Search Results

Search found 15952 results on 639 pages for 'assembly language'.

Page 39/639 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and

    - by jJack
    What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and has simplest deployment? It doesn't necessarily need to be a scripting language; It can be in the form of a compiled executable, however it needs to be self contained--only ONE file, no DLL's and it cannot be declared to "include" other files. I cannot rely on the user having any .NET installed and it needs to be able to run on Windows 7 64 bit. By "most OOP support", I basically mean anything that has better OOP support than VBScript. A little context: Everything I have done thus far is in VBScript and writes a bunch of data into an .html file, which in the end is to be viewed by Internet Explorer. It also zips up a bunch of directories and files. It heavily relies on accessing the registry, file-system, and WMI (I can probably do without accessing WMI though, as long as I have good registry access). I can bring myself to code in any language so long as it meets me ridonkulous requirements stated above. I look forward to some good answers from those more experienced than I.

    Read the article

  • What programming language do you wish would quietly retire? [closed]

    - by Gregory Higley
    This is the inverse of the "What programming language do you wish would catch on?" question. I was a Delphi programmer for many years, and I still appreciate its power, but I dislike verbose programming languages. So I would love to see Pascal put out to pasture. The same goes for BASIC in any form, despite the fact that it's the language I cut my teeth on. When I look at cathedrals of beauty like Haskell and REBOL, BASIC just makes me cringe. (VB.NET is tolerable, but barely. It has a few nice language features I'd like to see moved to C#.) My dislike of Pascal and VB.NET is subjective. They are powerful languages, but I dislike their syntax esthetically. Try to explain your reasoning, if you can, even if it's just "I don't like its syntax." This question is not meant to be a flame war, argumentative, or hateful. It's meant to be a straightforward, honest discussion of programmers' dislikes.

    Read the article

  • scheme vs common lisp: war stories

    - by SuperElectric
    There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on StackOverflow, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in Scheme project, got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

    Read the article

  • Scheme vs Common Lisp: war stories

    - by SuperElectric
    There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on both StackOverflow and on this site, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in my Scheme project got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

    Read the article

  • Changes in Language Punctuation [closed]

    - by Wes Miller
    More social curiosity than actual programming question... (I got shot for posting this on Stack Overflow. They sent me here. At least i hope here is where they meant.) Based on the few responses I got before the content police ran me off Stack Overflow, I should note that I am legally blind and neatness and consistency in programming are my best friends. A thousand years ago when I took my first programming class (Fortran 66) and a mere 500 years ago when I tokk my first C and C++ classes, there were some pretty standard punctuation practices across languages. I saw them in Basic (shudder), PL/1, PL/AS, Rexx even Pascal. Ok, APL2 is not part of this discussion. Each language has its own peculiar punctuation. Pascal's periods, Fortran's comma separated do loops, almost everybody else's semicolons. As I learned it, each language also has KEYWORDS (if, for, do, while, until, etc.) which are set off by whitespace (or the left margin) if, etc. Each language has function, subroutines of whatever they're called. Some built-in some user coded. They were set off by function_name( parameters );. As in sqrt( x ) or rand( y ); Lately, there seems to be a new set of punctuation rules. Especially in c++ where initializers get glued onto the end of variable declarations int x(0); or auto_ptr p(new gizmo); This usually, briefly fools me into thinking someone is declaring a function prototype or using a function as a integer. Then "if" and 'for' seems to have grown parens; if(true) for(;;), etc. Since when did keywords become functions. I realize some people think they ARE functions with iterators as parameters. But if "for" is a function, where did the arg separating commas go? And finally, functions seem to have shed their parens; sqrt (2) select (...) I know, I koow, loosening whitespace rules is good. Keep reading. Question: when did the old ways disappear and this new way come into vogue? Does anyone besides me find it irritating to read and that the information that the placement of punctuation used to convey is gone? I know full well that K&R put the { at the end of the "if" or "for" to save a byte here and there. Can't use that excuse here. Space as an excuse for loss of readability died as HDD space soared past 100 MiB. Your thoughts are solicited. If there is a good reason to do this, I'll gladly learn it and maybe in another 50 years I'll get used to it. Of course it's good that compilers recognize these (IMHO) typos and keep right on going, but just because you CAN code it that way doesn't mean you HAVE to, right?

    Read the article

  • Locale variables have no effect in remote shell (perl: warning: Setting locale failed.)

    - by Janning
    I have a fresh ubuntu 12.04 installation. When i connect to my remote server i got errors like this: ~$ ssh example.com sudo aptitude upgrade ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/apt-listchanges", line 33, in <module> from ALChacks import * File "/usr/share/apt-listchanges/ALChacks.py", line 32, in <module> sys.stderr.write(_("Can't set locale; make sure $LC_* and $LANG are correct!\n")) NameError: name '_' is not defined perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_TIME = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_MONETARY = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_ADDRESS = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_TELEPHONE = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_NAME = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_MEASUREMENT = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_IDENTIFICATION = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_NUMERIC = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_PAPER = "de_DE.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. ... I don't have this problem when i connect from an older ubuntu installation. This is output from my ubuntu 12.04 installation, LANG and LANGUAGE are set $ locale LANG=de_DE.UTF-8 LANGUAGE=de_DE:en_GB:en LC_CTYPE="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_NUMERIC=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_TIME=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_MONETARY=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_PAPER=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_NAME=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_ADDRESS=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_TELEPHONE=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_ALL= Does anybody know what has changed in ubuntu to get this error message on remote servers?

