Intent 2 - good enough for the one-chip-MSX?

Page 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4

By Hugo_S.

Rookie (21)

Hugo_S.'s picture

05-08-2003, 18:45

I would like to see 2 kinds of BASIC ,
the old (maybe a little updated) MSX-BASIC for making
a quick game , or some little apps (dos-console based stuff)
so that newbie's ,etc can use it too .

And a brand new super fast 3D/2D BASIC ,
for the guru Smile

By Sander

Ambassador (1841)

Sander's picture

14-08-2003, 18:10

A build-in compiler would be nice too. And some more restrictions so that you always must declare your variables beforehand. No need for linenumbers and subroutines apart from the maincode.

By Sander

Ambassador (1841)

Sander's picture

14-08-2003, 18:11

Hmm, so maybe a little like visual basic, at least the object part.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

14-08-2003, 23:28

Nah, no objects... Even skilled programmes have trouble with object oriented programming at times. Basic is for beginners, it should remain that way. (it's Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code afterall)

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

15-08-2003, 00:03

I'm would like an objects only language. With a nice environment it should not be that hard...

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

27-08-2003, 20:44

Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing. Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful. Only objects sounds like a not-even-possible-and-quite-silly limitation to me. And the one-chip-MSX needs as little limitations as possible Smile

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

27-08-2003, 22:01

Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing.This is just not true. Programming is difficult whatever method you use to develop your program... There are many cases where objects make live a lot easier. Just because we al started in Basic 15 years ago doesn't mean there aren't better ways to learn how to program.Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful.Programs are in many cases not useful at all... 'Forcing' beginning programmers to use something with a clear structure can't be bad.Only objects sounds like a not-even-possible-and-quite-silly limitation to me. And the one-chip-MSX needs as little limitations as possible SmileEverything is possible. What is impossible in an object oriented language? And I have programmed in ML based on OO designs. OO isn't a limitation. Removing 'GOTO' from a language also sounds like a limitation... but it isn't.
And of course, the NewMSX will have many languages... I just think a oo-user friendly language with ide will have more succes than msx-basic 5. BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing. I know: because I did. (didn't we all Tongue )... It's better to start in a real language Smile
And:
scr.print "Hallo Wereld!"
is much better than:
10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"
IMHO Big smile

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

27-08-2003, 22:40

>>Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing.<<

This is just not true. Programming is difficult whatever method you use to develop your program... The first steps of coding are quite difficult indeed. But I think you agree that learning BASIC is quite a lot easier than learning Brainfuck. So it DOES matter which programming language you start with. And for beginners nothing beats a good BASIC.

There are many cases where objects make live a lot easier.

True, but there are many cases where it doesn't matter and only complicates things for beginners. Just because you can use something (objects) doesn't mean you have to.

>>Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful.<<

Programs are in many cases not useful at all...You're talking about programs while I'm talking about sourcecode.

'Forcing' beginning programmers to use something with a clear structure can't be bad.

Pascal has structure. Pascal hasn't got objects. Besides, I can show you quite a lot of terrible JAVA/C++ sources. OO can be used to create more structure, but doesn't 'force' the use of structure at all. Instead, I think most beginners will make a total mess out of it.

I just think a oo-user friendly language with ide will have more succes than msx-basic 5.

Oh, I agree the new MSX should -also- have an OO-language (probably JAVA and C++), but there should be an alternative as well. BASIC. An improved BASIC, but still.... BASIC.

BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing.

I think more than 80% of our visitors disagree with you here.

scr.print "Hallo Wereld!"
is much better than:
10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"

is it? Apart from the linenumbers PRINT "Hallo Wereld!" makes a lot more sense to me.

Lets make a comparison with JAVA. What do you think is easier to understand

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="mrc-small">Code:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="mrc-small"><PRE>
import java.awt.*;
import java.applet.Applet;

public class Greeting extends Applet {
public void paint (Graphics g) {
g.drawString ("Hello", 50, 50);
}
}
</PRE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>then compiling it with a shitload of extra information no beginner will ever understand and running it from an applet viewer or - even worse - a HTML page which you have to create yourself first

or just

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="mrc-small">Code:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="mrc-small"><PRE>
Locate 50,50
PRINT "Hello"
</PRE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

And just RUN it

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

29-08-2003, 11:00

The first steps of coding are quite difficult indeed. But I think you agree that learning BASIC is quite a lot easier than learning Brainfuck. So it DOES matter which programming language you start with. And for beginners nothing beats a good BASIC.Since most programmers switch to other languages it would be easier to just start programming in these other languages. Of course, I'm not saying here someone should start with assembly language or worse.>>Programs are in many cases not useful at all...<OK: Sourcecodes are in many cases not useful at all...Pascal has structure. Pascal hasn't got objects.I learned OO programming with OO Pascal.Besides, I can show you quite a lot of terrible JAVA/C++ sources.Don't. I have seen enough of them. I am capable to produce terrible sources in any language.OO can be used to create more structure, but doesn't 'force' the use of structure at all. Instead, I think most beginners will make a total mess out of it.And these beginners will produce great Basic sources, I am sure.Oh, I agree the new MSX should -also- have an OO-language (probably JAVA and C++), but there should be an alternative as well. BASIC. An improved BASIC, but still.... BASIC.OO BASIC? Hehehe.>>BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing.<<
I think more than 80% of our visitors disagree with you here.
Well, our current government shows that the majority of the people isn't always right...>>scr.print "Hallo Wereld!"
is much better than:
10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"<<
is it? Apart from the linenumbers PRINT "Hallo Wereld!" makes a lot more sense to me.
There is always a point where things don't make sense anymore.
"Hallo Wereld!" make more sense to me than PRINT "Hallo Wereld".
EDIT: "Hallo Wereld!".print is more like OO, ofcourse Smile (Or to follow your example below: "Hello".print at 50,50)Lets make a comparison with JAVA.Okeej. But throwing in some examples in some OO language to show basic is shorter will not convince me.What do you think is easier to understand
import java.awt.*;
import java.applet.Applet;

public class Greeting extends Applet {
public void paint (Graphics g) {
g.drawString ("Hello", 50, 50);
}
}
then compiling it with a shitload of extra information no beginner will ever understand and running it from an applet viewer or - even worse - a HTML page which you have to create yourself first

or just

Locate 50,50
PRINT "Hello"

And just RUN itWell, even beginners will eventually understand what's happening and why it has to be done.
But msx java will run from the ide, of course. Just like your basic example.
And I was not suggesting Java should be the language of choice. Maybe a basic with objects... And I can give a example in a non-OO language that is just as confusing as your java source... Try to do that in C, for example...

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

29-08-2003, 13:24

For a beginning programmer, a procedural language (like BASIC, Pascal, C) just *is* easier to grasp than an object-oriented language. After all, when programming, it's easier to understand you're "just trying to *do* stuff" than to understand that you're "manipulating objects".

Come to think of it, I'd vote for Modula as default programming language Tongue
Modula is like Pascal but has a stricter interface/implementation separation and gives you the possibility to do OO-like things too.

Page 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4
My MSX profile