Printable View
You confuse syntax with features.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
It seems that for you to be Basic-like is to preserve (and increase?) the shortcomings of VBx.
About syntax: to be Basic-like is to have clarity.
They have nothing to do one thing with the other.
You always confuse everything.
When you hear about pointers, BASIC is not what comes to mind. I believe someone also made a point in that thread towards why VarPtr was hidden. Its so that "noobs' can't shoot themselves in the foot or some such thing if I understood correctly. The point I am making is that the concept of raw pointers is not BASIC-like and never was, yet it is still accepted by VB6 programmers. This is why I find it quite odd that some of these same VB6 programmers could complain about += in BASIC.
Nevertheless, I'm not really down to fight over this. I just found it interesting.
What personally think is that the more abilities the language has, the better. Whether it's VarPtr or what Wayne suggested:-
Either is fine in my opinion. You guys can mince this one. I'll just watch ;)Code:MemoryAddress.UnsafeCast(Of Double) = 123.456
With MemoryAddress.UnsafeCast(Of MyUDT)
.Value1 = 123
End With
it should be optional and not mandatory,
thats what I wrote, anything non basic, need to have an equivalent basic syntax, thats it.
preferable also a IDE-command that can switch between the syntaxes, as I explained,
if you use += I should be able in my IDE, call "convert into basic-mode" and it will parse the project and change += into the basic equivalent, and in the same do the reverse if u want to use that.
or work with both, if u prefer that. its all about choices.
and about pointers, I don't agree.
basic in commodore 64 u could directly manipulate the memory using "poke", and u could call any memoryadresses using the "sys" command.
but they a word not some odd symbols.
and I don't understand why its not basic. its just an address that the object/variable is located. nothing strange about that.
+= is not and never was mandatory. It is a choice. The choice is between a=a+1 or a+=1. So you already have a BASIC and a "non-BASIC" way of doing it. Adding a 3rd way to do this is just polluting the language which is why I am against operators like ++.
You are still confusing things, but it is already like the 10th time. I'm tired to explain the same thing over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The subject was discussed on its threat at GitHub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
If you have something to say, you can go there.
But I think what you are saying was already discussed there.
yeah. but again
if you have non-basic syntax, there should be a way to change it
to have both, it will confuse people, even if both works, I want a converted when I get your source
sure I can create my own parser, but that would mean TwinBasic is already broken if I need that.
and if we have 50 different non-basic crap all over the language, u can not demand people to just know it.
or force people to adapt. thats selfish.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on. I have nothing to add on the discussion of pointers. I just see a lot of contradiction in some of your attitudes on what BASIC should be. That's what I was trying to point out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
I have to ask. Do you actually believe this to be true? Honest question.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
The contradictions are in your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Yeah, we agree in something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
yes, it will confuse.
but most of it, it will create an ugly source.
I want the code to be neat, and += is ugly.
now you want to have that crap syntax, sure, use it if you want, but do not force it on someone else.
I don't want to have it, and if I see it I will be forced to change it. its like OCD, theres no option, you force me to check the entire code to change all that.
for me, its not how basic should look like.
and as I already wrote, it will create issues in the community when we are using different syntaxes,
you think its a small thing, nothing to argue about, but I tell you, it will get troublesome.
twinbasic already added: <<, >>, +=, -=, *=, \=, /=, ^=, &=, <<=, >>= so its not just +=
that for me is going in the wrong direction. instead of really brainstorming to figure out a "basic" equivalent, the c- like operators where added.
in the end it will just be a handful people using it, 99% will use the basic functionality and the RAD-functionality.
what a couple of you (and Im not really sure you will even use most of it) are doing is to create a master language for your own needs that just a few of you will use.
the other experts will never use twinbasic, they will use c/c++ so in the end, its features that just a handful will use, if ever. maybe its just a wet dream to come true since you wanted to have it, now u got it to the expense of the language itself. for everybody else its just making it confusing.
microsoft could have added, but they didnt. mostly because its not needed for the masses. and the experts will surely use c anyway.
for me, what would have been the best strategy is: create a successor for VB6, and stay in course with the language, and if you add features, they should use basic words, not something else.
now, it seems twinbasic will create his own story, and Im not sure I want to follow that. we will see, but Im not happy about c language mixing. rather don't have those fancy operators than have the syntax like that. I mean, I can still use VB6 and do "almost" anything anyway so its not that its so needed to destroy a language. no thank you.
