Microsoft Small Basic

Additionally, there's the Coding4Fun team at Microsoft whose charter is to provide resources for people who program as a hobby. Their blog is at http://blogs.msdn.com/coding4fun/archive/tags/c4fnews/default.aspx The Coding4Fun start page is at http://blogs.msdn.com/coding4fun/pages/1994662.aspx

Good for them. And too bad that efforts like this have to be dismissed by those who see it as aiming for the "kiddie crowd". Or maybe you meant "kittie". Like Wae's "helper cat".

I use VB6 at work for automating Engineering calculations and inputs. We are not going to switch to VB.Net, totally different language and much more confusing for casual user like myself

@losta don't be an a$$hat!

"C, and C++...now those are nice languages...." Yup, with buffer overflows.

C++ is not even a true OOP language and has some of the same problems C does.

C++ is too complex when compared to Java and VB.Net. I never cared much for it. I've heard C# is better, although I've never used it. I like to use C for the main code and VB.Net to call it - best of both worlds. :-)

Panache I'm not even going to begin to get into what is or isn't "object oriented" I'll just leave it as what Alan Kay said in the hallway at OOPSLA 87: "I invented the term Object Oriented and I get to say what it means". As I recall, he was saying that Smalltalk 72 WAS Object Oriented and Smalltalk 80 was not.

Some folks are using Small Basic to solve the problems at Project Euler. http://projecteuler.net/index.php?section=problems >>Project Euler is a series of challenging mathematical/computer programming problems that will require more than just mathematical insights to solve. Although mathematics will help you arrive at elegant and efficient methods, the use of a computer and programming skills will be required to solve most problems. The motivation for starting Project Euler, and its continuation, is to provide a platform for the inquiring mind to delve into unfamiliar areas and learn new concepts in a fun and recreational context.<<

As an FYI on just some of the idiocies in the "super sexy beautiful C-like syntax" I'd offer Eberhard Sturm's 1994 paper comparing C to that classic of 1964 era programming design, PL/I. The paper, "Power vs Adventure - PL/I and C", is at http://www.uni-muenster.de/ZIV.EberhardSturm/PL1andC.html (I pick this example to show that while I'm no doubt biased, it's hardly a blind pro-Microsoft bias since Microsoft is a C-deriviative shop despite getting started in business with BASIC and Fortran and PL/I is an IBM language and the paper was from an IBM conference)

panache C# is meant, in part, as a way to do c-like syntax without the inherent security flaws in c itself. Yes strcpy() is inherently unsafe. But so is the entire concept of null termination as a workaround for not having a concept of a string and so is the concept of using pointers to memory to work around not having arrays. Those are flat out inherent security flaws in the language itself. And they were flaws that had long ago been solved when c was written and when c++ and ObjectiveC were written. (With some slack cut to Stroustrup since he meant C++ as a preprocessor and not a language) Personally, I'd find: ++y; x = y; to be just about as ugly as x += ++y; since the ++ operator is positionally specific (++y vs y++) and really adds nothing but syntactic sugar to y = y + 1 Yes, I'd prefer: y = y + 1 x = x + y (and, yes, I'm skipping the ";" terminator since it decreases readability) Oh, and "*" having multiple meanings is hardly a ridiculous example, to have one operator meaning "multiply" or "pointer" or "power" is nuts. Look at the partial line: "**a". Is it part of a line saying a is to be treated as a pointer to a pointer? is it part of a line saying "raise something to the power of a"? Is it part of a line meaning "treat a as a pointer and multiply something times what a points to?

(oops) That was supposed to be x = y and not x = x + y in the example

meason C# all the way! VB.NET all the way! C and C++ should be consigned to the dustbin of history along with autocoder and RPG.

panache First off, zero based arrays is pretty much a standard in almost all languages. Maybe not the best design but hardly a VB.NET thing. As to **a, the point of a language is to translate the meaning of the programmer into something the processor can execute. Vagueness is NOT an option until we get languages that can understand intent (see Charles Simonyi's intentional programming). That we can work around bad design doesn't make it good design. Syntax should be clear. As for compiler optimization as a language goal, I've always felt that the compiler should work for the programmer and not the other way around. The work of the few people creating languages should be to make life easier for the large number of people using languages. Your finding it acceptable that a language construct should exist because it makes it easier to write the compiler is the same as saying that we should put [b][/b] tags in Word because it would make life eaiser than implementing WYSIWYG editing for the Word team. The problem with ++y is twofold: 1) People don't use ++ in real life and the way people DO increment is already supported. 2) Since ++y and y++ do more than one thing they're not really operators, they're shortcuts for a method. 3) Since ++y and y++ do different thing and even moreso if y is not a number they add confusion. Additionally since they can be used in macros and on non-numeric operands the order specific actions can introduce side effects not obvious to the programmer who may have their code used later as part of a larger structure of code. Now, as to your dislike of VB.NET, perhaps you should give some examples that actually matter rather than the base of arrays being 0 (ironic since the c libraries use 0 as well and c doesn't even know what an array is)

