Help: Visual Basic Setup Problems
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Searcher7 on 1 Feb 2010 21:55 On Feb 1, 10:45 am, "Mike Williams" <M...(a)WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote: > "Ralph" <nt_consultin...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:OnuAsu0oKHA.5520(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > But then there is also my favorite, which is a lousy *First* > > language for someone totally new, but may be an option > > for someone with the nerve to take on Assembly. <g> > > Assembly was once my favourite as well. Times have changed now of course and > hardware and operating systems are much more complex than they were, but > when I first started programming I found that machine code, initially > without the help of an Assembler and later with one, was just about the > simplest thing to deal with. I liked it on the grounds that it was very fast > and that once you had learned the basic machine code instruction set you > needed knowledge only of the operating system I/O functions and of the > addresses and functions of the various video and audio and other hardware > registers (there were far fewer of them of course in those days!). As far as > the actual coding was concerned you lived mostly by your own rules, and were > not required to either remember or to follow somebody else's. I actually > started with BASIC simply because a copy of it was built into the operating > system and I soon realised that (at least in those days of extremely slow > interpreted BASIC) it simply was not fast enough to do very much in real > time and so I bought a book on Assembly and I loved it. In fact one of the > very first really useful things I wrote in BASIC was a simple 6502 > Assembler, which worked very well and which made it very much easier for me > to write my code. I was actually an engineer by trade, not a programmer, and > electronics was my only real hobby at the time, so I never paid as much > attention to my programming side-hobby as I perhaps should have done, but if > I had been a programmer by trade at the time I'm sure I would have stuck > with Assembler. In the end I let it go and concentrated almost totally on my > main hobby in electronics. It was many years later that I went back to > programming as a hobby. Too late for me now of course to move into Assembler > again, operating systems and hardware are vastly more complex than they were > and I am far too long in the tooth to begin learning their intricacies, so > Assembler is out for me and I'll stick to my favourite VB6 until it finally > gets ground into the dusts of time, by which time I will almost certainly be > in there with it ;-) > > Mike The info in this thread has given me another reason to hate Microsoft. (As if I did have enough already). Perhaps I should go back to Assembly. I know hardware is more complicated, but is it really more difficult to learn the needed basic machine code instruction set, OS I/O functions, and addresses/ functions of the peripheral registers? Or is it no longer possible to write "simple" apps in assembly for what it is? (I guess that JAVA and C++, or C# will be on my to do list eventually). Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.
From: Ralph on 1 Feb 2010 22:42 Searcher7 wrote: > > The info in this thread has given me another reason to hate Microsoft. > (As if I did have enough already). > One is certainly allowed to hate whatever or whoever they wish, but such hated, warranted or unwarrented, is less than useful. The simple fact is, you have to deal with MS if you want to work with Windows. You do not have to use their development tools, there are alternatives. > Perhaps I should go back to Assembly. I know hardware is more > complicated, but is it really more difficult to learn the needed basic > machine code instruction set, OS I/O functions, and addresses/ > functions of the peripheral registers? > Yes. Compared to any high-level language Assembly is going to be "more difficult" by any standard you wish to employ. It takes more lines of code (more debugging, more room for errors). It is harder to find information. It takes longer to write. There are fewer tools. > Or is it no longer possible to write "simple" apps in assembly for > what it is? > Of course not. What in programming is impossible? > (I guess that JAVA and C++, or C# will be on my to do list > eventually). > Perhaps. Depends on what you want to do. I would pick something you enjoy working with. If you intend to treat programming as 'hobby' then nothing else matters. If you intend to make a buck programming (full or part time) the opportunities available or your employer will have more say about your future "To Do List". <g> -ralph
From: Searcher7 on 1 Feb 2010 23:24 On Feb 1, 10:42 pm, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Searcher7 wrote: > > > The info in this thread has given me another reason to hate Microsoft. > > (As if I did have enough already). > > One is certainly allowed to hate whatever or whoever they wish, but such > hated, warranted or unwarrented, is less than useful. The simple fact is, > you have to deal with MS if you want to work with Windows. You do not have > to use their development tools, there are alternatives. My ultimate goal is not to have to be confined to Windows. > > Perhaps I should go back to Assembly. I know hardware is more > > complicated, but is it really more difficult to learn the needed basic > > machine code instruction set, OS I/O functions, and addresses/ > > functions of the peripheral registers? > > Yes. Compared to any high-level language Assembly is going to be "more > difficult" by any standard you wish to employ. It takes more lines of code > (more debugging, more room for errors). It is harder to find information. It > takes longer to write. There are fewer tools. I didn't mean in comparison to high level languages. I mean Assembly today compared to the Assembly of "yesterday". > > Or is it no longer possible to write "simple" apps in assembly for > > what it is? > > Of course not. What in programming is impossible? To clarify my meaning, when I said simple apps I meant will it be just as easy to grasp Assembly and write a specific app as it was to grasp Assembly and write the same app years ago when Assembly was popular? (From what I've read VB in the book so far does seem kind of limited for what I want to do). Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.
From: Nobody on 2 Feb 2010 01:01 "Searcher7" <Searcher7(a)mail.con2.com> wrote in message news:9f3749c7-d812-43c4-b843-1b39a5a970cc(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > Perhaps I should go back to Assembly. Why not C++? It's easier to code and the output is very close to Assembly. http://www.learncpp.com http://www.cplusplus.com Another option is KBasic. It's 100% code compatible with VB6, but not the GUI part. It's multiplatform and uses Qt as GUI. It's open source and currently free(Donateware). http://www.kbasic.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29
From: Ralph on 2 Feb 2010 01:49
Searcher7 wrote: > On Feb 1, 10:42 pm, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Searcher7 wrote: >> >>> The info in this thread has given me another reason to hate >>> Microsoft. (As if I did have enough already). >> >> One is certainly allowed to hate whatever or whoever they wish, but >> such hated, warranted or unwarrented, is less than useful. The >> simple fact is, you have to deal with MS if you want to work with >> Windows. You do not have to use their development tools, there are >> alternatives. > > My ultimate goal is not to have to be confined to Windows. > In that case, then go C/C++. In terms of 'a' programming language it is about as universal as they get. -ralph |