I'm would like an objects only language. With a nice environment it should not be that hard...

Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing. Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful. Only objects sounds like a not-even-possible-and-quite-silly limitation to me. And the one-chip-MSX needs as little limitations as possible

Quote:

Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing.

This is just not true. Programming is difficult whatever method you use to develop your program... There are many cases where objects make live a lot easier. Just because we al started in Basic 15 years ago doesn't mean there aren't better ways to learn how to program.

Quote:

Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful.

Programs are in many cases not useful at all... 'Forcing' beginning programmers to use something with a clear structure can't be bad.

Quote:

Only objects sounds like a not-even-possible-and-quite-silly limitation to me. And the one-chip-MSX needs as little limitations as possible

Everything is possible. What is impossible in an object oriented language? And I have programmed in ML based on OO designs. OO isn't a limitation. Removing 'GOTO' from a language also sounds like a limitation... but it isn't.
And of course, the NewMSX will have many languages... I just think a oo-user friendly language with ide will have more succes than msx-basic 5. BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing. I know: because I did. (didn't we all )... It's better to start in a real language
And:
scr.print "Hallo Wereld!"
is much better than:
10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"
IMHO

Quote:

>>Although it might be hard to imagine when you're used to objects, object SUCK HARD when you just start developing.<< This is just not true. Programming is difficult whatever method you use to develop your program...

The first steps of coding are quite difficult indeed. But I think you agree that learning BASIC is quite a lot easier than learning Brainfuck. So it DOES matter which programming language you start with. And for beginners nothing beats a good BASIC.

Quote:

There are many cases where objects make live a lot easier.

True, but there are many cases where it doesn't matter and only complicates things for beginners. Just because you can use something (objects) doesn't mean you have to.

Quote:

>>Besides, in many cases objects aren't really that useful.<< Programs are in many cases not useful at all...

You're talking about programs while I'm talking about sourcecode.

Quote:

'Forcing' beginning programmers to use something with a clear structure can't be bad.

Pascal has structure. Pascal hasn't got objects. Besides, I can show you quite a lot of terrible JAVA/C++ sources. OO can be used to create more structure, but doesn't 'force' the use of structure at all. Instead, I think most beginners will make a total mess out of it.

Quote:

I just think a oo-user friendly language with ide will have more succes than msx-basic 5.

Oh, I agree the new MSX should -also- have an OO-language (probably JAVA and C++), but there should be an alternative as well. BASIC. An improved BASIC, but still.... BASIC.

Quote:

BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing.

I think more than 80% of our visitors disagree with you here.

Quote:

scr.print "Hallo Wereld!" is much better than: 10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"

is it? Apart from the linenumbers PRINT "Hallo Wereld!" makes a lot more sense to me.

Lets make a comparison with JAVA. What do you think is easier to understand

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="mrc-small">Code:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="mrc-small"><PRE>
import java.awt.*;
import java.applet.Applet;

public class Greeting extends Applet {
public void paint (Graphics g) {
g.drawString ("Hello", 50, 50);
}
}
</PRE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>then compiling it with a shitload of extra information no beginner will ever understand and running it from an applet viewer or - even worse - a HTML page which you have to create yourself first

or just

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="mrc-small">Code:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="mrc-small"><PRE>
Locate 50,50
PRINT "Hello"
</PRE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

And just RUN it

Quote:

The first steps of coding are quite difficult indeed. But I think you agree that learning BASIC is quite a lot easier than learning Brainfuck. So it DOES matter which programming language you start with. And for beginners nothing beats a good BASIC.

Since most programmers switch to other languages it would be easier to just start programming in these other languages. Of course, I'm not saying here someone should start with assembly language or worse.

Quote:

>>Programs are in many cases not useful at all...<<You're talking about programs while I'm talking about sourcecode.

OK: Sourcecodes are in many cases not useful at all...

Quote:

Pascal has structure. Pascal hasn't got objects.

I learned OO programming with OO Pascal.

Quote:

Besides, I can show you quite a lot of terrible JAVA/C++ sources.

