How to proove that PB doesnt suck |:

okasvi · Post by **okasvi** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:34 am

<The-Maggot> why would i wan't to learn basic though?
<okasvi> ermm...
<okasvi> you think its not as good as cpp?
<The-Maggot> i'm not saying that because i honestly don't know
<okasvi> its just language using basic SYNTAX
<The-Maggot> it's just c++, java and c# would help with getting jobs if i move into computers in later life
<okasvi> no runtimes (like in vb)
<The-Maggot> but basic is like so 80's

I bet that other PB users have had situations like this.
What is the way you get others to fall in love with PB? (i know they do if they give it fair try, but its just that how to get them to try it

)

To Fred: what where you thinking when you chose name "PureBasic"? there is always somekind of athmosphere around "Basic" which really makes it sound like something bad and nonacceptable by majority.

Dreglor · Post by **Dreglor** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:54 am

I Love PB but why does the "industry" have to use C++ ugh

C++ is so akward when it comes to syntax and its hard to learn because of the way its set up no real reference for all functions

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:13 am

What is the way you get others to fall in love with PB?

Remind them of reality:

1. PB compiles to machine code. There is nothing faster or better than machine code.

2. PB is not bloated. VC++ is the industry standard for C++. VC++ has runtimes it needs to run, PB doesn't. Heck, the .NET edition of VC++ has 20MB+ runtimes.

3. PB is just as fast as VC++ unless you are dealing with a very experienced VC++ coder who knows how to properly optimize.

4. PB is very affordable compared to VC++.

5. In the business (apps/DB) sector, you will usually find more jobs wanting VB programmers than VC++ programmers. The "BASIC vs. C++" for a career choice doesn't hold up in the real world.

6. It is easy to get tech support from the developer of PB. Just try getting tech support for VC++ from somebody at MS.

In such arguments, it usually boils down to people like this dude are the type who like to use C++ just so they can tilt their head slightly, stick their tounge into the side of their cheek, hook their thumbs in their belt loops and walk with a swagger while saying "I use C++". They either never complete anything, or they spend years working on something that they could have turned out in weeks with a decent BASIC variant.

I like the C++ syntax a lot, but VC++ is bloated, and the .NET languages are patheticly bloated. Once .NET hit is when I started going for the indie BASIC variants for all of my work, (although I really like Jamagic because of the syntax and it is pretty awesome for 2D when you don't want to use DirectDraw). PB is and will remain my #1 choice.

The only thing I have done in VC++ within the past few months is a tiny code editor for PB and only because I am so used to working on apps and such with VC++ (I have only been working with the gaming side of PB, not the app side). PB FOREVER!

Heck, if Fred will pay for it, I would gladly get a PB tattoo on my shoulder to give him some permanent advertising

GedB · Post by **GedB** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:31 am

If somebody is interesting in getting to the low level nitty gritty, I point out that PureBasic offers a clear window to the world of ASM.

For the beginner ASM is difficult, and there are no tutorials out there for the complete beginner.

With PB you have the simplicity of the BASIC syntax.

Then you can mix PB and ASM with ease.

You can view the ASM output of the compiler with commeneted code, allowing a level of understanding that just isn't possible in other languages that attempt to 'abstract away' the underlying machine beneath layers of syntax.

Take my post here:
viewtopic.php?t=11557

This was a write up I made of my investigations into how exactly windows invokes programes.

In the past I'd tried to make sense of all the calling conventions, such as STDCALL. It left me scratching my head.

I remember writing a dll in Delphi years ago, trying to figure out what on earth was going on. I remember thinking to myself: "Nobody could ever understand all this. Its impossible!" When Java came along one of the key appeals was the virtual machine, because it took away any need to understand the real hardware.

Now I have a good understanding of how it all works; the implications on the stack and the registers.

PB made it so easy to explore all of this. If I'd just been using an assembler, I'd be lost because I don't have the time to spend days just hacking.

PureBasic is simple. It makes things simple. It makes things understandable.

dmoc · Post by **dmoc** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:03 pm

First, it was hard to argue for anything but small to smallish-medium projects coz there was no decent debugger (thats changing now of course). Second PB has hardly moved with the times (maybe v4 will shock us all). Third and final - project management - things get oh so f'in difficult once your source base grows (esp var wise but copious structures help here). Summary: not practical for medium-large-ish projects. Sorry, that's just my POV.

it's just c++, java and c# would help with getting jobs if i move into computers in later life

Yeah, but how much of that life would he want to waste learning, perfecting and then, eh, switching to "The Next Great THING!"? Me, I'm staking my future on Ruby (wonderful but mind bending at first) and if I want to extend it I'll use PB of course.

traumatic · Post by **traumatic** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:23 pm

Even though I'm a big fan of PureBasic I have to comment
on some of these statements:

Brice Manuel wrote:1. PB compiles to machine code. There is nothing faster or better than machine code.

