Blog post !

Developed or developing a new product in PureBasic? Tell the world about it.
User avatar
StarBootics
Addict
Addict
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Blog post !

Post by StarBootics »

Fred wrote:
StarBootics wrote:Hello everyone,

I have some questions about some stuff since C compilers are capable to deal with :
  • 1. unsigned long and unsigned long long (sorry to ask again)
    2. Static arrays outside structures
    3. Multi-dimensions static arrays inside and outside structures
    4. The possibility initialize static arrays like : ArrayName.f[4] = {0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0}
    5. The ternary operator
Will all this be introduced into the PureBasic language :?:

Best regards
StarBootics
No new features will be added to PureBasic. It's just a new back-end to be able to mainly support new CPU (I wasn't even sure to support Windows at first).
Thanks for the answer.

Best regards
StarBootics
The Stone Age did not end due to a shortage of stones !
Rinzwind
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: NL

Re: Blog post !

Post by Rinzwind »

Features will only be removed :twisted:

Well.. hope there will be some syntax evolution (not talking about libraries). A (lack of a) few core language features are really painful and twisted and should be prioritized to get fixed/added IMHO (time/money/complexity).

@Saki & dpi: so true. You have to fight both the win32 api and the gadget library.
Fred
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 16619
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 4:39 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Blog post !

Post by Fred »

Demivec wrote:
normeus wrote:
Fred wrote:(I wasn't even sure to support Windows at first).
Using google translate it sounds like he was thinking about changing the back end for Linux and Apple and leaving windows with the same back end, but don't quote me on that.
@normeus: I think Fred was referring to the distant past when PureBasic existed on the Amiga only.

Note, please excuse me for quoting you. In my defense I didn't notice you wrote about that until after I had finished responding. :)
Sorry my statement wasn't clear enough, I meant: "I wasn't sure to ship the C back-end with the Windows version as there is no real need for it". After thoughts, it will make more sense to have all the PB versions to have access to this backend, if you write inline C code for example, and also to get more optimized output.
User avatar
useful
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:36 am

Re: Blog post !

Post by useful »

My question was not answered. :(
useful wrote:Very interested in the answer to an important question.
It is especially important for the linux ecosystem.
Will it be possible to outsource the generated C source to be built with gcc without purebasic?
p.s. I mean the ability to generate standalone deb-src (rpms)
Dawn will come inevitably.
User_Russian
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Blog post !

Post by User_Russian »

Fred wrote:I wasn't sure to ship the C back-end with the Windows version as there is no real need for it
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/
User avatar
the.weavster
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Blog post !

Post by the.weavster »

Fred wrote:"I wasn't sure to ship the C back-end with the Windows version as there is no real need for it".
At this moment SB's gadgets are limited (both in range and functionality) to maintain compatibility with PB.
Is it possible this could lead to a similar dynamic between PB[C] and PB[ASM]?

If so maybe PB[ASM] should be left as an entry level product with its lifetime license and PB[C] introduced as an entirely new product with a different licensing model and no obligation to backport new functionality to PB[ASM].
User avatar
Saki
Addict
Addict
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 am
Location: Pandora

Re: Blog post !

Post by Saki »

@ Rinzwind
Yes, it is a horror with DPI aware
The problems really become visible on 4K monitors.
On a standard monitor, people usually don't use more than 125%, so you often don't see when something doesn't fit.
Also, if you don't use floats, you'll just round and it will be 1 instead of 1.25.
On a 4K monitor people often use 200% or more.
You can see problems brutally.
If a user sets intermediate values and the developer neglects to use floats, nasty and hard-to-locate errors can result.
I once had someone point out that he gets problems with 4K.
He said he didn't care about my 4K monitor.
That's the same as saying I don't care if my software runs on the users or not.
I had already given up on porting an older, very graphics-heavy code to DPI aware.
Another problem is also overlooked with 4K usage.
Graphics become much larger internally and animations quickly go down the tubes. Such applications become hardly usable or there is misbehavior when working with timers, things then can no longer be done in defined time spans.
地球上の平和
Marc56us
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: Blog post !

Post by Marc56us »

Hi Fread and Team,

:idea:
Now that PB will be closer to C, is it possible to add some useful basic C functions like formatting and string analysis.
(i.e: printf, sprintf, fprintf, scanf, sscanf, fscan

Also some system functions would be welcome for example on process management (like Tasklist and Taskkill tools (windows) ps/kill on linux)

:wink:
User avatar
chi
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 5:31 pm
Location: Linz, Austria

Re: Blog post !

Post by chi »

Marc56us wrote:Now that PB will be closer to C, is it possible to add some useful basic C functions like formatting and string analysis.
(i.e: printf, sprintf, fprintf, scanf, sscanf, fscan
like so?
Et cetera is my worst enemy
User avatar
Josh
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:45 pm

Re: Blog post !

Post by Josh »

Somehow it's like a coop of startled chickens here.
Marc56us wrote: :idea:
Now that PB will be closer to C, is it possible to add some useful basic C functions like formatting and string analysis.
For me, Fred's statement is not that difficult to understand:
Fred wrote:No new features will be added to PureBasic. It's just a new back-end to be able to mainly support new CPU
It will surely take some time until PureBasic runs as stable under C as it is now. This should be the first and most important step, after that there is still enough time to think about extensions (in my humble opinion).
Last edited by Josh on Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sorry for my bad english
Marc56us
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: Blog post !

Post by Marc56us »

Josh wrote:Somehow it's like a coop of startled chickens here.
Marc56us wrote: :idea:
Now that PB will be closer to C, is it possible to add some useful basic C functions like formatting and string analysis.
For me, Fred's statement is not that difficult to understand:
Fred wrote:No new features will be added to PureBasic. It's just a new back-end to be able to mainly support new CPU
It will surely take some time until PureBasic runs as stable under C as it is now. This should be the first and most important step, after that there is still enough time to think about extensions.
:wink: Let me speak please, this is just an idea that was proposed before and can be more easily implemented now.

I know that Fred is doing it his way and the new functions will come later.

This suggestion can therefore be moved up several levels in the Todo list (IMHO)
We use these functions a lot in C, it can bring new customers to PB
User avatar
Saki
Addict
Addict
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 am
Location: Pandora

Re: Blog post !

Post by Saki »

First of all, it has to run stably.
How is that supposed to be debugged if buckets of new functions are to be added now?
That all will take its time.
By then, all those wishes will have sunk into the depths of the forum here.
So you should really wait until that time comes.
地球上の平和
BarryG
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3292
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:17 am

Re: Blog post !

Post by BarryG »

Saki wrote:First of all, it has to run stably.
Comments like this make me a bit scared/worried to update. I might have to stick with v5.73 for a very long time.

Although, I wonder if the number of virus false-positives may suddenly reduce/disappear due to the new code base?
User avatar
skywalk
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Blog post !

Post by skywalk »

At a minimum, I expect inline C to be a new feature. :mrgreen:
The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. ~ Andrew Tanenbaum
User avatar
Mijikai
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:17 pm

Re: Blog post !

Post by Mijikai »

BarryG wrote:Although, I wonder if the number of virus false-positives may suddenly reduce/disappear due to the new code base?
It wont fix broken AV software thats for sure. :P
Post Reply