Don't. I have seen enough of them. I am capable to produce terrible sources in any language.

Quote:

OO can be used to create more structure, but doesn't 'force' the use of structure at all. Instead, I think most beginners will make a total mess out of it.

And these beginners will produce great Basic sources, I am sure.

Quote:

Oh, I agree the new MSX should -also- have an OO-language (probably JAVA and C++), but there should be an alternative as well. BASIC. An improved BASIC, but still.... BASIC.

OO BASIC? Hehehe.

Quote:

>>BASIC SUCKS VERY VERY HARD when you start developing.<< I think more than 80% of our visitors disagree with you here.

Well, our current government shows that the majority of the people isn't always right...

Quote:

>>scr.print "Hallo Wereld!" is much better than: 10 PRINT "Hallo Wereld!"<< is it? Apart from the linenumbers PRINT "Hallo Wereld!" makes a lot more sense to me.

There is always a point where things don't make sense anymore.
"Hallo Wereld!" make more sense to me than PRINT "Hallo Wereld".
EDIT: "Hallo Wereld!".print is more like OO, ofcourse (Or to follow your example below: "Hello".print at 50,50)

Quote:

Lets make a comparison with JAVA.

Okeej. But throwing in some examples in some OO language to show basic is shorter will not convince me.

Quote:

What do you think is easier to understand import java.awt.*; import java.applet.Applet; public class Greeting extends Applet { public void paint (Graphics g) { g.drawString ("Hello", 50, 50); } } then compiling it with a shitload of extra information no beginner will ever understand and running it from an applet viewer or - even worse - a HTML page which you have to create yourself first or just Locate 50,50 PRINT "Hello" And just RUN it

Well, even beginners will eventually understand what's happening and why it has to be done.
But msx java will run from the ide, of course. Just like your basic example.
And I was not suggesting Java should be the language of choice. Maybe a basic with objects... And I can give a example in a non-OO language that is just as confusing as your java source... Try to do that in C, for example...

For a beginning programmer, a procedural language (like BASIC, Pascal, C) just *is* easier to grasp than an object-oriented language. After all, when programming, it's easier to understand you're "just trying to *do* stuff" than to understand that you're "manipulating objects".

Come to think of it, I'd vote for Modula as default programming language
Modula is like Pascal but has a stricter interface/implementation separation and gives you the possibility to do OO-like things too.

Quote:

Since most programmers switch to other languages it would be easier to just start programming in these other languages.

I think it's better to start learning in just one language. And since 'most programmers' switch to all kinds of different languages (C, C++, Pascal, Delphi, Modula, ASP, PHP, Assembly for several processors, JavaScript, JAVA, Prolog, ...) a nice solid basic which is very simple to understands and gives you the tools to understand the basics of computing and to take the next step to a 'real' programming language is quite essential IMHO. I'm not saying a new MSX computer should have MSX-BASIC 3.0 on-board, but a powerful programming language based on MSX-BASIC would be very, very nice. (BlitzBasic is indeed an example of how to make things powerful yet understandable)

Quote:

OK: Sourcecodes are in many cases not useful at all...

So now you are exactly saying what I was saying. OO doesn't make all sourcecode useful all of a sudden. So here (once again) there are no benefits to 'force' novice users to start coding in OO straight away.

Quote:

And these beginners will produce great Basic sources, I am sure.

That's not the point. It matters how much they understand of it. If you show my mother a JAVA listing she'll run away screaming. If you show her a BASIC listing she might just say 'hmm, that part actually makes sense to me. Maybe I could do that too'. And that's just the effect a novice-programming language should have.

Quote:

Well, our current government shows that the majority of the people isn't always right...

It isn't always wrong either.

Quote:

Okeej. But throwing in some examples in some OO language to show basic is shorter will not convince me.

I wasn't proving BASIC listings are shorter, I was proving they are more understandable.

Quote:

Well, even beginners will eventually understand what's happening and why it has to be done.

