Non-Web Languages

pjleonhardt

Alright, I posted this in the Echo Lounge cuz it doesnt really fit anywhere else... I'm asking all those out there to suggest to me a non-web langauge, good and universal, that I can make self-running executables out of...
I'm currently programming a lot of stuff in Java.. but you cant make .exe files out of ur programs (that i know of, someone wanna clue me in?)
..
So, Im looking for something like C, or C++ or anylanguage that id be able to write a program in, and actually take to another computer and be able to use..

Thanks

LordShryku

Though I'm a Java man myself (I've never made an exe but I know you can), I'd suggest C++. It's probably the most commonly used in current binaries

Weedpacket

Originally posted by LordShryku
Though I'm a Java man myself (I've never made an exe but I know you can), I'd suggest C++. It's probably the most commonly used in current binaries

Far as I can make out, the only practical difference between C++ and C is that the former produces bigger and more resource-hungry executables for a given program than the equivalent code written in C (even if you restrict yourself to pure C syntax in a C++ environment).

drawmack

1) java 2 exe use visual studio
2) java is intrinsicly oo, everything must be a class. c++ this is not the case. However, syntax and function names/paramters are very, very similar in the two languages. If you already know java stepping into c++ should be really easy.

drawmack

Originally posted by Weedpacket
Far as I can make out, the only practical difference between C++ and C is that the former produces bigger and more resource-hungry executables for a given program than the equivalent code written in C (even if you restrict yourself to pure C syntax in a C++ environment).

c++ has oo capabilities, to the best of my knowledge c does not.

bad76

Hi,
if I'm not wrong Jebster too starts a thread like that.. wait, I'm searching...

found it!

There you'll get a lot of hint...

Weedpacket

Originally posted by drawmack
c++ has oo capabilities, to the best of my knowledge c does not.

I was talking about from the user's perspective (remember the user?) Any programming language has OO capabilities (The Linux kernel source is written in C and a large chunk of it is object-oriented); C++ just implements the ideas natively (and messily): even its inventor has said that it is overly complicated. But I'm drifting into developer-side issues, there.

bad76

Originally posted by Weedpacket
Any programming language has OO capabilities

I agree with you Weedpacket, but i think drawmack is not so wrong: c++ object can inherit&co, c struct not. Anyway, you can
use C to code in OO style...
and this is even the reason of much more executable's legth you tell (I think): overriding and polymorphism need to be interpreted.

But if any ask me THE difference between C and C++, I answer:
"the second can declare a variable in the middle of code!" 😃

/me coding with feet and put variables declaration wherever!

drawmack

Originally posted by Weedpacket
I was talking about from the user's perspective (remember the user?) Any programming language has OO capabilities (The Linux kernel source is written in C and a large chunk of it is object-oriented); C++ just implements the ideas natively (and messily): even its inventor has said that it is overly complicated. But I'm drifting into developer-side issues, there.

Yeah, actually there is a book coming out of Cambridge that asserts this and they use basic as their example language.

I was tired when I typed that. I ment to say c++ has oo built natively into the language and c does not.

Yes c++ does implement them poorly. I actually read an article in the ACM where the creator was saying he designed c++ just to prove that starting with a good base language and adding oo onto it didn't mean that you got a good final language.

When you say from the user's standpoint do you mean the programmer using c++ or the end user using the program? If you mean the end user then there's no difference between clipper and c/c++. If you mean to the programmer using the language then adding in functions does make a difference to them.

dalecosp

Pretty sure he means end-user. I'm one, and I caught it right away ... 😉