Wish [B4X] More operators

[Peter Simpson]

Hello Anywhere Software,
It would be nice to have some more or the basic operators in all 4 IDE's

Oddly enough the other month I found that B4X uses == operator

++
--
+=
-+
Etc etc etc.

This is where somebody says that VB does not all these millions of operators. I'll just say what Erel has said to others plenty of times, B4X is not BASIC, it is it's own language

Thank you...

 

[LucaMs]

Oddly enough the other month I found that B4X uses == operator

Really? (I'm not kidding, this time ?)

 

[aeric]

I want &= ?

 

[Peter Simpson]

I want &= ?

And I want += and -= and &= more than anything others...

 

[Star-Dust]

But what's the use == ?

 

[Peter Simpson]

But what's the use == ?

I didn't say that I use it, I said that I found it. I believe that AlwaysBusy uses it a lot in B4J from my research on the forum after I found ==. The fact that you can use == but not != in B4X I found a bit strange, to me that's just incomplete having one without the other.

Me personally, I'm more interested in += and -= and &= than anything else. Just being able to write Salvatore += 1 or Salvatore -= 1 is a time saver and also makes for neater code. But saying that, Salvatore++, Salvatore--, ++Salvatore, --Salvatore are also time savers too.

now that B4A is free, I for one am expecting more developers to try out B4X and to join the band wagon. I can't be the only developer on the planet that when using other IDEs enjoy using the other operators that are missing from B4X suite of RAD tools.

Hey, those missing operators += and -= and &= should be in a modern day IDE RAD tool like B4X, especially when == is already in the IDE, and == is a really really really old operator.

Salvatore = Salvatore + 1
Or
Salvatore += 1

I know which one I prefer.

B4X prides itself on being a modern day RAD tool...

 

[Erel]

B4X doesn't use ==.
Unintentionally the parser doesn't treat it as an error and instead ignores the second equal sign.
If you are writing code using '==' in B4X then you are writing wrong code.

While I'm not saying that it will never be added, a programming language is not a random set of features. The operators you mentioned come from the C based languages. This is not the origin of B4X.
More features make the language more difficult to learn. This is especially problematic for RAD languages.

 

[Peter Simpson]

If you are writing code using '==' in B4X then you are writing wrong code.

I don't use == in B4X, I just found it one day by accident...

While I'm not saying that it will never be added, a programming language is not a random set of features. The operators you mentioned come from the C based languages.

Whilst I completely agree about the a random set of features, I still personally strongly believe that +=, -= and &= should be standard in B4X simply because a lot of new developers coming to B4X from for example VB.Net including myself use it a lot, and I automatically and instantly go back to using it when using C# or VB in VS without thinking about it.

Oh well Erel, lets all hope that one day +=, -= and &= will suddenly appear in the B4X change log

Thank you for considering my B4X wishes...

 

[optionexplicit]

More features make the language more difficult to learn. This is especially problematic for RAD languages.

I dont think so, if i have tons of options, i dont have to use them.
Maybe some code is better in another way, but i think its like a proper subset.
And another thing is, that some commands are more known or more intuitive or easier to learn, depending on where you come from.
iam mutilated by basic and assembler, so iam beyond hope ;-)