Well I saw C# and too me it looks a way easier than C++. So I thought O.o could DM ever be imporved so its easier on programmers. At first I thought this was well crazy. Cause C# in my mind has a lot of relation to the DM language. In DM you have the types while in C# you mainly have classes. Really DM is a super easy language after looking closer at it. I mean with every thing being defined in spacific types and how they are organized.
My idea is too you's #define statments for different parts of DM. For an example to define a temparary variable you would do var/tmp/. But the DM# you would use a #define temp. var/tmp/. So when you want to declare a tempoarary variable you would just use "temp.". What DM# would be as of being my idea would be just a whole bunch of #define statments. Put into a project and made a lib. So then any one who wanted to use that set of standereds could check the DM#.
So what you people think about my DM# lib? Lets have a banter here!
ID:265394
 Apr 11 2005, 10:41 am
|
|
That sounds stupid.
| |
Green Lime wrote:
Well I saw C# and too me it looks a way easier than C++. So I thought O.o could DM ever be imporved so its easier on programmers. At first I thought this was well crazy. And indeed it is! Seriously though, I don't see where there's room for DM to be easier on programmers. My idea is too you's #define statments for different parts of DM. For an example to define a temparary variable you would do var/tmp/. But the DM# you would use a #define temp. var/tmp/. So when you want to declare a tempoarary variable you would just use "temp.". That doesn't really seem useful in any sense whatsoever. Moreover it's not possible with the way #define works, and it'd be misleading because it would imply that temp. could be used in places where var/tmp/ can't. What DM# would be as of being my idea would be just a whole bunch of #define statments. Put into a project and made a lib. So then any one who wanted to use that set of standereds could check the DM#. It seems to be at odds with reality and practicality. Really C and C# are very different platforms under the hood, and you'd pretty much have to have the same here. Lummox JR | |
Crashed wrote:
That sounds stupid. I would ask for details why you think it sounds stupid but Lummox Jr has provided many. Thanks for your two cents though. | |
Green Lime wrote:
So what you people think about my DM# lib? Lets have a banter here! I think a better idea would be to make a code converter with your own new language. You create the language, and have it spit out DM-compatible code. I doubt it would be too hard, but it would be an extensive effort. ~Polatrite~ | |
-Ryan