 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Objective comparison of computer languages.
Date: 2 Jun 2009 15:30:34
Message: <4a257dda@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In other words, there's full support for C++ in the system.
Cool. Good to know. One less fool language I'll have to learn if I ever get
into Mac development. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > In other words, there's full support for C++ in the system.
> Cool. Good to know. One less fool language I'll have to learn if I ever get
> into Mac development. :-)
As I said, you'll have to learn Objective-C if you want to use Cocoa.
There's no way around it. It's just that *besides* Objective-C, you can
mix C++ into your program nicely, because Xcode supports Objective-C++.
(The only alternative to Cocoa on MacOS (but not the iPhone) is the
older Carbon library, which is in pure C, but I really think you *don't*
want to use it.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Objective comparison of computer languages.
Date: 2 Jun 2009 18:26:35
Message: <4a25a71b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Well, then you're just saying web browsers are being ported to lots of
>> platforms...
>
> Right. And web browsers nowadays have javascript built in. You got it! So
> C and C++ aren't the only languages common on lots of platforms including
> the
> embedded ones. :-) Altho on platforms with no UI at all, I'll grant you
> javascript is less likely to be there than C.
I know of at least one lynx-like web browser with Javascript support :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I know of at least one lynx-like web browser with Javascript support :)
Lynx has a UI. :-) "Without UI" means things like anti-lock brake computers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> hell you like, because it only needs to run on one PC. And if you're
>> writing end-user applications... yes, probably C or C++, realistically.
>
> I'd say, probably more and more C# these days. Again due to better tools
> available for easy money.
Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download 250MB
of data and install it before they can use your program?
>> (Although, say, Wings 3D is Erlang or something isn't it?)
>
> Yep.
I get Wings, Blender and all those others confused quite frequently.
Must have been a lucky guess. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download 250MB
> of data and install it before they can use your program?
Most machines already have it by now. "Really? People use Linux? Even tho it
requires downloading...?" Yes, really. If it's a problem, you put it on a CD.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download
>> 250MB of data and install it before they can use your program?
>
> Most machines already have it by now. "Really? People use Linux? Even
> tho it requires downloading...?" Yes, really. If it's a problem, you
> put it on a CD.
All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required the
.NET 1.1 runtime, which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes
for the runtime to install before you could install the actual program
itself (which took about 3 minutes to install). I always wondered why
the hell anybody would develop software this way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required the
> .NET 1.1 runtime,
So the fact they're up to 3.5.x doesn't signal that maybe something
different is going on nowadays? Damn, if everyone using Linux or something
said "Gee, when I tried it 5 years ago, it was a PITA to install, so I never
looked at it again" it never would have gotten off the ground.
.NET comes with Windows nowadays. If you don't have it on there already,
chances are you don't have an internet connection fast enough to download a
program, either.
> which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes
> for the runtime to install
Wouldn't it have made more sense to put it on a CD and install it?
> before you could install the actual program
> itself (which took about 3 minutes to install). I always wondered why
> the hell anybody would develop software this way...
Because you only have to do it once, and it's a pretty nice infrastructure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required
>> the .NET 1.1 runtime,
>
> So the fact they're up to 3.5.x doesn't signal that maybe something
> different is going on nowadays? Damn, if everyone using Linux or
> something said "Gee, when I tried it 5 years ago, it was a PITA to
> install, so I never looked at it again" it never would have gotten off
> the ground.
>
> .NET comes with Windows nowadays. If you don't have it on there already,
> chances are you don't have an internet connection fast enough to
> download a program, either.
Really? That's interesting. So how do you explain the fact that I keep
having to manually install it?
Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.
>> which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes for the runtime
>> to install
>
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to put it on a CD and install it?
I *did*.
The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.
>> I always wondered why the hell anybody would
>> develop software this way...
>
> Because you only have to do it once, and it's a pretty nice infrastructure.
In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end
users.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Objective comparison of computer languages.
Date: 3 Jun 2009 12:09:56
Message: <4a26a054@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> .NET comes with Windows nowadays.
> Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.
That's pretty much what "nowadays" means, yes. Sure, if you're running an OS
version that was released before .NET was, it makes it hard to come with.
> The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.
You just like complaining, don't you? :-)
> In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end
> users.
For both, really. Indeed, that's what the whole "one click" fiasco is about.
And you get less malware and unexplained lockups when the software you're
running is written in .NET, because it's checking for buffer overruns and such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