When I moved from VB6 to VB.Net, I picked up the new operators almost immediately. The << and >> operators in particular answered some of my prayers. I always hated having to use division to perform bit shifts in VB6 and I loved that Microsoft finally brought them to Visual Basic. As for the += and -= operators, I picked those up very quickly as well. Unlike the bit shift operators, I didn't actually need them but after a while, I found myself using them exclusively when incrementing variables anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
To be honest, I have never gave much thought to them. To me it seemed like a natural progression. It didn't confuse me nor did it ever feel odd or out of place to me. I think this is where our disagreement fundamentally comes from. I'm used to these operators in a BASIC syntax while you are not. You see this as dragon to be slain while to me it's not even worth mentioning.
I cannot say we will ever agree on this. All I can say at this point is to plead your case to have them removed from TwinBASIC if you guys feel that strongly about it.
Im not opposed to add Left Shift and Right Shift Operators.
but we could have:
A LeftShift 2
A RightShift 2
instead of << and >>
its the natural way, instead of letting c win again.
thats what I dont like. why do we need to copy c.
if you like c so much, go write c code.
What about:Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
I don't remember if that was discussed on GitHub.Code:A LShift 2
A RShift 2
Ugh :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
Imma be honest, that is ugly as hell. However, it is not unprecedented. For example, VB.Net has non-symbolic operators like AndAlso, OrElse. Let's not also forget the classics like the NOT, MOD, AND, XOR and OR operators.
However, I have a question. Why stop there? Why not go all the way and do this will all operators? Instead of:
we doCode:a + b
OrCode:a PLUS b
Where is the line drawn?Code:If a EQUAL b then
Lets see how this will look in actual code. Lets use this from another post I made:-
Lets see how that would look with the >> operator replaced:=Code:code = errorValue And &HFFFFI
facility = (errorValue And &H7FF0000) >> 16
severity = Math.Abs((errorValue And &H80000000) >> 31)
reserved = (errorValue And &H40000000) >> 30
customer = (errorValue And &H20000000) >> 29
NTSTATUS = (errorValue And &H10000000) >> 28
XBit = (errorValue And &H8000000) >> 27
Now lets take this argument all the way and replace all symbolic operators:-Code:code = errorValue And &HFFFFI
facility = (errorValue And &H7FF0000) RShift 16
severity = Math.Abs((errorValue And &H80000000) RShift 31)
reserved = (errorValue And &H40000000) RShift 30
customer = (errorValue And &H20000000) RShift 29
NTSTATUS = (errorValue And &H10000000) RShift 28
XBit = (errorValue And &H8000000) RShift 27
The = assignment operator is replaced with a non-symbolic Assign keyword.Code:code Assign errorValue And &HFFFFI
facility Assign (errorValue And &H7FF0000) RShift 16
severity Assign Math.Abs((errorValue And &H80000000) RShift 31)
reserved Assign (errorValue And &H40000000) RShift 30
customer Assign (errorValue And &H20000000) RShift 29
NTSTATUS Assign (errorValue And &H10000000) RShift 28
XBit Assign (errorValue And &H8000000) RShift 27
Do you guys honestly think any of this is better? I don't know about you guys but I find that extremely painful to read.
its not the same, it has been like that since commodore 64 and maybe even earlier.
remember that < stands for "Lesser Than"
so a << would be "Lesser Than Lesser Than"
and thats how basic works. it tells u "this" stands for something and not something else.
like
so, <= would mean Lesser Than Or Equal To
that is how basic work.
while in c u can have == and other odd combinations
@Eduardo-
yeah, that looks ok as well LShift and RShift I could buy. its a bit shorter.
so @Niya its not about having words to everything, but that it makes sense.
you can combine the words and symbols and you can read it.
like a language
mousetrap = we would understand mouse and trap.
but in c it could mean something completely different.
