| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ACE
Valued Newbie
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 34
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
in vds5 i think fuctions are kinda-like to gosubs, but in real languages (not scripting) gosubs are nothing to do with fuctions, gosubs jumps the code execution to another line, fuctions executes and instanced code compiled internal or externally. VisualBasic its just an scripting language where code is interpreted by and interpreter(MSVBxx.dll) like the vdsrunxx.dll, not compiled in machine language. of course there is differences between p-code and native vb code
Lioric |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ACE wrote: | in vds5 i think fuctions are kinda-like to gosubs, but in real languages (not scripting) gosubs are nothing to do with fuctions, gosubs jumps the code execution to another line, fuctions executes and instanced code compiled internal or externally. VisualBasic its just an scripting language where code is interpreted by and interpreter(MSVBxx.dll) like the vdsrunxx.dll, not compiled in machine language. of course there is differences between p-code and native vb code
Lioric |
ACE is exactly right but I wanted to add. Other languages that use either machine language or byte code when compiled actually build a stack that the function will work out of. The parameters being passed to the function are pushed onto the stack and then inside the function they are popped off the stack. Your code then uses those parameters memory locations directly. When the function is finished and depending on the calling sequence the return value is pushed back onto that stack. Also you have to remember that the machine code for the function itself is in memory as well. All your code for that function is in memory.
This is a crude representation of a stack for use with a function call.
The Stack
Param 2 ======
Param 1 ======
Param 0 ======
Fuction called ^
Return = MyFunction(Param 0,Param 1,Param 2)
Note: How the last parameter is the first one on the stack and it is at the top. This depends on the calling convention being used by the programmer.
VDS 5's Functions do not do this. Instead VDS 5's functions are a fancy Gosub... VDS 5's User defined functions remind me of early versions of Basic and other early interpreters. You have to remember that VDS is a line by line interpreter. It does not compile to machine language or byte code of any kind. All in all I think VDS is one awesome interpreter. Most things in VDS are very fast when compared to other interpreter based languages.
What we need to do is build the next version of VDS with VDS and after that build an assembler for it and then we can teach it to write object code that can then be pushed to a linker which will then link in the headers for our EXE's...
Oops I guess I got a little carried away  Maybe I need to wait for VDS 5 and see where that takes us hehehehehehe
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnodnarb
Professional Member
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Eastman, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to be honest, I have an unusual view of interpreted langauges. I think they are better due to modular code (included "black box" functions) and the ability to comprise an efficient "grammer" style that breaks the mold and dogma of traditional code scripting.
Every interpreted language I've written in I have found to be equal or better to a "real language".
This comes at no cost to any quality catagory: Functionality, Reliability, Dependability, Usability, Interoperability or Maintainability.
It is notable that "performance" of the software, in the sense of how quickly and effieciently it runs, is usually omitted from the list.
This of course is all opinion (based on industry standards), your entitled to your own!
VDS is my favorite interpreted language, which I favor above "real languages". No. 2 is Java, which kind of stuck with dogmatic code even though it didn't have to.
Brandon "NodNarb" Cunningham
Work Cited:
The Engineering of Software (2001) - Hamlet & Maybee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ACE
Valued Newbie
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I think they are better due to modular code (included "black box" functions) and the ability to comprise an efficient "grammer" style that breaks the mold and dogma of traditional code scripting.
|
I think the "efficient "grammer"" is relative, for me i find c++ code style to be a more "efficient "grammer"", probaly is a matter of get used to some language.
Its like English, Spanish and other languages, it will be very easy to learn Latin-based Languages if your primary language is Spanish or Italian for example but for an Aleman, it will give him the impresion of a weird grammar.
| Quote: | Every interpreted language I've written in I have found to be equal or better to a "real language".
|
How an interpreted language can be better that the real language that was used to make it. I mean, you cant say that VDS is equal or better than Delphi, you cant compare them. They are in different fields.
How Ibasic can be better that C++ ?
One thing is that a scripted or Interpreted language is better for what you need to do and the time you have in your hands and if you want to spend time in the learning curve of a hard real language. Tommy said that he uses Delphi for their projects and VDS for small and quick tools that, if in delphi, will take more time
Reliability, an iterpreted language ineriths the parent faults, for example in VDS there are a bug with the lists, that comes from the compiler used to make VDS. And finally has been fixed because of the change (upgrade) of the compiler, Delphi 7 i think
I like VDS, a lot, i think that used in conbination with a real language can be a very powerful tool in application production. I plan to use along with C++, so the simple parts can be managed by VDS and the code can be easily updated, and the hard parts by c++
Lioric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnodnarb
Professional Member
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Eastman, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This of course is all opinion (based on industry standards), your entitled to your own!
|
'Nuff Said
NodNarb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ACE
Valued Newbie
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
of course are only personal opinions, but saying that a scripted language is more reliable and powerful than a real (machine code level) language is not a matter of opinion, you are making an affirmation, not an opinion
Lioric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mac
Professional Member
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 1585
Location: Oklahoma USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindpower wrote: | I have a novel idea  Why don't we just make a VDS DLL with a replacement of the list command then Mac and the rest of you can keep using VDS 3 |
Took your advice mp - wrote a free DLL with a SAVEFILE fix: 
http://www.vdsworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1363
Works on "DIALOG ADD" lists only (ya can hide 'em if ya need
hidden lists). Also added a "mousedown" function for VDS2/3
users. The unzipped DLL size is approx 7k.
If anybody can directly access a "LIST CREATE" list from a
DLL, I'd sure like to know how how ya do it... 
Cheers, Mac
_________________
VDSug.dll does file IO, check/disable menu items,
non-VDS dlls, draw functions and more...
Free download (30k dll size) at:
http://www.vdsworld.com/download.php?id=361
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnodnarb
Professional Member
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Eastman, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As its been discussed before on this board "better" is relative (subjective). I refer to quality, to where as you are referring to efficiency. I view better as where my needs are met with quality. or me VDS is the best quality language I've found! Don't try to change something into something it isn't, this is my opinion.
(Prepare Yourself for Another NodNarbian Needless and Pointless Analogy!)
What is the value of a super screwdriver over a normal screwdriver when it takes 15 steps to initialize the super screwdriver? The super screwdriver becomes worthless (unless the job is very large)...use the simple one.
NodNarb
I just wish VDS included database support though...that would be nice. I think there is a DLL, but I tend to just use VB for DB projects.
Anyone know the name of that DLL? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skit3000
Admin Team
Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 2166
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you mean Tommy's VDSDLL3. It contains a dll which can enter a MySQL database. I don't know if it is located in the normal package... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hortalonus
Valued Contributor
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 344
Location: Western USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skit3000 wrote: | | I think you mean Tommy's VDSDLL3. It contains a dll which can enter a MySQL database. I don't know if it is located in the normal package... |
You are right skit, vdsmysql.dll is not included in the main vdsdll3 extension but is available separately, as is the vdsdb.dll file. I would highly recommend purchasing the vdsdll3 package... it expands the capabilities of VDS a lot and is well worth the price! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
@vdsworld