32bit is no longer the important build of PB?

[IceSoft]

As far as I know:
Apple dropped 32-bit support from macOS several years ago (the last macOS version available as 32-bit was 10.7, which is EOL since November 2014).

So "cross platform" makes only seems if all PB sources correct working on 64bit OS versions.

What are YOU! think?

[skywalk]

What is your implication?
I still use both x86 and x64 compilations for Windows machines.

[Mijikai]

32bit is still important - apple is just l/cr azy.

[NicTheQuick]

Nobody needs 32 Bit nowadays. Only users of very old hardware. If Purebasic could compile for ARM this would be a whole other story.
32 Bit is very annoying because you always have to install libraries for it when someone decides to not compile his software for 64 Bit also.

[Shardik]

As far as I know:
Apple dropped 32-bit support from macOS several years ago (the last macOS version available as 32-bit was 10.7, which is EOL since November 2014).

I assume that you've got your information from en.wikipedia.org:

In 2011, Apple released Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, which no longer supported 32-bit Intel processors and also did not include Rosetta. All versions of the system released since then run exclusively on 64-bit Intel CPUs and do not support PowerPC applications.

But you didn't understand that statement correctly. Apple did not longer support running MacOS on 32-bit Intel processors but nevertheless MacOS supports 32-bit and 64-bit code for Intel processors even on the current version 10.14 (Mojave) available since September 2018. Although Mojave will indeed be the last version to support 32-bit code.

You should have read the Wikipedia article further on up to the table "Release history". In the column "Application support" you would have seen that "32/64-bit Intel" is supported until MacOS 10.14 while indeed in the column "Processor support" the 32-bit Intel support ended with MacOS 10.6 'Snow Leopard'...

Nobody needs 32 Bit nowadays. Only users of very old hardware.

That's simply not true. I am still working with 32-bit software on Linux, MacOS and Windows although the reasons are different. On Linux I have a PC for testing purposes with 22 different Linux distributions. The reason for using the 32-bit versions is space: 32-bit distributions simply require less space on my 3 hard disks. On MacOS it's no necessity to use the 32-bit PB compiler, but it helps to find bugs in PureBasic which don't show in the 64-bit version. But in Windows I have to support old custom software with 32-bit DLLs, so there is no way around compiling 32-bit programs as long as no 64-bit DLLs are provided by certain software publishers. And that's not because of "old hardware". At work I just got a brand new HP workstation with Xeon processor, 32 GB RAM and two big SSDs running Windows 10 x64 (and Hyper-V VMs with Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 8.1) and a brand new Lenovo ThinkPad with Windows 10 x64...

[wilbert]

MacOS supports 32-bit and 64-bit code for Intel processors even on the current version 10.14 (Mojave) available since September 2018.

Are you able to compile a 32 bit application using PB x86 on MacOS 10.14 Mojave with the latest version of XCode ?
It doesn't seem to work if I try.

clang: warning: libstdc++ is deprecated; move to libc++ with a minimum deployment target of OS X 10.9 [-Wdeprecated]
ld: library not found for -lstdc++
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)

[Shardik]

Are you able to compile a 32 bit application using PB x86 on MacOS 10.14 Mojave with the latest version of XCode ?

Sorry Wilbert, but I can't test with MacOS 10.14 'Mojave' because this is the first version which doen't support my iMac from 2010 anymore. I plan to buy a new iMac or Mac Mini and wait for the announcement of the new hardware...

[NicTheQuick]

I am working with Linux all the time and at the moment I haven't any 32 Bit libraries installed. And I think that all developers should stop compiling for 32 Bit solely. This is especially true for developers of a library. 64 Bits are the future. In times when everyone has installed more than 4 GB RAM in their system you want to be able to use all of this in your application. And if a library you want to use is only available in the 32-bit version you've got a problem. At the moment we are still in the transition phase, but soon 32 bits will be as extinct as 16 bit applications.

[Josh]

Nobody needs 32 Bit nowadays.

Do you have any idea how many old pc's are still standing around in the companies and there is definitely no reason to exchange them?

With the office computers, they just managed to get an update to Win7.

Computers in production and in the control center that don't have an Internet connection still run on Win XP and will certainly continue to run in this configuration for the next 10 years. A change there would be equivalent to a production-related suicide.

[NicTheQuick]

Nobody needs 32 Bit nowadays.

Computers in production and in the control center that don't have an Internet connection still run on Win XP and will certainly continue to run in this configuration for the next 10 years. A change there would be equivalent to a production-related suicide.

That is absolutely no problem. But these machine also need no new software. No developer will write new applications for these oldtimers except they will get good money for it and a system to develop on. I am talking about new developments. They is no need to write new software which supports 32 Bit only.

[mk-soft]

... They is no need to write new software which supports 32 Bit only.

That's not true. I wrote a 16 bit application for Windows 3.10 a long time ago, the actual system was Windows XP. Sometimes you need something like that to connect old systems to new ones.

Why does PB not support 16bit system?

[ccode]

Why does PB not support 16bit system?

A specially adapted Dos version of PureBasic would be interesting.
But all PureBasic libraries are not designed for 16 bit.
A 16-bit version would hardly have users today. It would just be a nice gimmick, unless it would support avr processors, Arduino and Co.

32 bit would be great for arm processors yet, but also there is 64 bit the way forward.

32 bit could be preferable only because of the amount of distribution/maintenance and for memory-efficient reasons.

64 bits should be the modern standard and the future.

[oreopa]

I don't feel 32bit software is going to be irrelevant any time soon. Use 64bit if you actually need to, 32bit if you don't.

[ccode]

That's the problem.
It will therefore be difficult to dispense with 32 bit applications in the next 10, 20, 30, ... years.
It would probably have to give radical 32-bit bans.

PellesC is already a pioneer.
PellesC 9.0
"From this version on there is only a 64-bit build available .."

[bosker]

But you can still make 32-bit applications using the latest PellesC compiler.