Make PureBasic Open Source
Make PureBasic Open Source
It seems the development of PureBasic fell asleep (or is dead?). Fetaure Requests are consistently ignored, bugs are only sporadically eliminated. It is time to make it open source to to give the development a new chance... or is this a pious wish?
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
It's not planned.
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
If we look on a long period, I think there is a big work to adapt more and more. It is a period of 4 whole years which are layed on near 20 years. Just do a program on the version 3.90 before speaking.
For the open source side, if you have a project, you can start it on PureBasic, test it, and convert it, by rewriting all the private functions. Wait 2 or 3 years : you have added nothing, that you must rewrite again, what you need not rewrite on PureBasic.
- netmaestro
- PureBasic Bullfrog
- Posts: 8425
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
I find this hard to believe.
It's a thought expressed by someone who bought a PB license 17 years ago. He was required to pay for it once and never again. Since his purchase Purebasic has grown to be a minimum of 7 times what it was then. (I'm probably estimating low here. Actually I'm sure I am.) In that timespan we've seen competitor after competitor bite the dust, every last one of which made you pay for every upgrade, pay for support, pay pay pay. And the return on investment was... well, let's just say it wasn't and leave it at that. When I tell my friends of my onetime purchase and what I've gotten in return and continue to get in return all these years later they can't believe it. Which is where I came in, because
I find this hard to believe.
It's a thought expressed by someone who bought a PB license 17 years ago. He was required to pay for it once and never again. Since his purchase Purebasic has grown to be a minimum of 7 times what it was then. (I'm probably estimating low here. Actually I'm sure I am.) In that timespan we've seen competitor after competitor bite the dust, every last one of which made you pay for every upgrade, pay for support, pay pay pay. And the return on investment was... well, let's just say it wasn't and leave it at that. When I tell my friends of my onetime purchase and what I've gotten in return and continue to get in return all these years later they can't believe it. Which is where I came in, because
I find this hard to believe.
BERESHEIT
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
PureBasic has been invaluable and will continue to be so with the C backend.
I too thought Open Source would speed the development cycle, and that happened with the IDE.
If the core PureBasic compiler remains under a tight ship, who can complain when we have continued improvements and the new potential uprocessor targets with C?
I too thought Open Source would speed the development cycle, and that happened with the IDE.
If the core PureBasic compiler remains under a tight ship, who can complain when we have continued improvements and the new potential uprocessor targets with C?
The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. ~ Andrew Tanenbaum
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
I see where he is coming from. The new backend is possibly more reason for concern because it eats lots of valuable time that could be used to address additions, new options, syntax and bug fixes. Syntax/core language enhancements are not happening for many years and indeed feature requests are even only replied to sporadically. Theres just little attention given to it. Anyway it is what it is. Make your own decisions. Well, maybe the c backend makes new additions and improvements easier down the line… that is if the old backend is forgotten about and the author is willing. Then again, one can examine the generated c code and go that road, maybe even keep using some PB libraries… its just that c is also lacking in syntax and has limited and old fashioned standard libraries, c++ can be hell with too much ugly syntax and possibilities.
I fear too that the possibilities of the c backend are not all taken advantage of because of compatibility with the old backend? Like instant import and usage of c-headers (not that just any compiler can make sense of for example the win32 headers… hope it supports at least msvc and gcc) without translation in PB. Or signed/unsigned data types.
Example of basic syntax improvement? A basic thing as array initialization (includes usage as parameter). Even plain old c does that better.
GUI library is quite basic, a one on one mapping to classic controls which frequently need lots of platform dependent api calls and where is the table grid control? It does not understand multi monitor dpi (fair enough to say that MS itself forgot about it for long time and the solution kind of sucks).
Just accept. Every language has its usage. I would advise take a look at Pascal/Lazarus/Delphi too. Have options.
I fear too that the possibilities of the c backend are not all taken advantage of because of compatibility with the old backend? Like instant import and usage of c-headers (not that just any compiler can make sense of for example the win32 headers… hope it supports at least msvc and gcc) without translation in PB. Or signed/unsigned data types.
Example of basic syntax improvement? A basic thing as array initialization (includes usage as parameter). Even plain old c does that better.
GUI library is quite basic, a one on one mapping to classic controls which frequently need lots of platform dependent api calls and where is the table grid control? It does not understand multi monitor dpi (fair enough to say that MS itself forgot about it for long time and the solution kind of sucks).
Just accept. Every language has its usage. I would advise take a look at Pascal/Lazarus/Delphi too. Have options.
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
AllocateStructure()
FreeStructure()
As we can see it, behind this link, we can read a subject whom nobody has stamped the title prefix.
But, excepted this detail, the compiler, executing itself mainly on 3 platforms, OSX, Linux and Windows, and able to provide stand-alone as next compact, any executables and dependancies, needs not to become open source, for the reason the coder of a PureBasic source file, can create a program to read completely how the PBcompiler executable file is built. Sure the forum has already all about the compiler too.
FreeStructure()
As we can see it, behind this link, we can read a subject whom nobody has stamped the title prefix.
But, excepted this detail, the compiler, executing itself mainly on 3 platforms, OSX, Linux and Windows, and able to provide stand-alone as next compact, any executables and dependancies, needs not to become open source, for the reason the coder of a PureBasic source file, can create a program to read completely how the PBcompiler executable file is built. Sure the forum has already all about the compiler too.
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
Not all c libraries are old fashioned or limited. There's some great string libraries, for instance, and just about anything can be linked with c. You just have to be willing to use something that isn't totally mainstream (which includes PB... So everybody here should apply).c is also lacking in syntax and has limited and old fashioned standard libraries
The c backend is nothing but good. The complainers have no idea what's involved in porting to a new isa. C solves the hard parts, and it's once and done. Then you guys can use any string library on GitHub.
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
Hah about the standard c string functions… c strings do have bad design from the getgo. Mix data and behavior (\0), terrible default functions that promote buffer overflows, no unicode support (byte level is what you get). And yes, quite a few libraries that try to fix its issues.
Ps memccpy seems the way to go for manipulation. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019 ... ation-in-c
Not sure what that has to do with PB though, since you cant mix managed PB strings (allocated/freed automatically) and these functions. Wished PB strings were not so similar to c strings. Especially the needless null-termination. Store length before string. Efficiency++
Ps memccpy seems the way to go for manipulation. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019 ... ation-in-c
Not sure what that has to do with PB though, since you cant mix managed PB strings (allocated/freed automatically) and these functions. Wished PB strings were not so similar to c strings. Especially the needless null-termination. Store length before string. Efficiency++
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
The c string library was just one example of an obsolete library that's used because it's standardized... And also has a plethora of alternatives that would be pb compatible, in addition to solving most of the complaints about pb string limitations.
One way Fred can "expand" pb without breaking old code is by implementing these types of libraries.
One way Fred can "expand" pb without breaking old code is by implementing these types of libraries.
Re: Make PureBasic Open Source
Will someone be engaged in updating the libraries or will the emphasis still be on the development of more modern programming languages?