Author Topic: C++ and Fortran  (Read 4054 times)

GuruSR

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Assembler (6500, 68k, Intel), C(all), VB6, no .Net
Re: C++ and Fortran
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2016, 11:42:01 AM »
All I recall of Fortran is that it seemed clumsy and archaic. For the BASIC languages, and in particular QuickBASIC, the mathematical expression notation was very well designed, making it easy to code calculations of the sort involved in stress analysis, for example. Starting with the move to Visual Basic, Microsoft increasingly compromised their BASIC languages (for example with the IMO idiotic introduction of the Variant type), at least for my purposes, and now with 64-bit systems that cannot natively run 16-bit code, I have switched to using C. FreeBASIC is available in 32 and 64-bit versions (as well as a DPMI version), and accepts the QuickBasic expression syntax, but for calculations I don't have the confidence in it that I had in QuickBASIC (no slight intended to the FreeBASIC developers, who have done an excellent job).

IBM Dos QBasic or the QuickBASIC someone else wrote?  I know I could run it in Vista, probably in a dos window in 7 too.  Reminds me of dealing with the floating point bug in certain cpus...  Wow, days gone bye...  And wait, you don't like Variants?  Basically that is a simple term for "stupid DWORD pointer".  Microsoft LOVES variants, a lot of the code you find in scripts and such (batch files) are variants.  They just point to whatever is needed, objects, values, etc.

GuruSR.
Learned 68k Motorola Asm instruction set in 30 minutes on the way to an Amiga Developer's Forum meeting.
Following week wrote a kernel level memory pool manager in 68k assembler for fun.

MichaelW

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: C++ and Fortran
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2016, 12:23:28 PM »
IBM Dos QBasic or the QuickBASIC someone else wrote?

And that a very large number of people tested.

Quote
And wait, you don't like Variants?

Unnecessary complexity, and risky automation. What type of thinker performs calculations where the data types of the variables, and of the result, are not firmly fixed, from the POV of the program and of the programmer?
Well Microsoft, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten us into.

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8776
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: C++ and Fortran
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2016, 02:36:42 PM »
I started programming with FORTRAN IV around 1982. A few years later I had no problems to switch to BASIC because the two languages seemed to me almost identical, syntax-wise. Then I used a GfaBasic+Assembler combo for two decades or so, first with 68k, then with x86 assembler. So when I stumbled over C about five years ago, I had already a lot of x86 experience. And my impression of C was WOW, what a strange language: They have to do all that low level stuff for the simple things that I do with Masm32, except that it looks more obfuscated and [needs] {brackets} and; semi; colons; all; over; the; place. And they have buffer overflows and fall thru in switches, very strange. One can get used to C, but it's really assembler without the benefits of assembler. Now C++ is yet another story, by far the ugliest crap I've ever seen in programming (oh, wait, I forgot there is QT, that desperate attempt to squeeze Linux and Windows into a single straightjacket :eusa_boohoo:).

If I had to choose a Basic dialect today (I don't have to), it would be FreeBasic. It seems very fast and looks like a modern version of the best traditional Basic dialects.

GuruSR

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Assembler (6500, 68k, Intel), C(all), VB6, no .Net
Re: C++ and Fortran
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2016, 02:41:54 PM »
IBM Dos QBasic or the QuickBASIC someone else wrote?

And that a very large number of people tested.

Which one, QBasic...  I do remember that one offered compiling of sorts, doubt it really did any real compiling, think it was more of a standalone program afterwards that basically had the main basic functionality added to the source that would run it when executed.

Quote
And wait, you don't like Variants?

Unnecessary complexity, and risky automation. What type of thinker performs calculations where the data types of the variables, and of the result, are not firmly fixed, from the POV of the program and of the programmer?

I'm sorry, I should have put the <SARCASM> </SARCASM> around that question, as it was intended.  And over the years, I've seen some half-brained things Microsoft has done with their OSes that would make any one run to Apple.

GuruSR.
Learned 68k Motorola Asm instruction set in 30 minutes on the way to an Amiga Developer's Forum meeting.
Following week wrote a kernel level memory pool manager in 68k assembler for fun.