Object Oriented Batch Language - China DOS Union Forum - China DOS Union

If using batch files with a procedural way of thinking,
you can put custom functions (sub-batch files, able to receive parameters) into a directory named Include (or something similar),

For example: you could also turn the floating-point arithmetic and a whole series of near-perfect batch files made by people like pengfei and the moderators into a function-library format, one file per function, stored in a function-specific directory.
That way, little by little, when developing in the future, you only need to call them simply :)


 C:\TEMP\basic directory

2006-09-30  14:51    <DIR>          .
2006-09-30  14:51    <DIR>          ..
2006-09-30  14:51    <DIR>          Include
2006-09-30  14:51    <DIR>          Lib

Using OOP thinking is super great!!!
The OP's skills show innovative thinking!!!

At present I don't know, after part of the OP's creative work has been realized,
who will be using it, I think, will probably be:

people fairly proficient in DOS commands, proficient in writing batch files, proficient in object-oriented program development and who have really done it for some time (such as JAVA, etc.),
and then also possess a fanatical devotion to technology......

Without devotion and creative thinking, you can't light up the world～：）
Bump again!!!
Waiting for the OP's endless stream of good ideas～：）

Object-oriented batch files? Is that really necessary? People really need to have a correct understanding of batch files. If it gets too complex, it would be better to directly do DOS software development instead.
Support willsort's viewpoint!

If you want object orientation and also want simplicity, you can try PYTHON.

Good idea. It has a certain degree of practical applicability.

Originally posted by redtek at 2006-10-14 01:07 AM:
Bump～～
This “@echo %dbg% off” is really interesting. When you want to debug, you don't even need to modify the batch file anymore :)
]]

My understanding: make BAT graphical, and standardize the language (like VB).

Actually its only significance lies in protecting the program; execution efficiency will be slower than original BAT.

Downloaded first, thanks

Leaving a footprint, will study it later. Thanks, OP.

This kind of thread I definitely have to bump, nice line of thought!

The OP's ideas are truly extraordinary, always walking ahead of us,
but personally I think the workload of this project is enormous!!!!
I suggest first discussing and standardizing the code for some common tasks, and then,
build header files, turn them into function libraries, and then try it out in practice.

Everyone, actively post your opinions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If OOP in batch files gets realized, then wouldn't any application program become text-based!!! In the future, when everyone shares software, they would only need to pass around text, haha. But then copyright issues would be hard to handle :P
If the efficiency is good enough (hardware keeps getting faster, so that doesn't seem like too big a problem), then program development would also become simpler (saving many tools like Compiler/Assemblyer/Llinker). DOS itself would be one huge development environment, that's so creative!!!
This should really be planned out well. Maybe this could even become a direction for future development (if done well, this one feature could surpass Windows and other graphical-interface OSes). Support the OP!!
One can imagine that at that time DOS would purely be just a kernal (the onion's core), and on top of it one could run n application programs or even n OSes (the onion's n layers of skin) :D

Our DOS should also start considering a 64-bit architecture, otherwise how can it bring out its short-and-powerful strengths?? Large-scale use of batch files on 64-bit would probably be very meaningful.

[ Last edited by enjoyer on 2008-1-17 at 12:21 AM ]

Floor16　redtek	Posted 2006-10-14 01:25
金牌会员　Posts 1,147　Credits 2,902
If using batch files with a procedural way of thinking, you can put custom functions (sub-batch files, able to receive parameters) into a directory named Include (or something similar), For example: you could also turn the floating-point arithmetic and a whole series of near-perfect batch files made by people like pengfei and the moderators into a function-library format, one file per function, stored in a function-specific directory. That way, little by little, when developing in the future, you only need to call them simply :) C:\TEMP\basic directory 2006-09-30 14:51 <DIR> . 2006-09-30 14:51 <DIR> .. 2006-09-30 14:51 <DIR> Include 2006-09-30 14:51 <DIR> Lib Using OOP thinking is super great!!! The OP's skills show innovative thinking!!! At present I don't know, after part of the OP's creative work has been realized, who will be using it, I think, will probably be: people fairly proficient in DOS commands, proficient in writing batch files, proficient in object-oriented program development and who have really done it for some time (such as JAVA, etc.), and then also possess a fanatical devotion to technology......