+-*\^ are already used. so if you want a symbol to create LeftShift, we would need to take something that is not used, and the keyboard is quite limited for that.
Well you could look to what FreeBASIC has for operators: it uses Shl and Shr. But then again, it has +=, ^=, And= Shr=, so... maybe not lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
Not my call, but I can't see these new operators being removed from TwinBASIC, there's probably as many who like them as dislike them.
Perhaps the thing to do is to write a linter. If you see code that doesn't use your preferred style, just stick the linter on it. And I can run it in the opposite direction afterwards :-)
I get what you're trying to say but it just seems so arbitrary and random what is and isn't acceptable. As hard as I try to understand you guys' point of view, I gotta say, I really don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
I guess there is a fundamental difference between the way we think. Past few years I've become very open-minded and willing to accept changes with little to no fuss. 15-20 years ago I might have been firmly in you and Edurdo's camp but today, it's like whatever to me, you know...bring it on!....I can't find it in me to fuss about tiny things like this anymore.
This fundamental difference of mind may be the main reason I was able to transition from VB6 to VB.Net with zero problems while others cannot bring themselves to do it. I looked at VB.Net and saw progress, you looked at it and saw betrayal. We see things completely differently. It is what it is I guess.
All in all, I hope you guys get what you want out of TwinBASIC in the end.
Just to harp on a little bit on this point. There was a time in my past where I hated seeing VarPtr and CopyMemory in Visual Basic programs because I felt it didn't belong in BASIC and because code like that could actually crash the IDE itself. I felt it was a corruption of the simple, easy to use and learn BASIC language I had grown up with. I used to be like "Pointers? In BASIC? Why don't they go to hell with that! Why are people bringing this C garbage over here!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
It was only later in life when I got more comfortable and knowledgeable about lower level details like pointers did I realize that my real problem with VarPtr and CopyMemory was that I couldn't understand it. Today, I don't mind it one bit. Now that's a 180 about turn!
for me its just this:
- when u start borrowing words from other languages it will make your own language not unique anymore and not really the same language anymore
why is it that hard to add "LShift" or "SHL" or "LeftShift" instead of <<
theres no logic.
but Wayne is not a basic guy, he is a c/c++ guy so for him its natural.
but for me, its not. for me its a betrayal for the language itself.
even if .net (that also betrayed basic) just adapted << >>,it doesn't mean that TwinBasic need to follow the .Net dudes.
I thought that TwinBasic was the continuation of VB6 and not .Net
so another betrayal. its the whole reason TwinBasic has a chance to get us VB6 on board because we never bought the .net discount.
if I really liked how .net worked, I would have already migrated and I wouldn't even care for TwinBasic as I would have focus on the later .Net updates.
These operators were actually added before twinBASIC reached alpha (and before there was a repo to discuss such things). I'm sure it never even occurred to Wayne that they could be controversial, only that they would be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
There's a pretty active community on the GitHub repo, with lots of discussion of proposals. When something genuinely splits opinion, there's usually a vote on which way to go. That seems very reasonable to me. If you're not already active there, I'd urge you to join in if you want to help guide its direction.
The logic behind this is simple....People are already familiar with the << and >> symbols and what they mean. Those of us that bounce from language to language actually prefer many things remain the same. I love the fact that it's the same in C/C++, VB.Net, C#, JavaScript and Python. I've used all these languages at one point or another and I can personally say that it is SO great when these languages have things like this in common. It takes so much burden out of learning new languages when you can bring much of what you've learned in other languages to whatever language you're learning now.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
If TwinBASIC starts attracting people from outside of the VB6 community, it's most likely going to be overwhelmingly supported.Quote:
Originally Posted by mansellan
I guess the real question that needs discussing is, do you guys want TwinBASIC to be for just VB6 programmers? Or do you want it to become something more?
