifying.  And then it gets old.  And crazy.

George

In article , GIJoe <th_assoc@harbornet.com> wrote:

>Rune Moberg wrote:
>> The number one selling point of shareware these days (in case you
>> haven't noticed) is that it takes advantage of the OS it runs on,
>> in the NT/Win95 world this means multithreading.
>> 
>> A newsreader should e.g. import news and email in the background,
>> a web browser should not cease functioning just because you decide
>> to download a file or print something, etc..etc...
>
>You CAN multithread in VB4(32).  Use an external OLE to
>start up a timer.  Since that timer is started by
>the system and not VBRUN*, it starts a new thread.
>Any code in the timer event will execute as a
>new thread.  You can start as many threads like this
>as you like, although the timers are memory hogs.
>
>There have been other posts mentioning this method 
>for VB4 EE C/S apps.
>
>-GIJoe th_assoc@harbornet.com


===============================================================================
 George R. Torralba              xxxxxxxxxxxx                  Batang Cebu!!!
 Seattle, Washington             206.227.0821              MIME mail accepted
===============================================================================

Pat, et. al....
The compiled .vs. interpreted debate is partially bogus.  Even in 
compiled languages, on a PC or a mainframe, as soon as ones code enters 
a runtime library routine, you are -probably- off into 
interpretation-land.
I say -probably- because if your runtime routine has any conditional 
statements that cause the routine to act differently depending on 
parameter content (i.e., different logic paths) it is 
"mini-interpreting".

For example, you call the printf routine in -C-, or a formatted -write- 
statement in Fortran, VB's Format$ routine, or just about any 
non-trivial Delphi component, and you are executing an interpreter of 
that language feature.  Sure, the printf function in the -C- runtime 
library is compiled, as is the ChartFX component in Delphi, or the 
read/write routines in a Tandem Cobol program, but the runtime system 
has to -interpret- your parameters via lots of conditional statements to 
make sense of your parameters/data and perform the requested action.  
When using VB or other -statement based- interpreted languages, where 
most people suffer a performance hit is doing things like writing their 
own INSTR function -within- VB.  Each p-code statement has to be 
interpreted via VBRUNxxx.DLL which is far worse than just using the 
library routine.

Regards, John

viewer wrote:
> 
> Pat White <pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
> >language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
> >is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
> >interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
> >is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
> >Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
> >were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!
> 
> OTOH, their DOS Basic compilers were fantastic.

David Nottage <DNottage@SCOMHBR3.telecom.com.au> wrote:

>>OTOH, their DOS Basic compilers were fantastic.
>
>_What_ DOS Basic compilers??????. If they had any, why did they give the 
>idea up??

They had several versions of QuickBasic, Basic Professional 6.0, Basic PDS 
(Professional Development System) 7.x, and VB/DOS.

The 6.0 Professional has the distinction of being the last DOS Basic
released before the Great Divorce from IBM; it was able to compile
true .DLLs, for OS/2.  Had things gone differently, and NT (which was
under development at the time) retained its original designation as
OS/2 3, who knows where things would have gone?

Btw, the professional compilers were able to spit out .ASM source
code, as well as compiled .OBJ code.

Yes, they had DOS Basic compilers, and plenty of them (they even had
them *before* QB, but I only listed the ones with IDEs).  And, they
were good.  The code they created was blindingly fast, and compact;
you could also have a lot of fun with linker options.  Oh, and you
could either link them as standalone .EXEs, or, have them use a
library (effectively a dynamic-link-library, sans .DLL extension), and
with the professional versions, you could even compile and link your
own routines into the library.  (You could create your own libraries
with any of them, and even link versions that you could load into the
IDE for development -- shades of the .VBX to come -- but the pro versions
let you also create custom runtime-linked libraries.

In article <3126DBB2.5209@magna.com.au>,
John Osborne <josborne@magna.com.au> wrote:
>The compiled .vs. interpreted debate is partially bogus.  Even in 

"partially"? :-)

>compiled languages, on a PC or a mainframe, as soon as ones code enters
>a runtime library routine, you are -probably- off into 
>interpretation-land.

You came up with *one* example. Have any more?

>library is compiled, as is the ChartFX component in Delphi, or the 

(ChartFX happens to be a VBX, not that it matters much)

>When using VB or other -statement based- interpreted languages, where 
>most people suffer a performance hit is doing things like writing their 
>own INSTR function -within- VB.  Each p-code statement has to be 

Or if they e.g. write their own sorting routines... My 486DX-33 running
a Delphi implementation of a shell sorting routine would easily beat
a Pentium-100 running a VB implementation... 

I.e. if you're doing anything in VB, you *must* know a second language
(C or Pascal), while with Delphi everything can be done in the same
language/IDE. Much more effective, maintainable, etc. 


-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

On Sun, 18 Feb 1996 17:56:34 +1000, John Osborne
<josborne@magna.com.au> wrote:

>Pat, et. al....
>The compiled .vs. interpreted debate is partially bogus.  Even in 
>compiled languages, on a PC or a mainframe, as soon as ones code enters 
>a runtime library routine, you are -probably- off into 
>interpretation-land.
>I say -probably- because if your runtime routine has any conditional 
>statements that cause the routine to act differently depending on 
>parameter content (i.e., different logic paths) it is 
>"mini-interpreting".
>
>For example, you call the printf routine in -C-, or a formatted -write- 
>statement in Fortran, VB's Format$ routine, or just about any 
>non-trivial Delphi component, and you are executing an interpreter of 
>that language feature.  Sure, the printf function in the -C- runtime 
>library is compiled, as is the ChartFX component in Delphi, or the 
>read/write routines in a Tandem Cobol program, but the runtime system 
>has to -interpret- your parameters via lots of conditional statements to 
>make sense of your parameters/data and perform the requested action.  
>When using VB or other -statement based- interpreted languages, where 
>most people suffer a performance hit is doing things like writing their 
>own INSTR function -within- VB.  Each p-code statement has to be 
>interpreted via VBRUNxxx.DLL which is far worse than just using the 
>library routine.
>
>Regards, John
>
>viewer wrote:
>> 
>> Pat White <pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
>> >language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
>> >is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
>> >interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
>> >is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
>> >Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
>> >were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!
>> 
>> OTOH, their DOS Basic compilers were fantastic.

