Subs and Functions

[B Hall]

In Basic you have subs and functions. That's what makes it Basic. So I don't understand the goal of turning Basic into C++. Just use C++ if that's what suits.

However, the traditional Basics that are commercial products allow the subs to be library calls or DLLs. So I can't resolve very well what it is that OO programmers want.

VB7 will be 100% OO? Well, but is it Basic?

[B Hall]

Whoa, this new topic was just suppose to be a reply to one of the OO subjects below.

------------------

[stephane fonteyne]

Originally posted by B Hall:
In Basic you have subs and functions. That's what makes it Basic. So I don't understand the goal of turning Basic into C++. Just use C++ if that's what suits.

However, the traditional Basics that are commercial products allow the subs to be library calls or DLLs. So I can't resolve very well what it is that OO programmers want.

VB7 will be 100% OO? Well, but is it Basic?

Hello,
Visual Basic is to slow en to large exe's
It used runtime modules and OCX
VB70 is NOT puur 100%

Borland C++, C++ Builder, Borland Pascal, Borland Delphi create native OOP code
Maybe; PBDOS/PBCC/PBDLL or PowerBASIC for Windows used in the future OOP and Event programming

Kind regards




------------------

[B Hall]

The point is that if Basic becomes something else then its no longer Basic. At that point you have lost a choice of programming style.

The Basic that I have worked with the past six months will compile subs into libraries. I just can't see that I am missing anything.

------------------

[K Peel]

I respect PowerBasic's current implementation\extension of the BASIC programming language and use it all the time, it is somewhat astounding how such an Advanced compiler could be distributed on a floppy disk!

Object orientated programming has it's advantages, but implementing this in the compiler would probably change the way you will program your applications!

If you want "OOP" in "BASIC" then "GOTO C", because "OOP" is not "BASIC" and never will be, in the true sense.

I think that PowerBasic would do good to release a companion compiler or library that supports OOP\COM etc. and can be used alongside current compilers\languages.

Just my 2 pence worth (again)

------------------
Kev G Peel
KGP Software
Bridgwater, UK.
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[B Hall]

To just repeat the points:

If your Basic will compile subs into libraries and if the library sub can have parameters passed to it when it is called, then how could a method of C++ be necessary.

------------------

[Paul Noble]

When OO came to the C language, it was originally implemented as a pre-processor, which converted OO source code and constructs into procedural C source code. This was then compiled in the normal way. I believe the enhanced C language was called 'C with classes'.

Perhaps a similar scheme for PowerBASIC would keep everyone happy ?

Regards,

Paul

------------------