No!!! We don't need anymore VB programmers please stop development
IMMEDIATELY.
If you want a RAD (Rapid Application Development) try Borland's Delphi
product. Then you could move up to C++ Builder and before you know it you'll
be doing programming you would have never thought possible.

"Rick" <pov### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message
news:3846a0f6@news.povray.org...
> (I have just started VB6 and i am amazed at how short the learning curve
> really is - ok there are 1 million and 1 things i am doing badly, my code
is
> about as optomised as a pair of giant clown shoes with running spikes on,
> and there are thousands of things i just dont know how to do)

Post a reply to this message

i am intreged by delphi, and a lot of people have said it kick VB ass, but
on the other hand, i dont have delphi, and as VB6 goes, so far its damn easy
to program, and as RAD is what i am after, VB works well for me..

I can see a point where VB will become a pain in the arse, for example when
i end up using the win api all the time, but i am not doing that at the
moment, so far VB does everything i want, quickly, and with very little
effort.

dont knock VB to much, it has it place, and as long as you dont try certain
things, or expect C++ or ASM performance it works fine, i grew up on C64
basic years ago, and VB is very similar, finding you can write win apps,
without actually having to really learn another language is a huge boon, and
as everything i write is for myself, never intended to be distributed, and
speed is just not a concern - as long as it gets the job done, and donst
give me any headaches in the process, its fine..

you should try it sometime :)

I have also used VC6, and while it has a greater kick of speed, greater
control, its incredably difficult compared to VB, and i dont have the time
to get my head around MFC propperly, so when my apps outgrow VB, i dont
think VC will be the answer, and when i get to that point, delphi may prove
to be perfect, untill then

VB ROOLS (i have never had so much fun while i was working - *not strictly
true - but this is neither the time or the place to go into that!*)

Rick



"Nicholas Hanson" <da_### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3877fc8e@news.povray.org...
> No!!! We don't need anymore VB programmers please stop development
> IMMEDIATELY.
> If you want a RAD (Rapid Application Development) try Borland's Delphi
> product. Then you could move up to C++ Builder and before you know it
you'll
> be doing programming you would have never thought possible.
>
> "Rick" <pov### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message
> news:3846a0f6@news.povray.org...
> > (I have just started VB6 and i am amazed at how short the learning curve
> > really is - ok there are 1 million and 1 things i am doing badly, my
code
> is
> > about as optomised as a pair of giant clown shoes with running spikes
on,
> > and there are thousands of things i just dont know how to do)
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Rick" <pov### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message
news:387882fe@news.povray.org...
> i am intreged by delphi, and a lot of people have said it kick VB ass, but
> on the other hand, i dont have delphi, and as VB6 goes, so far its damn
easy
> to program, and as RAD is what i am after, VB works well for me..

I find Delphi even easier to program than VB and it's a native code
compiler.

> I can see a point where VB will become a pain in the arse, for example
when
> i end up using the win api all the time, but i am not doing that at the
> moment, so far VB does everything i want, quickly, and with very little
> effort.

But by learning on it you are developing very nasty programming habits that
will haunt you later if you choose to go deeper into programming. At the
very least please get into the habit of using OPTION EXPLICIT instead of
declaring everything as varient automatically. It really is a bad language
to learn on.

> dont knock VB to much, it has it place,

I'm not saying the language has no purpose, I use it myself. I don't develop
applications for it however. I use VBScript in ASP pages, I use VBScript in
WSH Scripts, and I use VBA for Office scripting and though I can use
JavaScript for two of those I like to use a common scripting language. It is
a great SCRIPTING LANGUAGE but for Application development and especially
for learning programming it's a bad tool to use.

> and as long as you dont try certain
> things, or expect C++ or ASM performance it works fine, i grew up on C64
> basic years ago, and VB is very similar, finding you can write win apps,
> without actually having to really learn another language is a huge boon,
and
> as everything i write is for myself, never intended to be distributed, and
> speed is just not a concern - as long as it gets the job done, and donst
> give me any headaches in the process, its fine..

But Delphi is just as easy to use, compiles faster code (I find it's better
than even C++ -=USING MFC=-), and actually teaches you good programming habi
ts since it's strongly typed and far more object oriented than VB. Just FYI
if you don't know the language Delphi is based on is PASCAL so you may
already know some of the basic syntax.

> you should try it sometime :)

I'm actually a MCP and I work for a company that is a MCSP so I'm VERY
familiar with it. We have 6 copies of Visual Studio Enterprise and I still
have Delphi installed because it's just superior. I would like to note that
this is my personal opinion not those of the company I work for.