The eventually is the problem. Most people don't take that time, they want to see results straight away. And that's exactly what BASIC gives them. And that might just give them the motivation to take their coding skills to another level sooner or later. I can assure you that there wouldn't have been so many cool demo's, tools and games on the MSX created by 'amateurs' if it hadn't been for MSX-BASIC to give all MSX coders a good start.

Quote:

I think it's better to start learning in just one language.

Sure, but why Basic? Use pascal or whatever. (modula )

Quote:

And since 'most programmers' switch to all kinds of different languages (C, C++, Pascal, Delphi, Modula, ASP, PHP, Assembly for several processors, JavaScript, JAVA, Prolog, ...) a nice solid basic which is very simple to understands and gives you the tools to understand the basics of computing and to take the next step to a 'real' programming language is quite essential IMHO.

I am not saying basic is not a real programing language. Or that others are more real.

Quote:

I'm not saying a new MSX computer should have MSX-BASIC 3.0 on-board, but a powerful programming language based on MSX-BASIC would be very, very nice.

Without msxbasic 5.0 it will not be a msx, that's very easy. Ofcourse it should have msx-basic.

Quote:

So now you are exactly saying what I was saying. OO doesn't make all sourcecode useful all of a sudden.

I am not saying anything different.

Quote:

blablabla..That's not the point. It matters how much they understand of it.blablabla I wasn't proving BASIC listings are shorter, I was proving they are more understandable.

Well I didn't mention anywhere Java should be the 'default' language of the newMSX. My ' "Hallow!".print at 50,50 ' example is as understandable as 'locate 50,50: print "hoi"'.

Quote:

The eventually is the problem. Most people don't take that time, they want to see results straight away. And that's exactly what BASIC gives them.

And ofcourse it's impossible to come up with a OO language that does the same thing...

Quote:

I can assure you that there wouldn't have been so many cool demo's, tools and games on the MSX created by 'amateurs' if it hadn't been for MSX-BASIC to give all MSX coders a good start.

Those 'amateurs' wouldn't have been scared away by a "better" language...

Quote:

For a beginning programmer, a procedural language (like BASIC, Pascal, C) just *is* easier to grasp than an object-oriented language. After all, when programming, it's easier to understand you're "just trying to *do* stuff" than to understand that you're "manipulating objects".

Lesson 1 in object orientation is very difficult indeed: Everything is a object. And it's almost impossible to say you're " just trying to *do* stuff with objects".

Quote:

If the one-chip-MSX came with Intent running MSXPLAYer... would it be good enough to you?

No.

Quote:

With intent all basic-functioality including a web-browser, C++ and JAVA compilers, 2D, 3D and video streaming capabilities and a nice audio system are already there.

It still all depends on what the NewMSX will look like. Will it be a homecomputer, or more a pda/gba/whateverportable? Will it have a Hard disk (or whatever way to get fast access to much data), and so on. I'm not looking for a organizer with mp3 player or a polyphonic ringbell-system. (OK, I had a few laughs about the intent 2 whitepapers)...

Quote:

The Intent approach also has quite some MSX feel to it. Brandable, platform independant, open documentation....

What's platform independant about MSX? I hope NewMSX won't become just another virtual machine specification. And uhm, I haven't seen the open documentation yet. I will have another look for that.
And the one-chip-msx, wasn't that supposed to be a msx on one chip. so put your msx-engine, z80, psg, and what-else-not in one chip? I don't see much use for that. A good working emulator is enough. A real msx even better.

Quote:

>>The eventually is the problem. Most people don't take that time, they want to see results straight away. And that's exactly what BASIC gives them.<< And ofcourse it's impossible to come up with a OO language that does the same thing...

I don't think anybody is waiting for yet another OO language.

Quote:

And the one-chip-msx, wasn't that supposed to be a msx on one chip. so put your msx-engine, z80, psg, and what-else-not in one chip? I don't see much use for that. A good working emulator is enough. A real msx even better.

A one-chip-msx IS a real MSX. It has always been the intention to integrate a complete MSX system on one chip. The MSX-Engine chips are a step towards that.

You're not making much sense with first saying you don't see much use for a MSX system on a chip, and then saying you prefer a real msx over an emulator.

