vb or c

[dekelc]

Resently, I've beeen asked to choose a language to learn.
vb6 or c++. I already know a bit of vb so it would be
easyer to learn and get pretty good at it. But, I've
been toled that c++ is better.
What should I choose?

[HarryW]

That depends. What kind of stuff are you planning on doing, and how complicated do you want it to get? VB is initially easier, and you get quick results. C++ is more powerful, but is more complicated to learn and use.

[aaudette]

VB would be a much better language to begin with. WHile c++ is powerful, its very complicated, especially if you plan on doing windows development, so my advice is to learn vb first, and then look into c++ later if you still want to

Like I've said over and over, learn VC++

Once you do, you'll know all about the API, window messages, memory management, the registry, and so on. Being a VB expert is literally a stone's throw away...

If you learn VC first, you'll never pick up the bad habbits that VB can suck an amateur programmer into like not defining variables, not initializing variables, assuming object destruction, ignoring memory management, ignoring OOP and so on.

You can even take your skills to other platforms like Linux(and they're reviving the Amiga Does anyone have the SDK?)

Best of luck, whichever you choose.

[HarryW]

True, bit it will take absolutely ages before he can write something that looks snazzy and does something useful

[kb244]

Heck learn both of them, I did, VB can make a great frontend, and you can create ActiveX dlls from VC++ and use them to include better functionality in VB, Also I think it was MegaTron that said this: I'm paraphrasing here

"Which is better, a Hammer or a Screwdriver, well a hammer can put a nail into a wall pretty good, and a screwdriver can screw a screw very nicely, but not vice versa"

the eternal question "Which is better" bugs some of us that have delt with both, it all depends on the nature of your problem, what are you trying to make, what's it going to take, so on and so on.

Whoa! The leap from VB to VC++ is huge. This is what I did: Buy a C++ book (ANSI standard, NOT Visual C++) preferably one that has a CD containing a third-party C++ compiler. The book I bought was "Learn C++ in 24 Hours" £18 (dunno what it is in dollars, not much though), by Sams Publishing.

The interface of the compiler is reminiscent of Qbasic, It lets you design, write, debug AND compile into full executable files.

Once you have become used to writing C++ code, then I suggest you should move up to VC++, and then the leap will be less great.

fyi... The compiler in my book is called "DJGPP / RHIDE", which was ported from the GNU version.

[kb244]

For C++ I recomend "C++ From the Ground Up" it covers everything that is standard, and not any non-standards. I dont think those 24 hours books are any good for C++. (God knows you cant learn all of C++ in 24 hours, let alone the sheer basics)

[parksie]

I'm going to agree with Karl here...
It took me weeks to get to grips with the basics of C, let alone C++. Although, once you understand and can use pointers effectively, you're past the worst. Also, there's a C++ book in the same series as the original K&R book, which is supposed to be very good.

[kb244]

You'll notice a fine print in them somewhere, typically inside the cover, it'll state somehting like this:

"The content of this book does not garrantee you will know ... in 24 hours, but rather the context of the book can be read over a period of 24 hours"

they make them small enough so that the average joe can read through the whole thing in 24 hours, but may not understand it, the C++ one you decribe, surprisinly states something about pointers, dont know how much tho, but I guess my point is, spending between 10$ to 20$ more, for a typical book like the one I mentioned (not a K&R book, as the standard was set last year, and was not adopted upon the K&R C Standard) In any case that extra buck really goes along way , also dont judge a book by it's thickness (hehe I've seen huge books that were mostly code examples, and illustrations)

to Parskie: I dont know much about the K&R Standard, but from what I know, it is/was the 'C' stadard, C++ didnt have a standard until '98 (or early '99)

[dekelc]

Thanks everybody!
From what I understand, I should learn VB
and then I'll know how to refer to C++ as a
programming language cause I'll have the basic
of programming.

Or am I wrong?

[kb244]

Sounds good, you just might be tripping when you move to C++ when you try to get use to the more strict structure, But VB would allow you to freely play around without most of the syntax/structure restrictions found in C++.

[kb244]

It was back in '98 or early '99, the ISO/ANSI set a standard for C++, this is where you'll hear alot about the STL too.

[quick followup]

thats why I recomended "C++ from the ground up" the author since the 2nd revision and up, only covers the Standard in his book, since he was one of those memebers of the commitee that decided on the standard. He mentions this in the beginning of the book as well.

[parksie]

That's not what I meant...

Yes, there is a standard, but it's still not completely sorted because different compilers still cannot interoperate properly.

[kb244]

They have a standard, just some compilers dont comply completely to the standard, for example, VC++ claims to have 100% standard support, when it's actually closer to 80-90% , and borland claims the same with their latest, but not a 100% of the compilers existing are standard, the C++ Standard still exist, but just because not all the compilers *yet* support them, doesnt mean it's not a standard. But I can see what you mean. (that book I mentioned, will work with the most popular compilers)