Niya is talking about things that have been discussed ad-nauseam days ago here in this same thread.
He needs to come in the proper time.
so, TwinBasic is not the continuation of VB6,
and why the h*ll do we need compatibility, transfer project etc? if in the end its created for the benefit of everyone else?
TwinBasic need to get people from c, c++, c#, java, python and whatever. and why not just create the entire language into that and skip basic?
no point using basic if the mission is to get c/c++ people here, and if they want to be comfortable, why not just use c/c++ language?
and why should c/c++ programmer even care if TwinBasic will be a b@stard of a language that they will hate.
we know that c/c++ people usually sees basic as the kids language, something inferior, and crappy.
so why should they spend time in twinbasic at all?
no, c/c++ people will stay there, as they believe its the master language, and also, everywhere, companies, they require you to know c,c++,c#,java etc,
it takes "a lot" to make a new language successful. so not easy to achieve status. and if you try to please everybody, in the end you get nothing.
so, now we gonna invite everyone.. and in the end nobody will show, at the premiere party. as they will just stay where they are as its the most comfortable place to be.
and while the VB's will be there looking around and thinking. oh well, this was a blast, sitting in the corner area as they where not the vip.
its hilarious that I need to bend down for other languages and in the same time give TwinBasic support.
so, no. I have seen this before, in other kickstarter, where in the end the dev had other plans and it went all to s***.
@baka, @Eduardo, you both seem very angry, and I'm not sure why.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
But I think I need to stop now.
Hey man. You're taking this a little too personal. We're talking about a programming language here. No need to get so worked up over this. People are going to have opinions that differ from yours and there really is no right and wrong here. Try to relax and take it for what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
I would say that the reason that >, <, +, and = make sense to us is because we learned them in grade school. There was a time when those symbols didn't mean a thing to us, we just learned a common meaning at such a young age that we don't remember learning them. They don't have inherent meaning. We had to learn them. Did I learn = before I learned the word equals? I don't remember, but I think probably not. I remember learning math, though only vaguely, but I learned to read before I have any memory.
We can do the same thing for any other operator. Personally, I prefer Or to |, but that is partially because I use | for other things, not necessarily in programs. For me, with the background that I have, >> and << are as familiar to me as +, =, and so on. However, LeftShift isn't more familiar than using Equals in place of =, it's just that we learned the meaning of = so far back in our lives that it's second nature. Any other operator could be the same. On the other hand, if you use LShft or SHL, then you aren't really replacing a meaningless symbol with words. Instead, you'd be replacing a meaningless symbol with a meaningless symbol. You'd have to KNOW what SHL meant. It is no more obvious than <<. So, if you want to use words, LeftShift or ShiftLeft would be readable whereas an abbreviation has to be learned just the same as a symbol has to be learned.
The VB6 community has carried emotional baggage from the perceived betrayal by Microsoft because they abandoned VB6 for VB.Net. I kinda get it since I resisted for quite a while before I moved to VB6 but once I moved over, I got over it real fast. However, the people who didn't migrate have carried that hurt for decades now and those emotions bleed out in discussions like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mansellan
This is actually not an uncommon phenomenon. I've seen a particular nasty one on a C forum where a guy went to war with the whole forum because he couldn't use his DOS real mode programming skills in modern protected mode operating systems like Windows. It was bizarre as hell but I saw many of the same arguments in that thread. Much like many here argue for the purity of VB6 and it's way of doing things, this guy was arguing for the "purity" of operating systems where programmers should be allowed to interface with hardware directly. He had a bunch of assembly code he wrote back in the 80s that was just useless in Windows because Windows doesn't allow you to just do what you want. He was furious at this and no one could convince him that his code was outdated and unneeded.
I also remember this exact same type of thing happening when Starcraft 2 was released. Half the people in the these gaming communities went nuts because it wasn't the original Starcraft. There were people that actually complained that it wasn't "real" or "pure" because they used 3D graphics instead of outdated sprite based graphics. They also didn't see any of the improvements as improvements but as Blizzard not caring much like we see people here saying that Microsoft doesn't care.