Floor17　redtek	Posted 2006-10-14 01:28
金牌会员　Posts 1,147　Credits 2,902
Without devotion and creative thinking, you can't light up the world～：） Bump again!!! Waiting for the OP's endless stream of good ideas～：）

Floor18　yiping1973	Posted 2006-10-16 00:24
初级用户　Posts 34　Credits 71
Object-oriented batch files? Is that really necessary? People really need to have a correct understanding of batch files. If it gets too complex, it would be better to directly do DOS software development instead. Support willsort's viewpoint!

Floor19　skno	Posted 2007-04-30 06:31
初级用户　Posts 6　Credits 21
If you want object orientation and also want simplicity, you can try PYTHON.

Floor20　lzmyst	Posted 2007-05-04 14:53
新手上路　Posts 10　Credits 19
Good idea. It has a certain degree of practical applicability.

Floor21　77209341	Posted 2007-05-26 15:38
新手上路　Posts 2　Credits 4
Originally posted by redtek at 2006-10-14 01:07 AM: Bump～～ This “@echo %dbg% off” is really interesting. When you want to debug, you don't even need to modify the batch file anymore :) ]]

Floor22　zhanbushi	Posted 2007-05-26 18:53
初级用户　Posts 12　Credits 26
Thanks for sharing

Floor23　IamWizard	Posted 2007-06-02 23:13
新手上路　Posts 1　Credits 2
Bump

Floor24　gmy	Posted 2007-06-03 12:44
版主　Posts 392　Credits 1,113
My understanding: make BAT graphical, and standardize the language (like VB). Actually its only significance lies in protecting the program; execution efficiency will be slower than original BAT.

Floor25　rocmagic	Posted 2007-10-16 18:27
初级用户　Posts 12　Credits 26
Impressive

Floor26　rocmagic	Posted 2007-10-16 18:28
初级用户　Posts 12　Credits 26
Downloaded first, thanks

Floor27　picat	Posted 2007-10-17 13:54
初级用户　Posts 68　Credits 150
Leaving a footprint, will study it later. Thanks, OP.

Floor28　58795362	Posted 2007-12-07 19:51
初级用户　Posts 16　Credits 33
This kind of thread I definitely have to bump, nice line of thought!

Floor29　plp626	Posted 2008-01-16 18:44
银牌会员　Posts 1,020　Credits 2,278
The OP's ideas are truly extraordinary, always walking ahead of us, but personally I think the workload of this project is enormous!!!! I suggest first discussing and standardizing the code for some common tasks, and then, build header files, turn them into function libraries, and then try it out in practice. Everyone, actively post your opinions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Floor30　enjoyer	Posted 2008-01-16 23:30
中级用户　Posts 140　Credits 351
If OOP in batch files gets realized, then wouldn't any application program become text-based!!! In the future, when everyone shares software, they would only need to pass around text, haha. But then copyright issues would be hard to handle :P If the efficiency is good enough (hardware keeps getting faster, so that doesn't seem like too big a problem), then program development would also become simpler (saving many tools like Compiler/Assemblyer/Llinker). DOS itself would be one huge development environment, that's so creative!!! This should really be planned out well. Maybe this could even become a direction for future development (if done well, this one feature could surpass Windows and other graphical-interface OSes). Support the OP!! One can imagine that at that time DOS would purely be just a kernal (the onion's core), and on top of it one could run n application programs or even n OSes (the onion's n layers of skin) :D Our DOS should also start considering a 64-bit architecture, otherwise how can it bring out its short-and-powerful strengths?? Large-scale use of batch files on 64-bit would probably be very meaningful. [ Last edited by enjoyer on 2008-1-17 at 12:21 AM ]