|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| View Poll Results: Easiest programming language for you | |||
| Python |    | 12 | 34.29% |
| Pascal |    | 0 | 0% |
| C++ |    | 5 | 14.29% |
| Visual Basic |    | 5 | 14.29% |
| Delphi |    | 0 | 0% |
| Perl |    | 1 | 2.86% |
| Other | | 12 | 34.29% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
Dev Shed Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
#16
October 12th, 2007, 01:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FYI this thread is old and was only bounced by a REBOL advocate apparently to advocate REBOL. ;-)
__________________
medialint.com "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." - Vonnegut - Cat's Cradle, 1963
|
|
#17
October 12th, 2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
October 13th, 2007, 05:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
~James [Not currently seeking freelance work] Like philosophy or interested in spirituality? Philosophorum. Game Dev Experts Forums Foresight Linux - Because your desktop should be cool! Linux FAQ FedoraFAQ UbuntuGuide
|
|
#19
October 19th, 2007, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi, this is my first post in this forum, nice to meet you all
 For me, C++ is the easiest... I just find it extremely easy and well-written. I love it 
|
|
#20
October 20th, 2007, 12:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Some of you might call me crazy but im going to say assembly. It is a hard language to learn and a very hard language to be good at, but once you know what your doing it's fairly simple. Of course if your working on a large project, you'd die of confusion but it's a nice language to work on small apps.
My reason is that you just have a set of instructions, labels, jumps, and some areas you "mark" as memory. There's none of this baloney on variable types, lots of unnecessary rules, object-orientation and NOTHING is hidden from you. It's nice to know your in control and what you write is what the assembler assembles, a compiler isn't throwing in tons of code you don't need and bloating your apps. My second choice would be JAVA, a contrasting option to assembly. But i like it mainly because it's cross-platform and has a large community. I would say C++ but i think if your going to use C++ which is rather slow COMPARED to assembly, you may as well go the extra mile and lose a further 5% (or so) of your speed and have 100% portability. if i had to choose a language in the list, it would be C++. Last edited by calpol2004 : October 20th, 2007 at 12:15 PM.
|
|
#21
October 20th, 2007, 01:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As I started out on high level languages and then eventually got to the gritty bits of assembly, I'm not sure I would ever say that.
Working on a high level language then going to low level languages makes you realise everything the compiler is doing for you. I think as a newb you would find it easier to write 'print "blah"' than the few lines of assembly required to do it. You don't tend to think 'Ah yes, i just need to move a value into this register, a pointer into this one and then interrupt'. You rather tend to think 'Ah yes, I need to print this to the screen'. Et voila.
|
|
#22
November 7th, 2007, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would have to say some of the interpreted style BASIC languages like Chipmunk BASIC or others.
REALbasic is even easier IMO than Visual BASIC and the code is almost completely interchangeable.
|
|
#23
November 7th, 2007, 12:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ruby
It has been mentioned before but I wanted to agree that I think Ruby is the easiest, due to the fact that its syntax is very flexible.
I have only played with Ruby some, and it was not the first language I learned, but it really impressed me how it seemed to know what I meant no matter whether I used brackets or not, etc. Out of all the languages I tried, I definitely got the least syntactical problems with Ruby.
|
|
#24
November 8th, 2007, 05:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
well if it's lack of brackets you want, you would love ocaml or haskell for their point-free capabilities.
On the other hand, in how many languages can you write something like fac n = foldr (\x g n -> g (x*n)) id [1..n] 1 or fac n = snd (until ((>n) . fst) (\(i,m) -> (i+1, i*m)) (1,1)) ?
|
|
#25
November 9th, 2007, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
...and the other end of the spectrum:
Code:
.text
.global factorial
factorial:
movl $1, %eax
movl 4(%esp), %ecx
the_loop:
mull %ecx
loop the_loop
ret
Code:
3 { 1 exch } repeat { mul } for
|
|
#26
November 9th, 2007, 10:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think the haskell one is more concise:
Code:
fac n = product [1..n] And fairly straightforward. Code:
fac n = foldr * [1..n] is fairly concise too. The simple version isn't too hard either: Code:
fac n = n * (fac n - 1)
|
|
#27
November 9th, 2007, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
