Index
> High Level Languages > C++ or ASMGoto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
| Author |
|
|
vid 06 Apr 2006, 10:27
i personally dislike C++
it's too overfeatured, IMO bad design. if you want some high level OOP language then think about java or C#, something clear. |
|||
06 Apr 2006, 10:27 |
|
|
Barf 06 Apr 2006, 11:27
Thanks. i'll try
 |
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 11:27 |
|
|
vid 06 Apr 2006, 11:37
but be aware that these are not compiled directly to machine language. java is usually interpreted at runtime, and C# (as .NET language) is compiled at runtime (at is called JIT - just in time compiled). I don't know any other widespread OOP language than C++ that compiles to machine language
|
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 11:37 |
|
|
TmX 06 Apr 2006, 11:47
what about Delphi (OOP'ed Pascal) ?
|
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 11:47 |
|
|
fox 06 Apr 2006, 12:19
I think they compile to machine language.. but you are better away from them. Delphi is the OOP version of Pascal, and it was mainly supported by Borland. But Borland has abandonned it..
u should really stick and learn C++.. if u are use from all the power of ASM, then you wont find that in many other languages  |
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 12:19 |
|
|
Barf 06 Apr 2006, 13:26
Delphi? Never:) it' so unoptimal. Empty program taking 300kB of space? no thanks. So Maybe i will continue learning C++
. Maybe I will get accustomed to this silly types of variables |
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 13:26 |
|
|
RedGhost 06 Apr 2006, 14:32
Barf wrote: Delphi? Never:) it' so unoptimal. Empty program taking 300kB of space? no thanks. So Maybe i will continue learning C++ i would stick to asm, and when its required you need processor/os portability use C (not C++) _________________ redghost.ca |
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 14:32 |
|
|
vid 06 Apr 2006, 14:42
Barf: My friend delphist said he can create 9Kb delphi executable, but he must tear-off tons of things in some project settings.
|
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 14:42 |
|
|
ronware 06 Apr 2006, 14:47
Barf: what are you most interested in? If you want to get a job programming, then learning C++ will get you hired. C# is starting to become in-demand to some extent also. If you want to get work done, but have nice access to low-level when you need it, I'm partial to my own Reva Forth... it's built using FASM and is quite small and Linux/Windows cross-platform. If cross-platform is your main thing, Java or perl or python would be good choices, depending on what you want to do.
|
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 14:47 |
|
|
vid 06 Apr 2006, 14:52
in our country SQL, PHP, java/C# are sure hit for work. but such work is boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring
|
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 14:52 |
|
|
Plue 06 Apr 2006, 16:07
fox wrote: I think they compile to machine language.. but you are better away from them. Delphi is the OOP version of Pascal, and it was mainly supported by Borland. But Borland has abandonned it.. That's not true. A simple console hello world I made here is 9 216 bytes. I also speed tested Delphi against gcc some time ago, and it produces faster code. The exes are only big if you use the predefined library of GUI components. This is the same for any language. An hello world compiled with gcc: 509 576 bytes Code: #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { system("PAUSE"); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } And I don't think it's abandoned, they just released Delphi 2006. _________________ Roses are red Violets are blue Some poems rhyme And some don't. |
|||
|
06 Apr 2006, 16:07 |
|
|
Madis731 07 Apr 2006, 07:54
...and it doesn't even say "Hello!"
That is because the high-level languages tend to hold most API information inside the main executable. I don't know is it some kind of optimization or just to be sure that Windows's API-change won't make a difference 
I don't know how and why it is done, but I've seen strips from know DLLs inside my main executable (I used DevC++ long ago...) so the calls were made to my executable. However, I got the executable finally under 16KB
Comparison to assembly <=> I can't get my projects much bigger than 5KB |
|||
|
07 Apr 2006, 07:54 |
|
|
Kain 08 Apr 2006, 05:21
Assemby can be cross portable across OSes at least. The most important component is a portable library. See the fasmlib project and the HLA standard library for more details (the latter is already portable between Windows/Linux and contains dozens of routines that can be accessed from FASM sources).
|
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 05:21 |
|
|
Madis731 08 Apr 2006, 08:23
When portability is bad is when there are major architectual differeces. Then you won't EVER take the most out of the current architecture you're working on
 |
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 08:23 |
|
|
vid 08 Apr 2006, 09:09
Kain: wow, at least somebody else realized this. Assembly code is not portable among across different processor architectures, but it's portability across OSes is JUST SAME as portability of C, C++, C#, Java and others. That's main reason for FASMLIB, to show this in reality
|
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 09:09 |
|
|
okasvi 08 Apr 2006, 11:13
for OOP I'd go for D
_________________ When We Ride On Our Enemies support reverse smileys |: |
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 11:13 |
|
|
Kain 08 Apr 2006, 21:51
vid:
Even architecture is becoming less of an issue. Apple has made the switch to x/86 and already I've seen several Macs with x/86 processors running Mac applications. With x/86 you're probably looking at 95% of the computer market. We may even see a FASMmac in the future! |
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 21:51 |
|
|
silkodyssey 08 Apr 2006, 22:39
Python supports OOP with a very simple syntax compared to C++.
_________________ silkodyssey |
|||
|
08 Apr 2006, 22:39 |
|
|
Vortex 09 Apr 2006, 15:54
MS Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 and PellesC can create small executables sized 1 Kb without using C run-time startup code.
_________________ Code it... That's all... |
|||
|
09 Apr 2006, 15:54 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|