I've seen this behavior over and over and over again. This is an extremely common theme of the human experience. There's always a section of people that hate change and perceive it as a betrayal by the movers and shakers when they enforce changes.
The point is, when the old meets the new, you're going to get some strong emotions and people losing their damn minds, whether it's VB6 vs VB.Net, Starcraft vs Starcraft 2 or Windows vs DOS.
its your words, multiple times u write similar to this:
- attracting people from outside of the VB6 community
- People are already familiar with the << and >> symbols and what they mean.
always "outside", and what "you" like.
so, VB6 need to adapt to you, because you are used to that.
and VB6 that u abandoned, now you want a TwinBasic.Net
you don't care about VB6 at all, you just want to have it your way.
of course you are calm, you are getting what you want.
a TwinBasic that is like .Net
the betrayal is that now I need to code like you want it,
and that for me is hurting, because that means, .Net won. we gonna go your way.
so, all the BS about making TwinBasic the next VB6 was all just talk.
it was just to lure the VB community into it to get support, for the ultimate needs are the outsiders, the .net people.
here u have a new tool to play with.
and you are advocating it. pleased with yourself that u won.
I wasn't there when Wayne put >> or += in the language. That had nothing to do with me.
If you want to talk about what I like, then lets talk about the Set statement. When I was testing TwinBASIC a few months ago, I advocated strongly for it's removal in this very thread because it clashed with generics and was causing a bunch of problems with some code I was writing. After some back and forth, it was decided by Wayne that Set cannot be removed without serious consequences to the bottom line of VB6 compatibility. I accepted that. I think the Set statement is utter garbage yet I didn't get what I want and I'm not losing sleep over it. It is what it is.
Ultimately, this isn't about me. If it was about me, getting rid of Set would have been at the top of my list. It's the number #1 thing in my opinion that is hurting TwinBASIC language wise. If this were in my hands, I wouldn't care if removing it broke 1000 VB6 projects, it would have been gone gone gone. So don't assume so casually that TwinBASIC has everything I want. TwinBASIC is still more VB6 than anything else despite operators like += and >>.
Look at the comment section of this video:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSSNYa_xYmo
I asked:-
This was my earliest interaction with Wayne. Look at what I asked about....unsigned types. I didn't even mention operators.Quote:
Quick question....Are unsigned integer types implemented in your compiler? Does your compiler have types like C's unsigned int?
In fact, here is another video where someone expressed similar views to you:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mBxtFQxLNs
Here is the comment in question:-
To which Wayne replied:-Quote:
It looks good, but please don't add things like 'Value /= 4', that's not Basic.
The idiocrasy of Basic is that it is a language understable by human, it is almost English. Allowing things like that undermines the language.
You can say: well, if you don't like it, don't use it. But when people find this kind of code on internet, may be discouraged to learn the language because it will seem hard to understand. It makes the code less readable.
I would think thoughtfully before adding new features and allowing new syntax, and I guess the original VB6 developers also did that way.
Great work and I wish you best of success!!
I really had nothing to do with the new operators at all. I hadn't even thought about it until Zvoni brought it up earlier in this thread. I just have an opinion that happens to align with the decisions that were already made. Your fight is not with me.Quote:
Hi Juan,
Thanks very much for your opinions.
My personal opinion is that assignment operators do have their place in the language. As you've probably noted, we are adding several of the more useful features as found in VB.NET, and this is one of them.
However, I can totally appreciate that from a "purist" perspective that having them in the language may be a little controversial.
It will be easy for us to offer a switch to turn feature groups like assignment operators off at the project level, so we will look at doing that.
Thanks again for your thoughts… much appreciated and noted.
