PureBasic Forums - English

We've already learned our lesson and do not develop new software with pure. But we have to maintain the old stuff, so a freeze has been made (Pure 4.xx) as a workaround solution.
You aren't making any sense. If that's the case what do you care whether something gets taken out or not?

Well, let's ...

Still, some of us are able to see also the edge of the coin :?
Living on the edge is dangerous business, you know :-)

So, here are the known facts and questions:
It can't be fixed because it's completely broken.
It's been included since "forever" but after all this years it has to go, because now ...

There are always people who blame you about the right way ...
... it could be really funny, but it makes me sad. Even after
explaining everything ... they still ignore the obvious reasons.

But thats how it is ... it was clear from the beginning that
there will be people like that ...

Maybe i have ...

Sometimes they break older programs, but, normally, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to get things going again.
Well, this time it isn't "normally" because it will take a huge amount of effort to get things going again.

look, honest, I'm not trying to be an obnoxious shit to you or ...

So that's the pure way: If it's broken dump it on the way, fixing is for lamers only?

You should take a look to the bug forums, you will see we are fixing a lot of bugs. This one was not fixable, because it was badly thinked from the start. It was an easy to use command because the server itself ...

I'm not afraid of words or years. I have lots of both .

Comparing fs with apple is a bold move, but hey, is there even such a thing like enough self confidence?

So that's the pure way: If it's broken dump it on the way, fixing is for lamers only?

This will be hard ... so sit down before reading. :)
Basic is not supposed to do everything for you with a single command.
If you want to call yourself programmer, you shouldn't have a big
problem by writing the "sendfile"-command yourself. Of course it is
not that easy, because it is a little bit ...

sec wrote:Nevermind!

Sorry, no can do!

It's essential.
Removing it breaks a lot of code.
Which means replacing it with something similar needs tons of testing.
Don't like that idea, so i definitely do mind and it seems i'm not alone ...

using ReceiveNetworkData/SendNetworkData to safer, here:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=52705

And that is "better/safer" than the included command set?

This is called the "wishes release" and i didn't wish for removal of an essential command set :-).
Improve it, fix it ...

sartic wrote:"Removed: SendNetworkFile(), RecieveNetworkFile(), #PB_NetworkEvent_File to avoid possible security hole"

do not like it i have one old program that use this 2 commands.
maybe it is time to rewrite it

+999999

I'm not very confident. It's 270 KB source and the compiler error is not very specific at all.

Shall I send a private email?

... followed by POLINK: error: Unresolved external symbol '_PB_Screen_FullScreenWindow'

But does compile with the original IDE.

Anyone familiar with compiler error 968

Any volunteers who tailbite this into a PB 4.10 userlib?

Okay, it works I guess

Well, most of the time :-).

But networks are sometimes tricky and in very rare cases it will happen, that one telegram overhauls the other.

In other words, the SendNetworkFile() could be faster than the SendNetworkString().

Thus, to be on the safe side, the sender must ...

So it's only native if at least w2K is supported too? (but not w95/98/ME/NT)