> I have also used VC6, and while it has a greater kick of speed, greater
> control, its incredably difficult compared to VB, and i dont have the time
> to get my head around MFC propperly, so when my apps outgrow VB, i dont
> think VC will be the answer, and when i get to that point, delphi may
prove
> to be perfect, untill then

I agree with out completely. VC is a very powerful tool and I recommend it
FOR EXPERIENCED PROGRAMMERS but it doesn't hold your hand at all and is VERY
BAD to learn on. Delphi on the other hand has all capabilities and ease of
use that Visual Basic does but is much more. Also it shares a common VCL and
interface with Borland's C++ Builder (which is FAR easier to use than VC++)
so it leads to a natural progression... I do think VC++ is better than C++
Builder but it's far more difficult to use so for a new person I'd recommend
this sequence:

Delphi -> C++ Builder -> VC++

> VB ROOLS (i have never had so much fun while i was working - *not strictly
> true - but this is neither the time or the place to go into that!*)

I bet you wouldn't say that after even a half hour with Delphi. It's ease of
use and power are unmatched it just doesn't have they hype.

For the record I think the Win32 version of Povray (well the interface
anyway) was written in Delphi (or at least was at one point). As was
HomeSite, Age of Wonders, etc.

Post a reply to this message

ok, you convinced me, i will try delphi when i get chance.

I did do some basic pascal in college, so i do have a bare bones
understanding of it, and i did learn a lot of good and bad programming
techniques, i do try to write basic in the same way i would write C -
otherwise its to easy to get into a real mess - but this can be said of any
lang.

most of my routines are wirtten on paper first, tweaked on paper, then
finally entered and most of the time (barring typo's) tend to work first
time, i never just jump into the editor and write the code off the top of my
head.

but i do take your point that in VB is so easy just to throw all good coding
sense out of the window.

VB isnt that bad to learn on, if your already familar with good coding
prctices, and for quick 'take this' and 'do that' apps is fine, i did some
VB3 at college as well, and yes - that sucked big time.

btw - at college they still teach basic pascal (with turbo pas 3) then in
the second year, you move onto VB, daft i know, you would think that year 2
would build on year 1, like teaching delphi in year2, or starting with C++
and doing VC in year 2.

i think this tread has ventured into the off-topic group, if you reply -
reply there.

Rick

Post a reply to this message

Nicholas Hanson wrote:

> "Rick" <pov### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message
> news:387882fe@news.povray.org...
> > i am intreged by delphi, and a lot of people have said it kick VB ass, but
> > on the other hand, i dont have delphi, and as VB6 goes, so far its damn
> easy
> > to program, and as RAD is what i am after, VB works well for me..
>
> I find Delphi even easier to program than VB and it's a native code
> compiler.

AFAIK, VB 5 and up do compile to native code...

>
>
> > I can see a point where VB will become a pain in the arse, for example
> when
> > i end up using the win api all the time, but i am not doing that at the
> > moment, so far VB does everything i want, quickly, and with very little
> > effort.
>
> But by learning on it you are developing very nasty programming habits that
> will haunt you later if you choose to go deeper into programming. At the
> very least please get into the habit of using OPTION EXPLICIT instead of
> declaring everything as varient automatically. It really is a bad language
> to learn on.
>

I have to agree. You can learn it in a trimester at school(I know, I just took a
class in it), but its really a bad language to start learning. I prefer the
blood and guts approach of learning C/C++. They're much nicer language, and
after using them, and using VB, you'll desperately wish you had pointers in VB.

>
> > dont knock VB to much, it has it place,
>
> I'm not saying the language has no purpose, I use it myself. I don't develop
> applications for it however. I use VBScript in ASP pages, I use VBScript in
> WSH Scripts, and I use VBA for Office scripting and though I can use
> JavaScript for two of those I like to use a common scripting language. It is
> a great SCRIPTING LANGUAGE but for Application development and especially
> for learning programming it's a bad tool to use.
>

Its nice in that it takes six seconds to get something done that takes 100 lines
of code in C(ya, the code is cut and paste, but you know what I mean)

>
> > and as long as you dont try certain
> > things, or expect C++ or ASM performance it works fine, i grew up on C64
> > basic years ago, and VB is very similar, finding you can write win apps,
> > without actually having to really learn another language is a huge boon,
> and
> > as everything i write is for myself, never intended to be distributed, and
> > speed is just not a concern - as long as it gets the job done, and donst
> > give me any headaches in the process, its fine..
>
> But Delphi is just as easy to use, compiles faster code (I find it's better
> than even C++ -=USING MFC=-), and actually teaches you good programming habi
> ts since it's strongly typed and far more object oriented than VB. Just FYI
> if you don't know the language Delphi is based on is PASCAL so you may
> already know some of the basic syntax.
>

Pascal? Delphi? I've only vaugly heard of these. Anywhere with some good infor
on Delphi?

