View Single Post
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-02-2003, 22:17
EbonySeraphim EbonySeraphim is offline
Registered User
#0623
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Posts: 37
EbonySeraphim is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to EbonySeraphim
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Ross
I started programing PBASIC much better when I stopped thinking about it as a worse C and began to think of it as a better ASM.
Did I just think I thought I saw that? A better ASM? PBASIC isn't exactly a low level programming language. Synax-wise ASM might no be as attractive, but PBASIC wishes it could do 1/4th of what ASM does. Also comparing it to C is just way outta line. They don't come close.

Quote:
Originally posted by Raven_Writer
I've done PBASIC, Visual Basic (6.0 and .NET), C and C++ (same as VB), Assembly (x86), SQL, ASP, PHP, CGI, Perl, and others I can't think of. I think PBASIC is the same as C/++, it does compile the code into machine-readable only stuff.

(I've also done Delphi 6, GBA code, MFC, Windows, OpenGL, DirectX 8.0 (and 8.1))
And I thought I was bragging in the original post. Looking at his birthday - July 10, 1987, I know it's not possible. Also, anyone who knows a thing or two about DirectX knows that 8.1 didn't bring any real changes to the programming side of DirectX 8.0, only bug fixes.

Back to Joe Johnson:
Sure they have some low level(basic) tweaks. But let's just say for a minute you could put PBASIC on a PC and run a program using its commands. Those capabilities you mentioned are worthless. Simple C++ inline functions or C macros could do the same task. IHMO I think the most powerful programming languages don't do much for a programmer except basic functions. Nothing needs to be made "nice" for the programmer. There is a reason people have to learn the language.
__________________
Ogun's Laughter is No Joke!!!