Elysian Shadows

To sort out some confusion I am having with my research, I have some questions about Python, BASIC, and C++.

First off, I hear that Python is very similar to C++ and easier to learn making it a good place to start off for beginners who want to make the transition to C++. Can anyone varify this?

Also, I heard that BASIC is pretty much an outdated language so is it worth learning and what is it used for?

And lastly, i'm researching different C++ compilers (for Windows) to get. I've found ones such as Borland C++, C++ Builer, MS Visual C++ and Intel C++. Will it really make a difference which one I choose? Thank you

1. python is nothing like C.

2. i wouldent learn basic, but there are still jobs in it, also if you know basic, you know VB. for the most part. there are many jobs in VB.

3. VS and borland bulder arent compilers. they are IDE. but they use compilers. all MS products use the cl.exe ans some derivitives of it. but its pretty much just the microsofts C/C++ compiler. i like borland compilers, ranging from asm to C++.

it wont really make that much difference. i would choose one that has the largest community for support.

Language is really up to you, but if you go c++ I would suggest dev-c++, borland, or code::blocks...

Three things:

1) Python is written is pure C; hence there are syntactical similarities, but the two languages are intrinsically very different.

2) VB sucks ballz.

3) When it comes to C/C++ you should only need to learn two compilers, GNU compiler collection, and MSVC++.

Cool guys, thanks. I've been wondering about that stuff. So sorting out the whole Python and BASIC dilemma, the quest for a good C++ compiler continues. I like the fact that both Borland and MS VC++ are both IDE's and not just compilers. Now which one to start off with? Well, I want to find the one that will more easily work with Flash to make games playable using that. If that's possible, I would think that's the way to go.

BlueMonkey5 wrote: I like the fact that both Borland and MS VC++ are both IDE's and not just compilers.

That is implying that they are IDEs AND compilers. I believe they are both ONLY IDEs that generally come with their respectable compilers. Personally I prefer Code::Blocks with the MinGW compiler (available for download bundled together on the codeblocks site).

BlueMonkey5 wrote:Cool guys, thanks. I've been wondering about that stuff. So sorting out the whole Python and BASIC dilemma, the quest for a good C++ compiler continues. I like the fact that both Borland and MS VC++ are both IDE's and not just compilers. Now which one to start off with? Well, I want to find the one that will more easily work with Flash to make games playable using that. If that's possible, I would think that's the way to go.

I would suggest going with MS VC++ - it has some very good features, like a debugger and a good autocomplete system. Also, MS VC++ is an ongoing project which receives ongoing support and updates. Many people here seem to recommend going for Dev-Cpp - which is a dead project and is not updated anymore, yes, it's a little bit easier at the very begging, but you will find out very fast that it is hard to find error's with it's little debugger.

kostiak2 wrote: Many people here seem to recommend going for Dev-Cpp - which is a dead project and is not updated anymore, yes, it's a little bit easier at the very begging, but you will find out very fast that it is hard to find error's with it's little debugger.

I haven't seen many people that have done much more with Dev-C++ than try it out. It was the first IDE I used and it was alright, but I most definitely prefer Code::Blocks over it. You're right about it being dead, and support for it is dying out.

I would go with Visual C++ for the same reasons. Its so much better when you figure out how to redist. Although I found a problem with the redist by changing it to MT. If you want to use SDL it needs to be MD.

sparda wrote:Three things:
2) VB sucks ballz.

there is nothing wrong with VB, you could not utilize 5 percent of VB's potential.

avansc wrote:

sparda wrote:Three things:
2) VB sucks ballz.

there is nothing wrong with VB, you could not utilize 5 percent of VB's potential.

I think what he's saying is that it is very high level and Windows-dependant, both of which are down points when compared to C++. He just decided to say it in a more severe way.

herby490 wrote:I would go with Visual C++ for the same reasons. Its so much better when you figure out how to redist. Although I found a problem with the redist by changing it to MT. If you want to use SDL it needs to be MD.

whats "MD" ans "MT" mean?

Ginto8 wrote:

avansc wrote:

sparda wrote:Three things:
2) VB sucks ballz.

there is nothing wrong with VB, you could not utilize 5 percent of VB's potential.

I think what he's saying is that it is very high level and Windows-dependant, both of which are down points when compared to C++. He just decided to say it in a more severe way.

anything you can do in C++ you can do in VB, and most likely just as easy.

avansc wrote: anything you can do in C++ you can do in VB, and most likely just as easy.

If by "you" you mean "one", then possibly. If by "you" you mean the reader of your post (myself) then you are very very wrong. I have been using both quite extensively over the past year, and I would have to say that just about anything that doesn't have to do with a simple event-driven Win32 GUI can be done far easier and much more efficiently in C++ than in VB, although obviously the learning curve for doing it in C++ is steeper.