Hi again,
I appreciate the feedback!! Although I havent yet read all responses so forgive me.
To those who are concerned about me "ruining the blitz basic language" you honestly have nothing to fear about. Nobody is forced to adopt this syntax style. All it does is convert one syntax to another.
For those interested, it is linked to the IDE - you name it BlitzCC.exe (and rename the original to BlitCCompiler.exe), it recursively searches all your includes and converts any BlitzC files (creates equivalent .bb files) then calls the actual compiler to compile it all.
Either way I dont use the default IDE anyways, I use UltraEdit for proper syntax highlighting.
It appears many of you detest the c-style syntax. For me (and many others) C was my first language, then Java and now C# and VB.NET. I have written extremely large applications in VB and VB.NET for local government, utilities etc so im am use to the VB syntax - but to me it still dont like it.
I dont want Mark to spend time on syntax alternatives, I would rather him spend time on BlitzMax functionality.
Things like the following are possible:
It doesn't just mass replace code, there is, believe it or not some intelligence behind it. I could even incorporate the BlitzBasic precompiler.
Anyways, dont be scared of it, just dont use it if you dont want to. I still have a quite bit of work to do on it before people can play with it.
I didnt originally intend to distribute it, but when I decided to use blitz for my latest project, I thought I would spend a bit of time writing my own syntax for it since it was a large application. Anyways, once I converted my original code to the new syntax, I shortend it by a few hundred lines and made it much easier to read - for both myself and the others on the development team.
If most people are not happy with the 'type->member' usage, then I can change it later (or make it configurable) or whatever.
Appreaciate your thoughts.
I appreciate the feedback!! Although I havent yet read all responses so forgive me.
To those who are concerned about me "ruining the blitz basic language" you honestly have nothing to fear about. Nobody is forced to adopt this syntax style. All it does is convert one syntax to another.
For those interested, it is linked to the IDE - you name it BlitzCC.exe (and rename the original to BlitCCompiler.exe), it recursively searches all your includes and converts any BlitzC files (creates equivalent .bb files) then calls the actual compiler to compile it all.
Either way I dont use the default IDE anyways, I use UltraEdit for proper syntax highlighting.
It appears many of you detest the c-style syntax. For me (and many others) C was my first language, then Java and now C# and VB.NET. I have written extremely large applications in VB and VB.NET for local government, utilities etc so im am use to the VB syntax - but to me it still dont like it.
I dont want Mark to spend time on syntax alternatives, I would rather him spend time on BlitzMax functionality.
Things like the following are possible:
// coming soon i++; i--; i+=3; i-=3; // works now // != doesnt work yet so you have to use <> still if (i/(10*40) <> 30) { /* do something */ } switch(i) { case 1: functiona(); default: // like case else }
It doesn't just mass replace code, there is, believe it or not some intelligence behind it. I could even incorporate the BlitzBasic precompiler.
Anyways, dont be scared of it, just dont use it if you dont want to. I still have a quite bit of work to do on it before people can play with it.
I didnt originally intend to distribute it, but when I decided to use blitz for my latest project, I thought I would spend a bit of time writing my own syntax for it since it was a large application. Anyways, once I converted my original code to the new syntax, I shortend it by a few hundred lines and made it much easier to read - for both myself and the others on the development team.
If most people are not happy with the 'type->member' usage, then I can change it later (or make it configurable) or whatever.
Appreaciate your thoughts.