Mike, What are you TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!!? I never said ANYTHING about 0 based arrays being a problem! In C if you do int x[5]; you get FIVE ELEMENTS! x[0]...x[4] In VB6 and VB.NET if you do Dim x as Int32(5) you get SIX ELEMENTS x(0)...x(5)....THAT IS IDIOTIC! Can I be any clearer about that? I said twice already that in VB6 and VB.NET dimming an array specifying a value gives you that value PLUS 1....unless you explicitly say Dim x as Int32(1 to 5) Stop putting words in my mouth.... for more examples of why VB sucks as a language...primarily from VB6....many of these many no longer be applicable in VB.NET you can do x = 5, or Let x = 5 however, if you are using a COM interface (or some other object) and you do NOT use the "SET" keyword, it's a syntax error. If you call a method in VB6 SomeMethod(param1, param2) and one of those parameters is a ByRef parameter, the behavior is different than if you do CALL SomeMethod param1, param2 And how come I can't use parenthesis if I say "CALL"...or something like that...I always get confused with this stupid VB6 language because there are multiple ways of doing something that SEEM the same, but aren't.... Another beauty...the idiotic OPTION EXPLICIT.....please! So someone can write code where the types are interpreted, and someone else can use the SAME LANGUAGE to write code where the types are explicitly specified and enforced...yeah, that's great! How come I can do an IF statement without a THEN if it's all on one line, but I need a THEN statement if the "true" part of the conditional is to be broken up onto multiple lines? The reason C uses 0 based arrays is due to the way the memory is handled, which makes 100% absolute sense when you put it in perspective of how a computer works allocating blocks of memory in contiguous blocks. Remember C is meant to be a low level language so if you want a block of memory, you are getting a block of contiguous memory page aligned blah blah blah...where it is extremely fast to increment that pointer to the next "element" in the "array" another thing, I agree the compiler should work for us..I was making reference to code written years ago when performance was much more critical, and using "++y" *may* have helped produce a better optimized piece of code. Obviously on today's CPUs the gain you would get from that, if any, would be minimal. I have read in numerous places that the current crop of programmers who have no clue about C / C++ produce much poorer code when writing their Java and C# apps than programmers who have knowledge of the lower level languages and have an idea of how things may be working behind the scenes.

panache Then I misread your earlier statements about arrays. I'd say that Dim a(4) giving an array that goes from 0 to 4 is at least as clear as int x[5]; giving an array that doesn't include x[5] since that's what's mentioned in the statement. Note also that VB's syntax is based on having dynamic arrays and makes more sense when you're declaring arrays that don't start at 0 The other examples you give I'd tend to agree are sloppy (but I'd note that they're not what c would consider part of the language but, rather, part of the library and if we go there, c is really hideous), some are, as you guessed, old VB6isms, and the remaining OPTION EXPLICIT was a transition compiler flag (not a part of the language anymore than #debug is a part of c) that allowed for backward compatibility between compiler versions. As for why c uses 0 as a base being tied to how memory is allocated, that's actually an example of how the compiler writer's simplistic design forces the programmer to be a pre-processor (and isn't even accurate anymore with dynmamic memory allocations in the OS) Knowing how a computer works is something I'd agree is important to be a good programmer. And, for that, I'd suggest students learn an assembler or even a little native machine language. C, on the other hand, only teaches you how a PDP7 works and cripples your writing style after that.

chuckb OK. This is scary. I'm agreeing with you on pretty much everything. (Well, I'd say Objective C is a closer way to put real object orientation onto C than c++ but I'd argue that either one is putting lipstick on a pig and that Objective C is just a nicer shade of lipstick. As for language debates, at OOPSLA 87, I was standing in line for the banquet between Bjarne Stroustrup (creator of c++) and Brad Cox (creator of Objective C) while they discussed what was the better way to graft OOP onto c so after that, this is nothing.

@mikegalos: "First, there's a LOT more VB code out there than C" Prove it.

@mikegalos: Look Mike! FOUR retail versions of Vista! :) A second rate OS running on the best hardware out there. http://bs0l.com/images/vista.jpg

See, the thing about VB.NET is that it *PROBABLY* wouldn't have a place to on this Earth if it wasn't for VB6 to begin with...that VB6 -> VB.NET wizard only exists so that all those lines of VB6 code could HOPEFULLY be "upgraded" to something more modern... either way, regardless of your choices of programming language, it's nice to see Mike Galos have an intelligent discussion without going of the deep end (yet)... CHEERS Mike Galos.....CHEERS!

@panache1023: I do not hate Mike. Not at all. I take this as fun banter. Them's not fighting words. I simply disagree with Mike's statement that there's more VB code out there than C. Find it very hard to believe. That's all. There's no hate there. Mike, if you think I hate you (not that you'd probably care), I don't. It's simply like I said, with the years head start, the fact that virtually every OS ever released, in embedded systems, mobile phones; all of them having C compilers - I think C would have an enormous lead on the amount of code out there.

panache Actually, I'd say it's fair to say that VB.NET wouldn't exist without Visual Basic 1.0 bringing GUI programming into the realm of application level programmers back when it was introduced in 1991 at Comdex/Windows World in Atlanta. That product changed the world of programming. For a good description of those days, the only good history I've seen is Scott Ferguson's article "Thunder: The Birth of Visual Basic" which is on his website at http://www.forestmoon.com/BIRTHofVB/BIRTHofVB.html which is a must read for anybody interested in how VB got created. (I still have my Thunder desk clock and team t-shirt from back then)

robertsjoe Actually, I thought that c had more code out there than VB until I saw the numbers. What you're missing is: 1) The vast, vast, vast majority of computers out there run Windows. Yes, there is c for lots of platforms but 20 niche platforms that add up to .001% of the market don't matter that much, nor do the next 100 that add up to .01%. 2) Most programs in the world are either internal to corporations or are application rather than system level. And the vast majority of those have been in VB since the switch from mainframe COBOL.

Mike, What I mean is...you are making good lucid points without falling into what most consider your arrogance, and you are talking with a lot of fact, and not so much your opinion which you feel is fact, nor are you on your "MS is the best thing to happen to the Earth" pedestal or something. Cheers to you.

Programming - BAH! I'm glad I don't do it anymore.