Aurora Compiler

[milan1612]

Has anybody used "Aurora Compiler" from Ionic Wind Software before?
It's a C++ like language, but with a great standard library included.
I consider to buy it, so I need some advice...

[Kale]

Has anybody used "Aurora Compiler" from Ionic Wind Software before?
It's a C++ like language, but with a great standard library included.
I consider to buy it, so I need some advice...

I was a partner developer with Aurora but i have since sold my share in it.

Aurora is a nice language but to be honest Paul has killed it by releasing EBasic. I left not long after that. Aurora is currently in beta and is only being worked on sporadically, which is a shame. I had hoped it would become C# without the .NET framework but that hasn't happened. Oh well you live and learn.

It is a good language to learn as its like C++ but without the strange bits.

[GeoTrail]

You're better off sticking with PureBasic

[milan1612]

You're better off sticking with PureBasic

I'll never leave PureBasic!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No I just want to learn a "second" language.

[Kale]

I just want to learn a "second" language.

I would recommend an OOP language, something like C#, Java or Python.

[milan1612]

I just want to learn a "second" language.

I would recommend an OOP language, something like C#, Java or Python.

That's what I thought when I discovered Aurora

[Tipperton]

Aurora is a nice language but to be honest Paul has killed it by releasing EBasic.

I had an interesting discussion with Paul about other things but durring the discussion Aurora and EBasic came up.

From what Paul said initially he had no intentions of releasing another BASIC and wanted to devote his efforts entirely towards Aurora, but when Tom pretty much abandoned all the IBasic users, they begged Paul to come up with a replacement they could migrate to. I guess he felt bad for them and so EBasic was born.

I took a brief look at it but decided to stay with PureBasic, EBasic has a rather long way to go yet... The things it had now that got my attention included native unsigned number support and supposedly native ActiveX support in a future release.

[Dave651]

Paul has said that he is concentrating more on EBasic than Aurora because it is more popular and therefore has more financial benefits. I'm sure he has good intentions for Aurora but its development is always going to be slow and unreliable because of his personal circumstances. Like Kale said, another language may be better because anyone who buys Aurora may become frustrated with its slow progress.

[milan1612]

OK, I think you convinced me.

The language what I need (beside PB) must have:
- natively compiled executables, without any runtimes
- OOP
- a standard library with all you need (gui, maths...)
- access to the WinAPI
- a good community
- an IDE (a gui designer would be cool)

And it should have all that features by default.
I know, it's not easy to find such a language

Any advice?

[utopiomania]

Check out NSBasic. It basically compiles VBS with some extensions into standalone exe's. It's not fully OOP,
but rather OOP based and VBS is always a nice trick to learn.

[milan1612]

VBS was my very first programming language
But I'll take a look...

[Tipperton]

VB6 and MoleBox Pro!

Sure VB has runtimes but with MoleBox Pro you can package your program and the runtimes into a single EXE.

NSBasic also has a runtime...

NS Basic/Desktop is a complete BASIC development environment. It uses Microsoft's standard VBScript engine (a subset of Visual Basic) as its core, combined with extensions to create a complete development and runtime environment. VBScript is a standard part of Windows, keeping memory requirements low.

[Barney]

The language what I need (beside PB) must have:
- natively compiled executables, without any runtimes
- OOP
- a standard library with all you need (gui, maths...)
- access to the WinAPI
- a good community
- an IDE (a gui designer would be cool)

And it should have all that features by default.

Well... you actually described most of the EBasic. Why don't you try it? It's $14.95 which is really peanuts money. Aurora is $24.95 so basically for less than $40 dollars you can get two pretty good languages.

Oh, yes. EBasic has OOP now.

Barney

[srod]

I think if Milan is comfortable with Purebasic, then he might be better selecting a non basic type oop language, if oop is really what he is after. This is what, for me at least, makes Aurora so attractive although I do concede that development of Aurora does seem to be secondary to EBasic now. A shame really.

c# would be my next port of call and indeed, when I can ignore .Net no longer, then c# it will be.

[milan1612]

As srod said, I'd prefer a non-basic language.
If Aurora would be developed more actively, it'd be my choice.
I downloaded the demo and I must say it's quite stable. Aurora
looks like a complete language, almost everything I need is available.
Also the community seems to be very helpful (nothing beats the PB community! )

And srod, I tried .NET, I worked with both C# and VB.NET.
Of course it's very simple, it helps you with almost everything, but...
I simply hate this Framework and the fact that it doesn't compile to native
code and that it is easy to reverse the code from a binary (Reflector).

I think I'll give Aurora a deeper try...

PS: Please apologize my horrible english