@Shaggy Hiker,
You've mentioned a few times that this thread is getting lenghty. Would you mind if I start reposting twinBASIC language proposals in this forum as new threads, prefixed with [twinBASIC]? I feel like there's some great discussion to be had here that's just not getting captured on the repo
I guess what I'm trying to say baka is that I'm the wrong target to take your wrath out on. My effect on TwinBASIC's development is very limited. I reported a bug and and there and made a couple suggestions. TwinBASIC would have still had what it has with or without me. I'm just giving my opinions but you guys have the actual power to steer TwinBASIC in whatever direction you want. Wayne is doing this for you guys, not for me.
If certain types of discussions come up, yea I will chime in sure but that's all it is, discussion. You can either agree or disagree. You guys need to speak up on what you want or don't want to the developers, not to me, if you want to see actual change.
That's understandable. Microsoft _did_ abandon VB6 for VB.Net, no question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
But now there's a way forward. 64-bit. Cross-platform without a VM. It's frankly incredible. But we're arguing over _operators_? Really?
Yea, I don't get it either but I can't say that I'm surprised. You just get used to it after a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by mansellan
LeftShift
LShift
LeftS
Shl
None of these things are as readable to me as <<. And probably 99% of programmers out there.
These operators are _ubiquitous_. Nearly every other language out there uses them. Everyone else out there knows what they mean. It's not enough to say that "popularity doesn't mean correctness" or that they're not "BASIC-y" enough (despite other BASIC dialects adopting them). You have to explain why YOU are right and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong. If your argument is that VB6 didn't have them, that's insufficient.
Readability is subjective. BASICness is intangible. Explain why we should go your route.
I'm not angry. But Niya comes here after a week or two with arguments that have already been answered and discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mansellan
And he made reference to me, when he talked about the Pointers thread. That's why I had to come into, in a discussion that I considered I had nothing to add already.
Summarizing my position about the += operator, I feel it as un-basic.
And it seems that I'm not alone in the opinion. Still, I'm not sure who is right or what is the best idea. I acknowledge the need of a new, shorter operator for making increments.
It is only that += seems too unnatural.
Still, I don't have a better proposal, other than Inc VariableName 5 that doesn't seem too good either.
Wow. Just... wow.
I can't believe this argument is still going on. For those that feel so strongly that assignment operators (+= etc) shouldn't be in the language, or that << should be LShift or whatever, please come over to github and make the suggestion to remove or change them. I can promise you, your voice will not be ignored! It will be discussed, and then it will probably come down to a vote.
I've always said that backwards compatibility is the number 1 priority with twinBASIC. You simply have no idea the lengths that we have gone to, and continue to go to, to try to achieve 100% backwards compatibility, every single day... for every single decision we consider in detail the backwards compatibility aspect. As has been said before, all new features added to the language are entirely optional and there is a planned 'Legacy mode' switch that will turn off every new feature and provide strict VB6 (/VBA7) language syntax whilst still allowing you to compile to 64-bit.Quote:
so, TwinBasic is not the continuation of VB6,
and why the h*ll do we need compatibility, transfer project etc? if in the end its created for the benefit of everyone else?
TwinBasic need to get people from c, c++, c#, java, python and whatever. and why not just create the entire language into that and skip basic?
no point using basic if the mission is to get c/c++ people here, and if they want to be comfortable, why not just use c/c++ language?
and why should c/c++ programmer even care if TwinBasic will be a b@stard of a language that they will hate.
we know that c/c++ people usually sees basic as the kids language, something inferior, and crappy.
so why should they spend time in twinbasic at all?
no, c/c++ people will stay there, as they believe its the master language, and also, everywhere, companies, they require you to know c,c++,c#,java etc,
it takes "a lot" to make a new language successful. so not easy to achieve status. and if you try to please everybody, in the end you get nothing.
so, now we gonna invite everyone.. and in the end nobody will show, at the premiere party. as they will just stay where they are as its the most comfortable place to be.
and while the VB's will be there looking around and thinking. oh well, this was a blast, sitting in the corner area as they where not the vip.
its hilarious that I need to bend down for other languages and in the same time give TwinBasic support.
so, no. I have seen this before, in other kickstarter, where in the end the dev had other plans and it went all to s***.