>
> > you should try it sometime :)
>
> I'm actually a MCP and I work for a company that is a MCSP so I'm VERY
> familiar with it. We have 6 copies of Visual Studio Enterprise and I still
> have Delphi installed because it's just superior. I would like to note that
> this is my personal opinion not those of the company I work for.
>
> > I have also used VC6, and while it has a greater kick of speed, greater
> > control, its incredably difficult compared to VB, and i dont have the time
> > to get my head around MFC propperly, so when my apps outgrow VB, i dont
> > think VC will be the answer, and when i get to that point, delphi may
> prove
> > to be perfect, untill then
>
> I agree with out completely. VC is a very powerful tool and I recommend it
> FOR EXPERIENCED PROGRAMMERS but it doesn't hold your hand at all and is VERY
> BAD to learn on. Delphi on the other hand has all capabilities and ease of
> use that Visual Basic does but is much more. Also it shares a common VCL and
> interface with Borland's C++ Builder (which is FAR easier to use than VC++)
> so it leads to a natural progression... I do think VC++ is better than C++
> Builder but it's far more difficult to use so for a new person I'd recommend
> this sequence:
>
> Delphi -> C++ Builder -> VC++
>

Ouch, sounds expensive...sounds REALLY expensive.

>
> > VB ROOLS (i have never had so much fun while i was working - *not strictly
> > true - but this is neither the time or the place to go into that!*)
>
> I bet you wouldn't say that after even a half hour with Delphi. It's ease of
> use and power are unmatched it just doesn't have they hype.
>
> For the record I think the Win32 version of Povray (well the interface
> anyway) was written in Delphi (or at least was at one point). As was
> HomeSite, Age of Wonders, etc.

Interesting. Pity Borland doesn't release free trial versions<G>...

--
LuAnne: You know, at the beauty academy they teach us that people aren't
black or white or yellow or red, but their hair can be.

Post a reply to this message

"Alex Magidow" <axi### [at] mninternet> wrote in message
news:387B2C36.99E359D6@mninter.net...
> AFAIK, VB 5 and up do compile to native code...

Not the standard version. The pro might, I'm not sure, but I know the
enterprise does. However you still need to keep the runtime dll. I don't
think it's possible to make a program that is ONLY the exe like you can in
Delphi. Plus I haven't tried it but I've heard VB can't make all kinds of
COM objects as Delphi can. In fact the only thing that I know of that Delphi
can't make is a certain type of device driver and VB can't make that either.
It can only be made in C.

> I have to agree. You can learn it in a trimester at school(I know, I just
took a
> class in it), but its really a bad language to start learning. I prefer
the
> blood and guts approach of learning C/C++. They're much nicer language,
and
> after using them, and using VB, you'll desperately wish you had pointers
in VB.

I wouldn't go that far. C/C++ is an extremely difficult thing to learn for
someone with no programming experience. It has constructs that make no sense
at all and the only good explination is the programmers were just too lazy
to type a few extra characters. Also is uses archaic symbols heavily instead
of words that make sense and it's case sensitive which is just stupid. To a
non-programmer ORANGE means the exact same thing as orange but they are two
entirely different entities in C/C++.

I stand by Pascal/Delphi as the beginners language and C/C++ as the expert
one. In fact as I said if you only program C++ using MFC then Delphi is
probably still a better choice.

> Its nice in that it takes six seconds to get something done that takes 100
lines
> of code in C(ya, the code is cut and paste, but you know what I mean)

I agree but this is also a feature of Delphi and it doesn't teach you the
nasty habits. VB really has no strenghts at all that I can think of over
Delphi. Everything that VB can do Delphi can do also and the inverse is not
true.

> Pascal? Delphi? I've only vaugly heard of these. Anywhere with some good
infor
> on Delphi?

Well I think PASCAL is pretty much a dead language now. It used to be the
language you were taught on in before you moved up to C/C++. For example I
took AP Computer Science in high school and the AP test was in Pascal as
well as the first year of college at most major universities. I think they
switched the test to C in '94 so that pretty much meant the end of Pascal.
Delphi is based very loosly on it and calls it's underlying language Object
Pascal. You can find info on Delphi at http://www.borland.com/delphi


> Ouch, sounds expensive...sounds REALLY expensive.

Well you aren't supposed to buy them all at once. When I say move from one
to the other I kind of meant over years after you've MASTERED each not just
got the hang of them. For the record though Delphi 5 Pro comes with C++
Builder Standard and Delphi 5 Enterprise comes with C++ Builder Pro so you
only have to buy one.

> Interesting. Pity Borland doesn't release free trial versions<G>...

Then they'd have no income. Unlike MS they don't have Office or Windows to
fall back on for profits. You might be able to get some stripped down
version or something in one of the books for it, I'm not sure.

Post a reply to this message