Well it's not simple but I think that you can say that some languages are bad. At least on a reletive scale. When one compares OOP languages for general programming they can pretty reasonably say that Java and C# are much better then C++. Both Java and C# correct major problems with C++ and make for safer programming.

And performance often depends more on the unerlying runtime and associated libraries then on the language itself. FOr example, a lot of the really graet mathamatical things that people do with FORTRAN are do more to special libraries that have been developed for use with it then the language itself. Plus there are special purpose additions to the langauge for array processors that have been added to FORTRAN largely for historical reasons (math guys like FORTRAN) then necessaty. IF the same extensions were added to other languages they would be faster too.

Take a look at other languages as well. The JVM is slow. Someone came out with a much faster one and Sun sued the company that made it and forced them off the market. IF that hadn't happened maybe Java performance would be bettter. And the performance of VB improved greatly when the unerlying platform was upgraded to .NET. So I would not use performance as the key to what is a good language.

What you look it is things like being type safe. Like having syntax that makes it easy to create the kind of programming structures you want. And things that are basic to the language.

Im getting antsy. I just wish they would go ahead and tell us.

I hope it sticks with PBASIC though honestly....or else my whole project will be a waste of time (and HD space).

Don't bet on it...

You got some insider scoop? (j/p).

I don't really see why not....every programmer that's been in FIRST for 1 year knows it, and every new programmer can catch on pretty fast basically.

I'd be better, because then mentors and whatnot don't have to teach every programmer a new language. If they have no internet, then they're basically screwed then.

I've been told that the new system will have all of the same functionality as the PBASIC interface.

Cool. I hope it does. Maybe it'll be ZBASIC? (lol, that'd be scary if it was).

Java and C# are not inherently better than C++. Anyone who told you as such doesn't know what they're talking about. Java, C#, and C++ all have their various advantages. Java is very good at being cross platform (much more so than C# contrary to what Microsoft would have you believe). C# is very good at Windows development (even if it isn't particularly mature). C++ is very good for large projects that require speed, low memory requirements, or device level programming.

Basically, it comes down to using the correct tool for the job. Sometimes C++ is correct, sometimes it's Java or C#. Other times it's assembly (in fact, I'm starting a project at work with assembly as soon as the developer's kit arrives). Sometimes you need to use straight C or possibly Perl or Lisp. There is no one programming language that is better than the others.

Matt

It also depends on what you are more comfortable with. Like the debate between OpenGL vs DirectX or the Win32 vs MFC. Arguments are fine, but none are the #1 answer. Both have pro's and con's, just like everything else. If you're making a game, use what you feel more comfortable with. Making an IDE? Use whatever you feel comfortable with. It's like FIRST, this year there were debates in every team probably about which kind of bot to build. Some said Stacker, some said pusher, and probably other types were brought up.

>> Sorry <<: I had to use the FIRST comparison, it kinda cleared up what I was saying.

One thing said above that is true is "it depends on ..." who's writing, and what is being programmed. It also depends on the hardware in some cases.

I quickly scanned the thread, but don't see any mention of the Javelin Stamp - "A 24 pin processor programmed with a subset of the Sun Microsystems Java language", as they say on the Parallax.com site.

This means Stamps (read familiar-to-IFI processor) can talk in PBasic or Java. This might rule out APL or COBOL as possible languages for next year, as well as Forth.

I'll tell them to give back their PhDs in computer science then. No doubt you've got a lot more experience in programming then them or me. :yikes:

This really is a very stupid arguement. USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB. And this thread has gotten rather off topic.

Agreed. It's turned into just argument about C++. While I will say your topic is somewhat relevant, if you'd like to continue the discussion, I suggest you take it out of this thread, so it's not distracting the real discussion.

As for my "inside sources," let's just say I have information from two very reliable, well known sources that say we may be dealing with a new control system that doesn't use PBASIC, provided that IFI can make enough for the 2004 season. Whether we'll "C" this controller next year or not remains to be seen... but my sources say we will :p

Well actually even if they decided to go with just plain basic or another variant of it should be easy to convert it to that. I personally hope that it turns out that way. Most of the basic compilers out there either sport compatibilty with pbasic or share similar commands while improving upon it.

True....I didn't really think about that when I posted it. My other argument is the tokenizer.dll. Will they still use that, or is it gonna be another library.