Try to cut down on the LSD man...

Quote:

I don't think anybody is waiting for yet another OO language.

No, yet another basic, that is what the people want... (And yet another computer system... )

Quote:

A one-chip-msx IS a real MSX. It has always been the intention to integrate a complete MSX system on one chip. The MSX-Engine chips are a step towards that.

They should have made that one-chip-msx 15 years ago, then.

Quote:

You're not making much sense with first saying you don't see much use for a MSX system on a chip, and then saying you prefer a real msx over an emulator.

I don't see a need for a one-chip-msx that is the same as a 15 year old msx. And prefering a real msx over an emulator has nothing to do with msx-system-on-a-chip. Try to re-read what I say before stating I don't make sense.

Quote:

Try to cut down on the LSD man...

Yeah, I am trying. But it is so hard. No one understands me.

Quote:

Yeah, I am trying. But it is so hard. No one understands me.

Maybe that's because you're jumping from topic to topic all the time. We were discussing Intent and potential programming language, then you start commenting tbe one-chip-MSX design/ideas. It makes no sense.

But... pay attention, you might learn something


- In Nishi's lecture in Tilburg, 2001, Nishi admitted he wanted the MSX2 computer to be a one-chip computer. Unfortunately it was not possible at the time, which resulted in a fight between Nishi and Hitachi. Big mistake afterwards, Nishi admits.

- The new one-chip-MSX will be backwards compatible with older MSX computers (at least MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+, probably turboR as well) but will have a lot more BANG for your bucks than just that. We're probably not talking 'PDA', 'Smartphone', 'Homecomputer' or 'Personal Computer' here, but euhm.. something in between. I guess. But definately NOT just an MSX2 on one chip.

- One of the problems with 'modern electronic devices' (computers/PDA's) is they do not offer the users the possibility to start coding on an easy, low level, well protected environment like BASIC. I think it would be very nice to see a new, improved BASIC on the new MSX.

I could go on, but I'm afraid you'll have quite some strange reactions to these statements already, so lets just take a few things at a time, shall we?

Quote:

Maybe that's because you're jumping from topic to topic all the time. We were discussing Intent and potential programming language, then you start commenting tbe one-chip-MSX design/ideas. It makes no sense.

That's why I took two posts for that (one for the programming language/one for the onechipmsx). And reading the whitepaper I sort of get the idea Intent implies Java as language, which should be a mistake. But you seem to agree on that one.

Quote:

But... pay attention, you might learn something

Don't worry about that.

Quote:

- In Nishi's lecture in Tilburg, 2001, Nishi admitted he wanted the MSX2 computer to be a one-chip computer. Unfortunately it was not possible at the time, which resulted in a fight between Nishi and Hitachi. Big mistake afterwards, Nishi admits.

Nishi & Toshiba had a fight. Or not?

Quote:

- The new one-chip-MSX will be backwards compatible with older MSX computers (at least MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+, probably turboR as well) but will have a lot more BANG for your bucks than just that. We're probably not talking 'PDA', 'Smartphone', 'Homecomputer' or 'Personal Computer' here, but euhm.. something in between. I guess. But definately NOT just an MSX2 on one chip.

Probably a one-chip-computer capable of emulating a MSX, but how compatibility is accomplised doesn't matter much. I don't see any reason to not include TurboR.
It's unfortunate the term 'personal computer' is already in use, I think the newmsx should be just that: your own personal computer .

Quote:

- One of the problems with 'modern electronic devices' (computers/PDA's) is they do not offer the users the possibility to start coding on an easy, low level, well protected environment like BASIC. I think it would be very nice to see a new, improved BASIC on the new MSX.

I don't think we disagree here. The msx should be programmable 'out of the box'. (But 'low level' isn't that assembly language/machine language?)

wow. we're actually getting closer to each other in this discussion! (Ewww.. )

Indeed the fight was with Toshiba. I always mix those two up (same with lowlevel)

And indeed. the new MSX should be a real personal computer. But we need another term for that. Any suggestions?