PortablE (portable Amiga-E) and Hollywood are our versions of C#.NET. We do not need C# on Amiga unless we get the entire package with Visual Studio and its extensions. Visual Studio is what gives power to C#, not the language itself. PortablE exists now, and is more native. And Hollywood of course.

I don't think porting C# as a language to Amiga (meaning porting the JIT etc. to all Amiga platforms for it to make sense) is feasable at all. Spend those tenthousand man hours on something more productive instead, like using the tools and languages we have to develop an app we need.

Hollywood seems to be the most productive development tool we have ever had considering how many new Hollywood programs we have seen in recent years, compared to new C/C++ programs.

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@Deniil715

+1

We should focus on tools before "porting" more languages.

(( I loved they way how simple it was to make multimedia "apps" with AmigaVision.
Too bad it was too late for CBM at that time... ))

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@Deniil715

Hollywood is much easier to use because of the relative simple commands. The problem with C/C++ and other languages is that there are no modern class libraries and development environments. The language itself is only the smallest part.

@itix

Quote:

But C is quite low level language.

It is.

Quote:

Object oriented languages are much nicer when your project get large. And not only nicer but more productive.

I agree with this. But you can achieve (some) object orientation with C too, certainly not in a "natural" way since it was designed for precedural programming.

Quote:

Except that I dont like C++ at all...

C++ syntax is getting more and more weighty and many developers complain about it.

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Deniil715

Quote:

PortablE (portable Amiga-E) and Hollywood are our versions of C#.NET. We do not need C# on Amiga unless we get the entire package with Visual Studio and its extensions. Visual Studio is what gives power to C#, not the language itself. PortablE exists now, and is more native. And Hollywood of course.

You probably never understood how C# works. Amiga-E is just yet another low level C-like programming language. Maybe easier than conventional C but it is completely different to C# which has automatic memory management.

Visual Studio is great but it does not make C# great. You can use Visual Studio to write C++ programs but C++ still sucks

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I don't understand what kind of problems you have with what I've written. Your statement "But nobody complains about" followed by short list thngs many people have complained and derided others for, seemed a bit strange. Perhaps something was lost in translation....

No, that's my fault because I was too short. I "simply" don't understand why many people accepts "alien technologies" (see my list) but not other ones (which comes from what is considered "hostile" / "the enemy": Windows).

That's all. I apologize for not being clear before.

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @itix Quote: Object oriented languages are much nicer when your project get large. And not only nicer but more productive. I agree with this. But you can achieve (some) object orientation with C too, certainly not in a "natural" way since it was designed for precedural programming.

Like GTK? Please, let only OOP languages be used for OOP projects.

@itix: I fully agree with all your comments. Especially regarding C++.

@cdimauro

Speaking about OS4 and OOP, C (C99) is the primary programming language and the OS itself has an object-oriented nature in many areas.

C++ (prior to C++11) is well supported as well as Python.

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @cdimauro Speaking about OS4 and OOP, C (C99) is the primary programming language and the OS itself has an object-oriented nature in many areas.

I think only BOOPSI has OOP design. For the rest, it's not noticeable.
Quote:

C++ (prior to C++11) is well supported as well as Python.

I don't really like C++. Python forever.

@itix

Quote:

You probably never understood how C# works. Amiga-E is just yet another low level C-like programming language. Maybe easier than conventional C but it is completely different to C# which has automatic memory management.

Yeah, I forgot about the automatic memory management. That is a really nice feature that none of C/C++/E have. But being able to develop quickly in anything .NET is largely due to VS and its as-you-type compiler and token completer etc.

And yes, C++ sucks. That's why the alternatives are Hollywood and PortablE

I'm just saying that just because C#.NET is fantastic in VS on windows doesn't mean C#.MONO will be amazing in Notepad on Amiga.

Last edited by Deniil715 on 13-May-2015 at 09:19 AM.

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I think only BOOPSI has OOP design. For the rest, it's not noticeable.

You call the DataTypes system not noticeable?
AmigaOS was object-oriented before OO became a "fashion".

Quote:

Python forever.

You see now buy a copy of OS4

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Massi

Datatypes is based on BOOPSI.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Yep, thanks

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@ Deniil715:Quote:

I'm just saying that just because C#.NET is fantastic in VS on windows doesn't mean C#.MONO will be amazing in Notepad on Amiga.