    Read the article

  • Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

    - by Avi Flax
    It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

    Read the article

  • Classes as a compilation unit

    - by Yannbane
    If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

    Read the article

  • is there any programming language that can bring together edit and compile / run ???

    - by Aff
    When I code, I always write little pieces of unit, and compile it often. This helps me to make sure that everything run correctly, but it's very time consumed. is there any programming language that can support us to do coding and running at the same time side by side ? i mean as soon as a key press leads to valid code, the effect of the edit is incorporated into the executing program.

    Read the article

  • Is Perl still a useful, viable language?

    - by Bob
    I know it may have been asked before, but here goes nothing... Is Perl still something that would be considered useful? If someone was a new programmer (either completely new to programming or just a few month/years of experience) would Perl be something to be considered worthwhile to learn? Is Perl still used with frequency? Is it still popular? Or is Perl dying out compared to languages like Python, Ruby, PHP, ASP, .NET, etc.? Basically it boils down to this: Is it still used/is it still used frequently? If yes, is it dying? If no, will it make a come back? Is it something that would be worth learning? How does it compare in demand to languages like Python in both popularity and usability/viability? Could languages like Python or Ruby be considered replacements for Perl? Also, will newer versions of Perl really bring a large improvement to the Perl community, and perhaps bring Perl back to centerstage compared to other languages? EDIT: Okay, I suppose here's a better, reworded question: Is Perl still growing, or is it "dying"? Is it still a language worth learning and using? What projects does it really "shine" in compared to other languages? What makes Perl a language to choose? Essentially: is Perl growing obsolete compared to other languages, and if so, do you expect that to change, or to continue? And thank you to everyone who has answered so far, the discussion has been really interesting!

    Read the article

  • So, "Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features"?

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I saw the answer to this question: How does thinking on design patterns and OOP practices change in dynamic and weakly-typed languages? There it is a link to an article with an outspoken title: Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features. But where you can get snippets that seem very objective and factual and that can be verified from experience like: PaulGraham said "Peter Norvig found that 16 of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were 'invisible or simpler' in Lisp." and a thing that confirms what I recently seen with people trying to simulate classes in javascript: Of course, nobody ever speaks of the "function" pattern, or the "class" pattern, or numerous other things that we take for granted because most languages provide them as built-in features. OTOH, programmers in a purely PrototypeOrientedLanguage? might well find it convenient to simulate classes with prototypes... I am taking into consideration also that design patterns are a communcation tool and because even with my limited experience participating in building applications I can see as an anti-pattern(ineffective and/or counterproductive) for example forcing a small PHP team to learn GoF patterns for small to medium intranet app, I am aware that scale, scope and purpose can determine what is effective and/or productive. I saw small commercial applications that mixed functional with OOP and still be maintainable, and I don't know if many would need for example in python to write a singleton but for me a simple module does the thing. patterns So are there studies or hands on experience shared that takes into consideration, all this, scale and scope of project, dynamics and size of the team, languages and technologies, so that you don't feel that a (difficult for some)design pattern is there just because there isn't a simpler way to do it or that it cannot be done by a language feature?

    Read the article

  • Debugging .NET 2.0 assembly from unmanaged code in VS2010?

    - by Rick Strahl
    I’ve run into a serious snag trying to debug a .NET 2.0 assembly that is called from unmanaged code in Visual Studio 2010. I maintain a host of components that using COM interop and custom .NET runtime hosting and ever since installing Visual Studio 2010 I’ve been utterly blocked by VS 2010’s inability to apparently debug .NET 2.0 assemblies when launching through unmanaged code. Here’s what I’m actually doing (simplified scenario to demonstrate): I have a .NET 2.0 assembly that is compiled for COM Interop Compile project with .NET 2.0 target and register for COM Interop Set a breakpoint in the .NET component in one of the class methods Instantiate the .NET component via COM interop and call method The result is that the COM call works fine but the debugger never triggers on the breakpoint. If I now take that same assembly and target it at .NET 4.0 without any other changes everything works as expected – the breakpoint set in the assembly project triggers just fine. The easy answer to this problem seems to be “Just switch to .NET 4.0” but unfortunately the application and the way the runtime is actually hosted has a few complications. Specifically the runtime hosting uses .NET 2.0 hosting and apparently the only reliable way to host the .NET 4.0 runtime is to use the new hosting APIs that are provided only with .NET 4.0 (which all by itself is lame, lame, lame as once again the promise of backwards compatibility is broken once again by .NET). So for the moment I need to continue using the .NET 2.0 hosting APIs due to application requirements. I’ve been searching high and low and experimenting back and forth, posted a few questions on the MSDN forums but haven’t gotten any hints on what might be causing the apparent failure of Visual Studio 2010 to debug my .NET 2.0 assembly properly when called from un-managed code. Incidentally debugging .NET 2.0 targeted assemblies works fine when running with a managed startup application – it seems the issue is specific to the unmanaged code starting up. My particular issue is with custom runtime hosting which at first I thought was the problem. But the same issue manifests when using COM Interop against a .NET 2.0 assembly, so the hosting is probably not the issue. Curious if anybody has any ideas on what could be causing the lack of debugging in this scenario?© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2010

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >