quote:
Originally posted by TheBlasphemer
I'm not going to respond to the whole post, too tired for that. Most of it is just repeating what you said earlier, seemingly even without looking what I said.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
That's exactly what I said: "It's not because the "b" stands for "beginners" that the language is ... yadda yadda..."
That's not what you said. Re-read your own post, or get a refresher coursein the english language.
that is exactly what I said.... in Dutch:
"Het is niet dat "b" voor "beginners" staat, dat de taal...."
or
"Het is niet omdat "b" voor "beginners" staat, dat de taal...."
or
"Het is niet omwille van het feit dat "b" voor "beginners" staat, dat de taal...."
or
"Dat D niet E is, wil nog niet zeggen dat D geen letter is"
etc...
quote:
Originally posted by TheBlasphemer
quote:
It's because VB programmers respect C++, yes, UNLIKE C++ programmers respecting VB
Oh come on, with all the scriptkiddies (which you yourself acknowledged to exist), there's bound to be loads of em that would like to call C++ crap and such.
there might of course be some like that. But the reasons for them to say such stuff is exactly the same reason as why 99,999% of the C++ people flame on VB.
All others who program in VB indeed don't say such stuff as they know what C++ can do and stands for. Vice versa, this is unfortunatly not true. It's like the C++ people have blindfolds on or simply repeat what has been pumped in their brain (to say it crudely).
quote:
Originally posted by TheBlasphemer
Yeah, who would think there's a difference between High-Level programming languages and Low-Level programming languages anyway?
Ermm... all these arguments are not going on about x being low-level and y being a high-level language. All these arguments go about how "shit", "unreliable", and whatever other totally biased word which might be used, a language is....
High-level/low-level are not synonyms for "leet" and "shit"... It's not because C++ is a lower-level (note lower, not low)
(and depends on definition of high/low-level, as one could argue both are on the same level actually, but with C++ being more advanced. But for the sake of this argument, I totally agree on it being a lower-level language) language than VB, that VB is crap, unreliable and what not. If that would be true, then by definition C++ would be crap too because compared to assembly C++ is a high-level language.
I don't argue because someone says VB is a higher-level language, I argue because someone says VB is 'crap' because they don't know the capabilities of VB.
There are many posts (and mostly from C++ 'programmers', coincidence or not) who claim this and that can't be done in VB and as such proclaim VB to be a crap language in the same breath. While in fact the stuff, they claim can't be done, can quite often actually be perfectly done
(PS: and before you argue, yes I know not everything C++ can do can be done in VB, but I'm not talking about those things). It is about such posts and comments I argue about (examples enough on the net of such claims; in fact even in the messenger community you'll find lots of those...). And it are those posts which trigger my arguing.
Not liking a language or syntax of a language or whatever is one thing. But not liking it and dishing it in the same breath because you don't fully know its potential is something else.
quote:
Originally posted by TheBlasphemer
Yeah, sure just the syntax, ofcourse.... dream on...
I mostly respect what you say, but saying that the only difference between VB and C++ is the syntax is plain bullshit.
Of course I'm not saying that this is the only difference. I say that is quite often what most people judge it by. That together with not knowing what it really can do (because they don't bother experimenting with it because they don't find it interesting because they don't like the syntax)....
----
about that pointer discussion... VB handles, knows and can deal with pointers, internally and externally.... It might not provide all of the functionalities which you can do with pointers in C++ (then again, most of those things can be done in another way) but it sure does knows and handles pointers.
quote:
I didn't say VBScript doesn't know true types, because apparently it does. I said that internally VBScript uses the VARIANT data-type, and as such it does *not* deal with pointers.
You said VB, not vbSCRIPT, hence my reply on it. VB variables are not all variants at all (even internally).
-----
Anyways, so far for our annual returning discussion (wonder if the previous one about vb vs c++ still exists)
.
/ 
RE: JScript too hard to use