I'd happily code for the Amiga in C#.MONO in Notepad instead of C++ for Amiga in VS. (And, yes, I can code for the Amiga in VS/C++...) Would I miss Intellisense, code completion and many of the other features of a modern IDE? Yes, but le'me tell you what I'll never miss: C++ Headers, pointers and most of C++'s many ancient and rather crusty features. :) The features that C# bring make it much easier for me to focus on the task at hand rather than all the time lost banging my head against the wall because of C++'s eccentricities.

Two cents...

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I think only BOOPSI has OOP design. For the rest, it's not noticeable. You call the DataTypes system not noticeable? AmigaOS was object-oriented before OO became a "fashion".

As I stated before, BOOPSI is the only thing which has some OOP design. I don't see similar things for other aspects of the Amiga o.s., which exposes a traditional "structured" approach.
Quote:

Quote: Python forever. You see now buy a copy of OS4

Ehm... I don't think that I could have the same experience, since OS4 lacks Python Tools for Visual Studio, DreamPie, and even Sublime Text 3, which makes me more than happy to use such beautiful language.

@cdimauro

Quote:

BOOPSI is the only thing which has some OOP design.

To me is really impressive that AmigaOS was object-oriented since its early versions (beginning of 90s) and before OO became popular.

Anyway BOOPSI is well spread over OS4, some examples:
- ReAction
- DataTypes
- MUI

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @cdimauro Quote: BOOPSI is the only thing which has some OOP design. To me is really impressive that AmigaOS was object-oriented since its early versions (beginning of 90s) and before OO became popular.

OOP was already popular when BOOPSI was released. In particular, it literally exploded when Borland released version 5.5 of it's uber-popular Turbo Pascal.
Quote:

Anyway BOOPSI is well spread over OS4, some examples: - ReAction - DataTypes - MUI

I know them. However I don't like BOOPSI for a couple of reasons:
- it's a fairly slow OOP implementation (if you compare it with the wide-spread VMT implementation, for example, plus the attributes access);
- it uses C-style programming. No "syntactic sugar" to make it really comfortable.

If you take a look a the Turbo Pascal 5.5 OOP guide you can see how a beautiful work was done by Borland in both areas. And it was in 1989.

@cdimauro

If I recall well, BOOPSI was introduced in AmigaOS 2.0, circa 1990, day more day less.
And it was a clear example of object orientation applied to an operating system, not just to a programming language (with respect to Borland who made great things).

No doubts you are going to minimize this as well as everything else regarding Amiga ...

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

Quote:

Massi wrote: If I recall well, BOOPSI was introduced in AmigaOS 2.0, circa 1990, day more day less. And it was a clear example of object orientation applied to an operating system, not just to a programming language (with respect to Borland who made great things).

That's not some great feat. There's nothing special about object orientation. It's just another programming concept.

Last edited by Thorham on 16-May-2015 at 11:00 AM.

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @cdimauro If I recall well, BOOPSI was introduced in AmigaOS 2.0, circa 1990, day more day less.

Exactly. One year after Borland introduced Turbo Pascal 5.5.
Quote:

And it was a clear example of object orientation applied to an operating system, not just to a programming language (with respect to Borland who made great things).

Nothing to say about that. But just introducing something doesn't mean that it's "a good thing". See my previous message (in fact you had nothing to say about the technical things that I've reported) and below.
Quote:

No doubts you are going to minimize this as well as everything else regarding Amiga ...

That's a logical fallacy, as you should know. I talked about technical things, and if you don't like them, well, I can survive. But, please, don't try to change the discussion as usually you like to do with me, accusing of the fantasies that you cultivate: it simply doesn't work.

If you have something to say regarding what I reported in my previous comment, you are free to do it.

Aside this, I'm a coder and I need comfortable tools to write my applications. As a coder, I can compare what BOOPSI offered to me to model the solutions to my problems, and see what Borland gave with TP5.5: the latter literally obliterated the former. Creating OO code with TP5.5 was a piece of cake. And the situation greatly improved with TP 6.0, and even more with TP 7.0. Not even talking about Delphi, its new OOP extensions, and the wonderful framework which was/is VCL.

If you don't agree, well, the TP 5.5 OOP User Guide shows some examples of OOP. You can try to translate them using BOOPSI, your favorite language, and show the results, so we can compare them. Good luck.