Pros and Cons of Different Languages
Post: #16
No language is a good language in my hands, bwahaha :evil:
©h€ck øut µy stuƒƒ åt ragdollsoft.com
New game in development Rubber Ninjas - Mac Games Downloads
Post: #17
C++: I know C++ can be a mess, but I have faith in its abilities when used correctly. It's like nuclear fusion: in the right hands, it is capable of great things, but in the wrong hands it can destroy the all that is good. I don't claim to be one of those 'good' C++ coders yet, but I certainly try.
C: Probably the most capable language when you don't want to put in the effort (or frustration) to bother writing 'good' C++ code.
Obj-C: I really like this language, though I only use it for a front end in OS X for portability reasons. The garbage collection alone is reason enough to use it...
Python: Good for prototyping and 'quick-and-dirty' applications, but I must say that using whitespace to delimit blocks is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a computer language (ever copy code and have to convert all of the spaces into tabulations? Ech...) I also run into many subtle problems because everything is passed by reference (if I set y = x, then any modifications on y also modify x).
BASIC: Possibly the best language for a complete beginner that prefers or has to be self taught. I got some pretty good stuff out of this language when I started out and I learned it by simply observing other code...
CSS: (I know, I know, not a language, but everyone else is doing it...)The savior of the web, in my opinion. You can now change the appearance (sometimes even the layout) of an entire website by editing only a few files--awesome...
C: Probably the most capable language when you don't want to put in the effort (or frustration) to bother writing 'good' C++ code.
Obj-C: I really like this language, though I only use it for a front end in OS X for portability reasons. The garbage collection alone is reason enough to use it...
Python: Good for prototyping and 'quick-and-dirty' applications, but I must say that using whitespace to delimit blocks is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a computer language (ever copy code and have to convert all of the spaces into tabulations? Ech...) I also run into many subtle problems because everything is passed by reference (if I set y = x, then any modifications on y also modify x).
BASIC: Possibly the best language for a complete beginner that prefers or has to be self taught. I got some pretty good stuff out of this language when I started out and I learned it by simply observing other code...
CSS: (I know, I know, not a language, but everyone else is doing it...)The savior of the web, in my opinion. You can now change the appearance (sometimes even the layout) of an entire website by editing only a few files--awesome...
Post: #18
C++: My favorite language. Not sure why, but whenever I try to use other languages, I always come back to C++ because I miss it.
Lua: A nice language for simple stuff. I couldn't imagine using it extensively though. I absolutely hate it's lack of classes and replacing them with meta-tables.
Objective-C: I like this language from what I've used it. Sometimes I find it's dynamic-ism a little overwhelming. I guess partly I've never gotten into it is because of the complexity of Cocoa (and MVC.. Getting everything to "talk" correctly confuses me also) and lack of cross-platform libraries. Delegates, selectors, ect... all confuse me. I should probably take more time to learn it though
Squirrel: Though I've never really used this language, but it's all ready my favorite Scripting language. I love its syntax, and portability (one of the few languages that work on the PSP ^_^). I'd wish it had a bigger community though. squirrel-lang.org
Lua: A nice language for simple stuff. I couldn't imagine using it extensively though. I absolutely hate it's lack of classes and replacing them with meta-tables.
Objective-C: I like this language from what I've used it. Sometimes I find it's dynamic-ism a little overwhelming. I guess partly I've never gotten into it is because of the complexity of Cocoa (and MVC.. Getting everything to "talk" correctly confuses me also) and lack of cross-platform libraries. Delegates, selectors, ect... all confuse me. I should probably take more time to learn it though
Squirrel: Though I've never really used this language, but it's all ready my favorite Scripting language. I love its syntax, and portability (one of the few languages that work on the PSP ^_^). I'd wish it had a bigger community though. squirrel-lang.org
Post: #19
hrm, here goes:
C: good for most stuff I do; could be a bit less basic, but very few complaints; a rock-hard language. Also, the simplicity and bareness (i.e. direct access to memory) ultimately empowers the programmer; this isn't always needed, but it is nice to have.
C++: more complicated but, in the end, usefull for stuff; Most things are just as easily done in c, though.
Objective-C: an unnexpected C++ replacement, elegant an beautiful. When coupled with Foundation it is fun to use. Still, messaging is slow, barring objects that need to be fast (i.e. vectors).
D: it seemed to be a nice replacement for C++, but became bloated quickly with unneeded features.
lisp: as solid as c; the atom/cons/list structure is quite nice.
common lisp: I've been playing around with SBCL for a couple weeks, and the combination of this, slime, and emacs is as close to heaven as I'll ever get. There are few class-systems truly comparable to CLOS.
scheme: meh; too bare. Otherwise, similar to lisp.
python: inconsistent, but otherwise VERY well supported.
Ruby: perhaps my favorite scripting language ever. Simple, clean, intuitive. Plus, the documentation is amazing.
PHP: go to hell, php. One of the worst ideas for languages ever.
J awkward.
Java: plenty of classes, but no support for basic, yet easily implemented, features one would expect in a VM language: Operator overloading and unsigned types. Plus, to get a simple thing done in swing, you have to barge through seventeen other objects.
C#: as a language, much better than java. The classes and windows-centricity is unnatractive, though.
PPC assembly: beautiful.
ARM assembly: awe-inspiring.
x86 assembly: HELL ON EARTH.
C: good for most stuff I do; could be a bit less basic, but very few complaints; a rock-hard language. Also, the simplicity and bareness (i.e. direct access to memory) ultimately empowers the programmer; this isn't always needed, but it is nice to have.
C++: more complicated but, in the end, usefull for stuff; Most things are just as easily done in c, though.
Objective-C: an unnexpected C++ replacement, elegant an beautiful. When coupled with Foundation it is fun to use. Still, messaging is slow, barring objects that need to be fast (i.e. vectors).
D: it seemed to be a nice replacement for C++, but became bloated quickly with unneeded features.
lisp: as solid as c; the atom/cons/list structure is quite nice.
common lisp: I've been playing around with SBCL for a couple weeks, and the combination of this, slime, and emacs is as close to heaven as I'll ever get. There are few class-systems truly comparable to CLOS.
scheme: meh; too bare. Otherwise, similar to lisp.
python: inconsistent, but otherwise VERY well supported.
Ruby: perhaps my favorite scripting language ever. Simple, clean, intuitive. Plus, the documentation is amazing.
PHP: go to hell, php. One of the worst ideas for languages ever.
J awkward.
Java: plenty of classes, but no support for basic, yet easily implemented, features one would expect in a VM language: Operator overloading and unsigned types. Plus, to get a simple thing done in swing, you have to barge through seventeen other objects.
C#: as a language, much better than java. The classes and windows-centricity is unnatractive, though.
PPC assembly: beautiful.
ARM assembly: awe-inspiring.
x86 assembly: HELL ON EARTH.
It's not magic, it's Ruby.
Post: #20
C: this is my favorite language, either because it was my first, or perhaps I'm just a poor/inexperienced programmer. While objects are great for large projects, and more elegant, I still have an irrational love for procedural programming.
C++: I abhor this language, it's awful. Actually now that I think of it, C++ was my first language, but once I learned it, I quickly left it for C. C++ feels too bloated, like it has too many things tacked on to it.
Obj-C: I recently picked this language up and I'm becoming very fond of it. Objective-C feels like what C++ should have been. It's extremely elegant, almost too elegant from the standpoint of readability.
C++: I abhor this language, it's awful. Actually now that I think of it, C++ was my first language, but once I learned it, I quickly left it for C. C++ feels too bloated, like it has too many things tacked on to it.
Obj-C: I recently picked this language up and I'm becoming very fond of it. Objective-C feels like what C++ should have been. It's extremely elegant, almost too elegant from the standpoint of readability.
Post: #21Nayr Wrote:Objective-C: an unnexpected C++ replacement, elegant an beautiful. When coupled with Foundation it is fun to use. Still, messaging is slow, barring objects that need to be fast (i.e. vectors).Sorry, I hate to break the silence and respond, but I think this is a very important `con' to Obj-C, since we're discussing pros and cons. The messaging overhead issue steered me away from diving full-on into Obj-C/Cocoa for at least a couple years until I finally decided to give it an honest try a few months ago. In practice, since then I have found virtually no noticeable speed difference between using Obj-C and straight C. I know it's there somewhere, but I haven't seen it yet. When/if I do experience issues with messaging overhead, it will likely be a trivial task to boost performance in those small areas with straight C. So as far as I've seen, the messaging overhead `con' with Obj-C appears to be moot in practice.
Post: #22
A couple of languages I missed earlier.
Lisp/Scheme (the same language really, just slightly different implementations): OMG the syntax is awful! Also, I don't get functional programming like I do procedural programming, so I would put any lisp-like language at the top(bottom?) of my least favorite languages list.
Haskell: Also a functional language, so I don't work in it as well as I do in procedural languages. Amazingly though, I actually like Haskell on the whole. I had a senior elective in college with an amazing professor who taught the language and I feel like I could get some real work done in Haskell.
Lisp/Scheme (the same language really, just slightly different implementations): OMG the syntax is awful! Also, I don't get functional programming like I do procedural programming, so I would put any lisp-like language at the top(bottom?) of my least favorite languages list.
Haskell: Also a functional language, so I don't work in it as well as I do in procedural languages. Amazingly though, I actually like Haskell on the whole. I had a senior elective in college with an amazing professor who taught the language and I feel like I could get some real work done in Haskell.
Post: #23AnotherJake Wrote:So as far as I've seen, the messaging overhead `con' with Obj-C appears to be moot in practice.Having used Objective-C/Cocoa almost exclusively for the last two and a half years, only once have I run into a situation where messaging was causing noticeable slowdown. This was easily fixed by using IMPs in a few select places.
Post: #24
AS2: Nobody mentioned ActionScript 2 yet and I've been learning it lately and it's very much like a watered down C++ 
It's really easy to learn if you know C++ or a language based on C++ (JavaScript, EMCA Script) I miss the pointers and multiple inheritance though...and also I think if I didn't know C++ it might be harder to use OOPS/AS2.
eg.
It's really easy to learn if you know C++ or a language based on C++ (JavaScript, EMCA Script) I miss the pointers and multiple inheritance though...and also I think if I didn't know C++ it might be harder to use OOPS/AS2.eg.
Code:
class BestLanguage
{
private var correct_answer:String;
public function BestLanguage()
{
this.correct_answer = "C";
}
public function insteadOfLongPost( incorrect_answers:String ):String
{
return incorrect_answers + " Haha, NO! " + this.correct_answer + "++" + " is the BEST obviously!";
}
}
Post: #25Blacktiger Wrote:Lisp/Scheme (the same language really, just slightly different implementations): OMG the syntax is awful! Also, I don't get functional programming like I do procedural programming, so I would put any lisp-like language at the top(bottom?) of my least favorite languages list.
They are totally different in many aspects, I can only assume you hadn't looked very deep into them, probably not past the s-expression syntax which is one of the only things they share.
Sir, e^iπ + 1 = 0, hence God exists; reply!
Post: #26
C: Kinda like the common brick... not very fancy or elegant, but when used properly can make buildings of awe-inspiring beauty.
C++: Kinda like super-shiny bricks with lots of attachments which should make them fit well together but most often makes a more unstable mess than the traditional brick and mortar approach would have.
C#: Kinda like real legos... they fit nicely together without a lot of mortar. Been working exclusively with this for about the last 6 months and its been growing on me.
Obj-C: Bricks made out of aluminum... much lighter and easier to work with than the common brick. As a plus the syntax starts resembles a brick wall [ ].
Lua: My all-time favorite scripting language to embed in my applications. Not meant to build mountains with, but it gets other jobs done well.
C++: Kinda like super-shiny bricks with lots of attachments which should make them fit well together but most often makes a more unstable mess than the traditional brick and mortar approach would have.
C#: Kinda like real legos... they fit nicely together without a lot of mortar. Been working exclusively with this for about the last 6 months and its been growing on me.
Obj-C: Bricks made out of aluminum... much lighter and easier to work with than the common brick. As a plus the syntax starts resembles a brick wall [ ].
Lua: My all-time favorite scripting language to embed in my applications. Not meant to build mountains with, but it gets other jobs done well.
Virus Out
Big Bang Board Games
Adventures on Pirate Isle
Solace - Strategy, War, and Glory!
The Belt
Post: #27unknown Wrote:They are totally different in many aspects, I can only assume you hadn't looked very deep into them, probably not past the s-expression syntax which is one of the only things they share.
I was under the impression that scheme was just a specific dialect of lisp for teaching functional programming. The s-expression syntax defines the language, and there are just a few different built-in functions, but I haven't coded in common lisp so I'm probably wrong.
Post: #28
what's actionscript?
anyway, if you think the language is just the syntax you've got a lot to learn.
anyway, if you think the language is just the syntax you've got a lot to learn.
It's not magic, it's Ruby.
Post: #30Nayr Wrote:what's actionscript?
anyway, if you think the language is just the syntax you've got a lot to learn.
Sure syntax, semantics, and libraries/extensions make a language. In my view however, if the syntax sucks (and I hate the lisp style syntax) I'm likely to avoid the language no matter how nice the rest is since there are plenty of other languages out there. What can I say? I like beautiful code.
Possibly Related Threads...
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| Best/Fastest - What do the pros use? | carmine | 6 | 3,585 |
Jun 6, 2008 11:51 AM Last Post: arekkusu |
|
| High and Low Level Languages | FlamingHairball | 22 | 9,174 |
Jan 8, 2008 10:23 PM Last Post: PowerMacX |
|
| What languages do you need for a MMORPG? | Lost22 | 12 | 5,143 |
Nov 20, 2007 01:07 AM Last Post: Lost22 |
|
| Re-introduction of low level languages? | Duane | 4 | 2,911 |
Oct 30, 2007 03:10 AM Last Post: OneSadCookie |
|
| Some questions on languages from a new guy (...beginners) | ProfessorApe | 20 | 7,460 |
Jan 24, 2007 03:10 PM Last Post: leRiCl |
|