Depends on the code, doesn't it?

Everything ends up as machine code...

2. PB is not bloated. VC++ is the industry standard for C++. VC++ has runtimes it needs to run, PB doesn't. Heck, the .NET edition of VC++ has 20MB+ runtimes.

Depends on how and what you code. It may need the C-runtime,
that's true, but PB does need this as well (CRTDLL.DLL).
Where's the bloat you mentioned?

3. PB is just as fast as VC++ unless you are dealing with a very experienced VC++ coder who knows how to properly optimize.

Sorry, that simply isn't true!

6. It is easy to get tech support from the developer of PB. Just try getting tech support for VC++ from somebody at MS.

There's a brilliant phone-support, they even call you back
or come over and have a very short response time. Of course
this depends on support-contracts you have, still Microsoft in
fact does have an absolutely exemplary support, at least here
in europe.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:53 pm

traumatic wrote:Even though I'm a big fan of PureBasic I have to comment
on some of these statements:

Brice Manuel wrote:1. PB compiles to machine code. There is nothing faster or better than machine code.
Depends on the code, doesn't it? Everything ends up as machine code...

2. PB is not bloated. VC++ is the industry standard for C++. VC++ has runtimes it needs to run, PB doesn't. Heck, the .NET edition of VC++ has 20MB+ runtimes.
Depends on how and what you code. It may need the C-runtime,
that's true, but PB does need this as well (CRTDLL.DLL).
Where's the bloat you mentioned?

3. PB is just as fast as VC++ unless you are dealing with a very experienced VC++ coder who knows how to properly optimize.
Sorry, that simply isn't true!

6. It is easy to get tech support from the developer of PB. Just try getting tech support for VC++ from somebody at MS.
There's a brilliant phone-support, they even call you back
or come over and have a very short response time. Of course
this depends on support-contracts you have, still Microsoft in
fact does have an absolutely exemplary support, at least here
in europe.

1)
True..

2) afaik vc++.net does NOT require net framework unless you use it! Not only AFAIK i OWN a legal copy of .net studio and i have a non .net machine where the programs run without any problems

3) i dunno..

6) Well i agree with traumatic. Never used phone support but i got a reply to my email within 1-2 hours on a wednesday.

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:05 pm

Depends on the code, doesn't it? Everything ends up as machine code...

Unfortunately, not all languages (especially BASIC variants) compile to machine code and can be very slow.

Sorry, that simply isn't true!

The only real speed advantage for VC++ over PB would be for math heavy programs or programs like a BSP compiler, etc.

There's a brilliant phone-support, they even call you back
or come over and have a very short response time. Of course
this depends on support-contracts you have,

PB's is free and saves on phone charges.

You want to hype C++, find another site. Contrary to beliefs, PB can easily hold its own in most applications and games the average "user" will be using it for.

traumatic · Post by **traumatic** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:15 pm

Brice Manuel wrote:You want to hype C++, find another site.

LOL

Post by **Dare2** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:18 pm

So there!

dmoc · Post by **dmoc** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:19 pm

I'll just say this: a decent language and compiler from a decent company needs no such things as a support line or contracts.

PS: having said that I wish Fred would publish his tel number sometimes :wink:

Num3 · Post by **Num3** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:21 pm

No one can be told what it is....

You have too see it with your own eyes...

dracflamloc · Post by **dracflamloc** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:48 pm

Here's the deal. Purebasic just doesn't have the capabilities for a large-medium size project.

No doubles, string handling needs work, no unsigned variables.

There are just certain things that C/C++ have that Pb needs in order to truly compete.

Bonne_den_kule · Post by **Bonne_den_kule** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:53 pm

And PB aint thread safe...

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:37 pm

well pb 4.0 will hopefully have those features

Num3 is right..!

@Brice:
Well im not hyping c++ nor is traumatic afaik but that doesnt mean we cant correct you! Notice that i didnt say you werent right about c++'s hard and oldish syntax!

Its true that some basic languages is interpretted, however the interpretter is machine code [unless the interpretter itself is java or written in an interpretter

]. however in the end its all machine code

But i agree purebasic's generated machine code is definently faster and more efficient than many other compiler's!! And i love the syntax

Just wish: OOP capabilities, doubles and more..