PB doesnt forbid you to use OOP. You can code OOP in PB.
It's just that PB is a procedural language and by design does not include advanced OOP stuff.
But if you realy want OOP, interfaces are there to give you OOP.
Yeah I understand PB allows that which is great. I just wish there was a way where procedural and OOP could exist in the language (or at least the compiler could understand it) that way both could be used.
I understand though it's hard to implement (or is it impossible?). I suppose the reason I would like it is that I have no idea how to do the same thing procedurally.
With OOP I'd have a class and it's methods but in procedural would I have to make a new procedure for each method with a different structure?
It's hard to imagine until I see some code where it shows examples of good programming in a procedural language.
I suppose I should ask for help instead of taking the easier way (for me)
Yes it does make sense.
Alone for the fact that you can't develop for all plattforms with PB.
In my opinion C does not offer anything else PB doesnt. If you want OOP C++ will fit you better. But procedural PureBasic is the C of the BASIC's. You can go as low level as you want.
But the original question was about the syntax, if we speak about functionality i just say strings. String handling in C or C++ sucks.
Oh yes I don't fault PB for not supporting all platforms for a small team it is very well polished product.
I do agree string's in C\C++ was so complicated, which is one of the pro's of PB.