I believe John is incorrect if he is saying as it appears that any
code which has a decission tree is interpretive.  Interpretive
languages vs compiled has nothing to do with the logic of the code.
The point is that compiled (true compiled not pcode) languages are
already in binary form and so executable directly while each line of
an interpretive language is converted to binary, each time it is
executed.  Four calls to the BASIC print function results in for
"compiles" at run time.  Four calls to printf in C results in one
compile at compile time and no compiles at run time.  The difference
is not trivial in terms of speed of execution.  Note that the printf
function is a bad example as it carries more overhead than most C
functions.
Jack  

>MS did develop VB, however some of the work was developed by Cooper 
>Software. (I can't remember which bits, but apparently was quite 
>substantial).
>
>MS credits Cooper Software in VB's startup window.

     Try they invented it.  That's why they call Alan Cooper "The father of
VB"
_
PA will be beautiful, if they ever finish it!

+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chad Z. Hower  -  phoenix@pobox.com                         |
|Phoenix Business Enterprises - pbe@pobox.com  - www.pbe.com |
|Physically in Church Hill, TN - Logically Not Sure          |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
>>SQUID - The ultimate database reader, and NO limits. #$737961
**Special Compile: 1.033B (Beta)

>>mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) decided to share with us the
>>infinite reservoirs of stupidity:
>
>>>(It seems that even MS use Delphi more than VB, just take a
>>>look at ROADMAP.EXE included on a VB4 CD near you...)
>
>>you can say MS used Delphi for Roadmap, but to say they use it
>>"more" based on this is ridiculous.
>
>It's not ridiculous.  Just unfounded. :-)

     They infact did. A contractor "used a new tool". When MS became aware,
they rewrote it.  I have confirmation from the VB team on this one.
_
We have two seasons in PA: Winter and Construction.

+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chad Z. Hower  -  phoenix@pobox.com                         |
|Phoenix Business Enterprises - pbe@pobox.com  - www.pbe.com |
|Physically in Church Hill, TN - Logically Not Sure          |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
>>SQUID - The ultimate database reader, and NO limits. #$737961
**Special Compile: 1.033B (Beta)

pbe@pobox.com decided to share with us the infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>     They infact did. A contractor "used a new tool". When MS became aware,
>they rewrote it.  I have confirmation from the VB team on this one.

Mmmm! The point was that the statement

"It seems that even MS use Delphi more than VB"

based on the fact that MS has used Delphi for ONE app, is ridiculous.

Jens (balchen@sn.no)
-- 
Newbiehood is not a period of time, it's a way of life.

http://www.sn.no/~balchen
ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/balchen/

scottv@cstone.net (Scott) wrote:

>Remember that software developement is big task which includes the pain 
>stacking customization of the interface ... C++ does not allow for easy and 
>fast customizing of interfaces that enviroments like Delpi and VB support.

You really should not need any language at all in order to be able to
create GUI. We do have persistency, which in this case can complely
replace programing. 
Still, I think VB has a great future.

>A misunderstood fact about pcode in VB is that it must be so slow because 
>each instruction must be interpretted.  One statement in VB may be the 
>equivalent of 100 statements in C++ 

May be or may be not. The statements are internaly only functions.
Thus, if you do your homework, you can write shorter programs with C++
than with VB.

>We are putting the finishing touches on a training package that currently has 
>full screen full motion video.  The video contains actors that can be touched 
>using a touch screen or a mouse - these movie real life actors are tracked 
>dynamically to determine who got touched.  The program simulates a party at 
>the ambassadors party in paris where you can interact with people in real 
>time.  The entire program is based in Visual Basic attached to an Access 2.0 
>database using a handful of VBX controls.  you would never think that Visual 
>Basic was used to develope the package ... and the time saving was unreal 
>compared to full developement in C++.

You should not forget that you probably used VB only as a "shell"
programming language. In what language is everything really
implemented? I agree that VB is very good in putting all those pieces
together.

>This is not comparison to go to VB over C++, but never underestimate the 
>power of a software package...Use the right tool for the right job.  Which in 
>many cases is several packages for mixed language developement.
In the most cases.
Yes you should avoid to be tied only to one particular language. 
In Europe, people usually speak 3-4 languages. Only those people can
be more succesful than those speaking only one language	


I agree with your points...
*******************************************
*    Vlastimil Adamovsky                  *
* Smalltalk, C++ and Envelop development  *
*******************************************

>>     They infact did. A contractor "used a new tool". When MS became aware,
>>they rewrote it.  I have confirmation from the VB team on this one.
>
>Mmmm! The point was that the statement
>
>"It seems that even MS use Delphi more than VB"

     The original point may have been that, but I was not responding to THAT
point. I was responding to something along the line "Rumor of MS using Delphi
for Roadmap"
_
Pennsylvania: Constructionwealth of Pennsylvania

+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chad Z. Hower  -  phoenix@pobox.com                         |
|Phoenix Business Enterprises - pbe@pobox.com  - www.pbe.com |
|Physically in Church Hill, TN - Logically Not Sure          |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
>>SQUID - The ultimate database reader, and NO limits. #$737961
**Special Compile: 1.033B (Beta)