forum.vdsworld.com

chucks0 · Newbie Joined: 08 Jun 2002 Posts: 23

After reading this thread, I had to download and try out iBasic. There were two main things it has that I would love to see incorporated into future versions of VDS.

1. The ability to access API calls without having to use an external DLL.

2. The ability to create a single EXE that that does not require the vdsrun dll.

Often times, pointing out other languages can lead to improvements in others.

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

Personally, I think VDS is the only language as easy as it is. For example, the code to make a simple dialog in VDS would be A LOT smaller than the exact same thing in iBasic:

VDS:

SnarlingSheep · Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:36 pm Post subject:

True FreezingFire.
For me, IBasic will be the language I step up to, I guess... I'll still use VDS though.
I can't seem to step up to C++ or Delphi or something like that.
PGWare said that VDS is only slower than other languages by like half a second..Uncompiled IBasic programs seem to blow VDS away.
Anyway, yes VDS is very easy to program with, and I definetly recommend it when it fits that person's needs.

That IBasic code can be a bit smaller though Wink

Tommy · Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2002 11:04 pm Post subject:

I don't think any kind of BASIC language could compare with VDS. Even though
I'm getting well on with Delphi and VDS, I never got to understand much of BASIC.
Although I don't know much about BASIC, the way it works seems to be too
unstructural/unlogical. At least I'm sure it could take quite some time for new users
to understand. Maybe new users could make something with it, but themselves
understanding exactly what they're doing is probably a different thing.

vdsalchemist · Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2002 1:15 am Post subject:

Sorry Tommy and everyone else,
I think I started a snowball here Confused

Anyway thank you Tommy for moving this thread to the Misc section. I agree that is a better place to put it. Anyhow Basic as implemented for Visual Basic is not as Structural as Delphi but this is because Delphi uses Pascal as it's language symantics. Basic is still considered a beginners language because it is similiar to spoken languages but because of the extensions to the language it has strayed away from it's original intensions a bit just like most languages out there. I remember when I was trying to go from GWBASIC to QuickBasic which ment going from a purely procedural language to a more structural language I had a pretty hard time converting but after I got the hang of it, it was just another language to learn. Also the language itself does not determine if it is structural or not just like the language itself does not determine if it is Object oriented. This is a programmers preference and should be. There are times when using structural programming can be a bad thing but they are very few. Usually speed and size is the determining factor for this. Other than that I would say that Basic as a language is not as impresive as other languages but that is because there really has not been that big of an improvement to the language itself. Anyhow this is my 2 cents on the subject so take it with a grain of salt:)

Garrett · Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2002 6:45 pm Post subject:

Depends on which Basic Language. There's quite a few out there,
some more comprehensive than others.

And there's more out there than those. Some of them are just mere
toys, while some of them can compete with any professional
programming language.

It's like looking for a car, do you want a Chevy, Nissan, Renault or
a Ferrari? Very Happy

Newspaz · Newbie Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 10

Actually, since I'm a really lousy coder. And to lazy to learn one of those basic langauges. I rather stick to VDS.