An Observation . . .
- . . . not a complaint. I understand that the philosophy behind SB is a beginner's language, but as a beginner, I find SB to be not that simple. It appears to me that one needs to be at least familiar with the Visual languages in order to understand SB. All of the This.That() or What.Ever() objects (is that what they are called?) are very confusing. I have written some small programs in QuickBasic 4.5 and Fortran and I am still confused when it comes to SB. I'm glad to see SB and I'm sure there are a great many folks who will jump right in and have fun.
Bill
Respostas
- Do not think about "This.That()" as about objects. You know too much about programming ;D
This syntax works as two level menus in some apps. You can put it all together but it makes crowd. There are too much options. If you have Flickr.something - you have not to enter this "group" until you need something from Flickr. With graphical hints it works really nice.
It makse sense for me even if I know gwbasic or Atari Basic were slightly different.
Grzesio- Sugerido como RespostaFremyCompanyUsuário que respondequinta-feira, 2 de julho de 2009 18:22
- Marcado como RespostaFremyCompanyUsuário que respondesexta-feira, 3 de julho de 2009 20:02
Todas as Respostas
- I agree, but I am having fun with it although I program for a living. It certainly can (probably should..) be simpler. There are other basic type languages out there that are simpler, but often w/o much support or have the things you may want.
I think if you spent a little time with simple examples, you'd get used to it very quickly and enjoy it waaay more so than most 'higher' level languages. Quite unfortunately C++/Java etc are now so complex that only a professional can use them effectively.
Objects are a way to group related things together, which to me is unnecessary for core SB, but I suppose is ment to be a stepping stone to the ideas of more powerful languages. There are very few objects in SB, so you'll quickly get the hang of typing 'File.' and so on, it completes the text for you anyway. Little bit of a nuisance. - Do not think about "This.That()" as about objects. You know too much about programming ;D
This syntax works as two level menus in some apps. You can put it all together but it makes crowd. There are too much options. If you have Flickr.something - you have not to enter this "group" until you need something from Flickr. With graphical hints it works really nice.
It makse sense for me even if I know gwbasic or Atari Basic were slightly different.
Grzesio- Sugerido como RespostaFremyCompanyUsuário que respondequinta-feira, 2 de julho de 2009 18:22
- Marcado como RespostaFremyCompanyUsuário que respondesexta-feira, 3 de julho de 2009 20:02
- I agree with you that Flickr, external libraries, and so on probably should be dotted, but what I think as core things like printing, plotting, especially math, and file i/o just doesn't need it. I think decades of that usage format could be submitted as proof. Can we ever imagine someone else having another cosine function from another library? I do like the menu effect.
