Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Something about OOP and building in all versions of BP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Something about OOP and building in all versions of BP


    Hi, Programmers (Only points of OOP in PB in the future)

    We live in a time that structured programming will go to the background, but it must remain to exist. We live in a Windows period, everything works with objects and programming the event is.
    Maybe is object oriented programming a bit discouraging and reticent for many programmers and that is possible to understand, because it ask some insight in the abstract thinking in objects, but there are many possibilities with OOP and many advantages.
    I won’t repeat everything what I already have done, otherwise they will say that I’m complaining again. But I will name all the possibilities of OOP and those possibilities must never be absent in al the versions of PB.

    The possibilities of OOP are:
    Data-abstraction
    Encapsulation
    Inheritance
    Polymorfism
    Dynamic binding
    Constructor
    Destructor
    Private, Public, Protected
    Genest objects
    The compose of the making better of the possibility of maintenance and faster and reliability, complex applications
    They can make complex applications by classes
    They can make newer versions by applying multifarious.

    The advantages:

    They can program an event
    Objects become reusable
    They can realise expansions much faster and independent. So they can make complex applications of already developed classes
    The compiling end distributing of classes to other programmers (in the form of an unit)
    The multifarious
    They can make so many objects of a clas
    To make derived classes of a baseclas by the inherit
    An object can consist other objects
    They can use the clas as a plug, that could be replaced by an updated or deleted (Modularation)
    They can write and test every clas separately
    We can easy work in a team of programmers
    We can make components by the use of classes.
    Mouse event driving
    By the creation of flexible applications by classes, we can make that the common flexible codes are written just once.
    They can avoid redundantation of the code

    So that was something about OOP, what it has to offer.
    I think that the market sector will rise if you will use the OOP Comoilers.
    Because in Belgium, Powerbasic is not very known, I’m making this famous for your company, what sure will sound positive for you.

    I’ll quit know and I really hope that OOP will belong in your compilers.

    Yours sincerely

  • #2
    Stephane

    Have you tried Visual C++, JAVA, Smaltalk or Delphi? They are all very good tools and will do exactly what you want.

    It will take some time to build OOP and everything you want into Powerbasic and you have to wait for as long as it takes. So if you cannot wait then try another OOP language and keep Powerbasic for very fast, very small DLLs when you need them.


    Siamack

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




    [This message has been edited by Siamack Yousofi (edited March 12, 2000).]

    Comment


    • #3
      stephane,

      OOP or what you could also call "concept programming" has already been
      with us for some time, early Visual Basic stole the market and most other
      vendors have never caught up, even the big ones like Borland.

      Now apart from very large vendors commercial interests, the range of
      things that need to be written by programmers is truly enormous and it is
      fair to say that no single product is going to do them all, no matter what
      the hype may be.

      PowerBASIC does what few others are capable of any longer and that is that
      it will build very small, high speed binary files and this addresses the
      market where performance does matter. Programmers do not come to PowerBASIC
      because it is easier to use than Visual Basic, they come almost exclusively
      for low level power.

      Now this distinction is a useful one in that object construction can only
      be done at low level. From the 16 bit windows days of writing those
      disgusting VBX add-ons I can promise you that they were not written in
      Visual Basic, they were generally written in C and were very complicated
      and error prone code to write.

      This capacity is simply not available in "concept" based languages, they
      may be able to screw together bits that other programmers have written but
      they do not have the fundamental power to make the difficult stuff.

      The only reason I can see why programmers of the OOP approach keep wanting
      a low level language like PowerBASIC to become like VB/VC/Delphi is
      because they would like to get the size and performance of PowerBASIC with
      the familiarity of forms and pop up windows.

      The problem is, this is like trying to have your cake and eat it, sell it,
      save it and throw it as well, just ain't going to work. The mechanisms of
      producing a concept based language lead to the familiar bloat that has
      brought programmers to PowerBASIC looking for performance.

      Siamack is correct of course, there are a number of languages well suited
      to OOP style programming but you can forget the idea of real speed or
      performance when you go that way. In many cases this simply does not
      matter in that many applications are not at all speed critical but where
      you do need performance, low level procedural programming with all of its
      dirty trick, number crunching and unmentionables like unconditional jumps
      are the only way you can get it.

      Regards,

      [email protected]

      ------------------
      hutch at movsd dot com
      The MASM Forum

      www.masm32.com

      Comment

      Working...
      X