BV> BTW, do you know what M$ used to use to write their C compiler
 BV> ? Their Pascal compiler (sic)

  What did they use to write their Pascal compiler?

 BV> Do you have any idea why C has become so popular ? It's simple
 BV> really and I'm surprised that someone like yourself hasn't
 BV> realised it. It is because it is _perceived_ to be hard to
 BV> learn. The dickheads think that if it is hard to learn then it
 BV> must be good.

  I knew that much before I even looked at it. It's the OS/2 of
programming languages - the Volvo of cars. The *real* reason is that
it compiles nearly as well as ASM. I don't find C hard to learn; just
awkward and unforgiving... and almost impossible to read. It's real
Volvo material: a North Shore Valiant.

 BV> Why do you think dBase was such a hit a few years ago. While
 BV> the idiots were all rushing out buying their $29.99 Pascal
 BV> compiler, the smart ones were spending $399 on dBase and
 BV> earning a fortune from it. It's the same with VB today. The
 BV> wanna-be's are killing themselves to learn C or C++ while the
 BV> smarties are out earning money with VB and Access. They write
 BV> crap with it but in most cases the end user doesn't know and
 BV> happily pays for it.

  The ones who actually *do* things don't give a stuff about tools -
as long as they work. If you are not doing anything real, you can 
rabbit all you like because nothing comes out the other end but shit.

 BV> In the meantime, you have become a better programmer. What have
 BV> you lost ? Nothing. What have you gained ? A wealth of
 BV> experience and knowledge that you wouldn't have gained if you
 BV> had been playing with VB.

  I lose the time learning Delphi and Pascal that I could have spent
doing something else. I'm a lazy bastard. I learned enough of C to
understand what it was about, and then I switched onto VB because it
is the best way to learn programming tricks... and then I switched to
VB/DOS because all the pretty interfaces were only getting in the way.

  I know quite a few tricks now. I can see the limitations of VB quite
clearly, and also its strengths. Delphi may be ideal as you say - a VB
on hormones - but you have a different attitude to user interfaces
than me. To me, it is the *most* important thing. I don't want to
spend my time being annoyed when I could be psyching myself up to do
something impossible. Nothing breaks the spell quicker than a dopey
program that makes we wait 10-seconds while it stuffs around... and 
leaves me in the wrong window.

  I did it the other day. I invented a whole new system (probably
re-invented it), and now I can write it in C if I wish... but I could
never have created it in that awful Borland compiler.

 BV> It's a little like electronics. Imagine if you were teaching
 BV> someone the trade now. Would you still teach them the basics
 BV> like electron flow, resistors, capacitors, transistors ? Why ?

  Because that *is* electronics. The rest is just a fad.

 BV> Everything is in LSI's now and it is possible to build a
 BV> circuit without knowing exactly what it is doing. You just plug
 BV> the black boxes together.

  Not exactly... that's plugging boxes together. Electronics is
something to do with physics, mathematics, and stuff like that.

 BV> You buy Delphi and they end up teaching you Pascal and you
 BV> don't know it.

  ROFL! They teach you Pascal without a function reference manual!
What a clever trick.

 BV> In the meantime, they get the pull-through from the largest
 BV> base of developers they have. Their Turbo Pascal market. If
 BV> this is what they have planned, then they are very smart.

  I agree, but it leaves me having to buy Pascal, too... to do DOS.
Your idea of writing DOS in VB, and Windows in Delphi is silly.

  I'm not saying that this is a bad idea - just an expensive one: a
combined $600 compiler. Pascal is *nearly* an alternative to C, and it
may be possible to learn just one language: Pascal and Delphi with
dBase, and that's it! I can see why Frank wanted Delphi.

 BL> I *still* don't have a clue if the compiler is a patch on VB.

 BV> ROFL...You'd better believe it Bob. The compiler is FUCKING
 BV> FAST. In fact it is so fast that I thought it skipped the
 BV> compile phase when running programs from within the development
 BV> system. It was so fast that I thought they may have used an
 BV> interpreter during the intermediate phase of development
 BV> (remember I mentioned this as a possibility the other night
 BV> when you were asking why they can't just run the program) I was
 BV> pleasantly surprised when I saw that it had in fact made the
 BV> EXE. It is a fucking rocket.

  This is what I wanted to hear. I don't have the patience to plan out
a program, write it, and then spend an hour compiling and degbugging
it. This is the classic approach and VB broke that nexus. It makes an
impatient, creative bastard like me work so well. I don't make logical
steps - I jump to the end and see if it works. VB lets me do that.

 BV> I'd even say that it is faster in making the final EXE than VB
 BV> is.

  See? Now you've got me worried! VB is *slow* writing its EXE. It
takes 2 seconds to compile and 20 seconds to link. I can tolerate the
2-seconds, but not the 20. Delphi would *have* to be faster compiling
than VB. It would have to be *10-times* faster if it makes an exe every 
time you run it in the development environment. VB doesn't make an EXE.
That's its strength.

  You are watching this happen on a DX24/100. Try it on a 386/20...
or try it on a larger program.

 BV> The development environment is laid out a lot better than VB as
 BV> well. You don't have these fucking windows everywhere which end
 BV> up hiding behind other windows.

  Yair. That really shits me. I'm all the time moving things around
trying to find the *one* spot where I can get at them.

 BV> As you know, for a while now I have been saying that if anyone
 BV> wanted to build a Windows development tool then their entire
 BV> development team needs to spend a fair amount of time working
 BV> with VB and learning about its good points and its weaknesses.
 BV> At first glance it really looks as though Borland have done it
 BV> Bob. Seriously.

  Yair. Years ago, when I was put in charge of radio at Pye as a kid,
the first thing I did was buy the full range of HMV radios, and play
with them unitl I understood how they did it. The funny part was that
I went to work for EMI as a consultant years later, and their Chief
Radio Engineer was still there. I told him I'd worked out all his
tricks... and he didn't know! He'd fluked it. I knew more about his
bloody radios than *he* did.

 BL> Dearie me... VB is aimed at the dickhead market. *I* am
 BL> dead-centre on the market Borland should be aiming at, so why
 BL> do I feel so disappointed?

 BV> Because you are a real dickhead. You haven't even looked at it
 BV> and you have dismissed it out of hand.

  No, I haven't! I haven't dismissed it at all. I've decided not to
make a decision until I've seen it... and I *still* haven't seen it!
I'll make a decision when I have more information.

  You are the dickhead, Brenton. You bought it sight-unseen when there
was no hurry; you don't know Pascal so you are going to have to learn
a new set of functions (without a book), and you are going to have to
buy Pascal so you can program in DOS, or mix it with C that doesn't
work because they are similar enough to stuff you up.

  Frank's decision is sensible, and in his place I may would have done
the same. He uses Pascal, likes Pascal, and is so good at it that he
can shit on C. Now he can do it in Windows, too.

 BV> ROFL...Frank will have so many endorphins rushing through his
 BV> system that I don't think we will hear from him for a little
 BV> while :)

  Yair... if it's anything like VB, he will discover that not only can
he write programs in Windows, but it is easy, and fun!

Regards,
Bob
  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---