Wishlist for PureBasic v4.0

va!n · Post by **va!n** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:59 pm

Shannara wrote: Fred (and/or) PB team did mention a few things that are going to be in 4.0. Such as (finally) the exact same featureset across all OSes (I dont know how they will do it for Amiga version).

Just take a forum search and you will find an info about the amiga version, talked end of 2002... amiga is definitiv dead and as fred wrote, he will stop the work on it - i agree with him!

viewtopic.php?t=3570&highlight=amiga+stop

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:18 pm

I'll do my search on the lunch break. But unless the post was overwritten during one of the many board restores ..

It's on the forums.

Post by **Polo** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:32 pm

freak wrote:
Shannara wrote:Fred (and/or) PB team did mention a few things that are going to be in 4.0. Such as (finally) the exact same featureset across all OSes (I dont know how they will do it for Amiga version).
Who said that ?

I don't know if someone said that, but I know it won't be true. Let's face it, for ANY language, it's impossible. Just because Linux, Windows and MacOSX don't react the same way, don't have the same feature,...

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:12 pm

We're not talking about the same way. We're talking about the same features. Heck, Linux, Windows, and OSX all have the exact same feature set except for the missing Sprite3D library in Linux (which fred is working on). It's a matter of abstraction. As for Amiga .. well, the OS is dead and long gone, even though there is a company trying to revive that dead horse.

va!n · Post by **va!n** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:29 am

Shannara wrote: As for Amiga .. well, the OS is dead and long gone, even though there is a company trying to revive that dead horse.

i think some people have read that a company using the name commodore and its old C= sign, are trying to come back to the gamers market! (but they dont told about amiga

I hope Fred will spend his time in continue developing the version for Windows, Linux, Macintosh! I think its absolutely wasting time in spending every second for the amiga version! (even Bernd Rosch, developer of AmiBlitz finally want to stop his project as he dont see longer any future and to many in-compatiblity of different amiga-os-ways! just read and follow the newsgroup

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:53 pm

About Strings>64 K I thnik they are very important and I don´t think its a matter of lazyness like mentioend before. For example XML starts becoming more and more important and XML Files are bigger than 64K very often. I know there is workaround for Windows that changes the limit just today and NO!! the application doesn´t take 1 gig of memory just ebcause you can use Strings of the length 1 gig. Its the same in Freebasic. I don´t thnik zeros in stings are good even if you have 1 gig Strings strings are NOT! for storing binary data but ASCII Text! Thats the real lazyness. And therfore one should use allocatememory() but not for stings. I also thnik Unicode is good because its the only compatible way with .NET or some XML documents its important for other languages and I don´t think its an April Joke.
bye Nik

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:41 pm

Yes, that's important. I think this is already fixed by Fred

By the way, Nik, you don't think, you thnik

(joke)

dobro · Post by **dobro** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:40 pm

to be able to make: procedure return a.b, b.w, c.l, f.f, j.s

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:50 pm

Psychophanta wrote:I think this is already fixed by Fred

It's only my wish

dobro · Post by **dobro** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:21 am

ex :

Code: Select all


Procedure test (a,b,c)
  e=a*b
  f=b*c
  g=a*c
  ProcedureReturn e,f,g ; sert a signaler a purebasic les variable a recuperer
EndProcedure


e,f,g=test (2,5,6)

; e=10
; f=30
; g=12

Ralf · Post by **Ralf** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:54 am

smaller and more optimized purebasic header! even when compiling a=2, the exe is 2560 bytes! I think this happens, because purebasic has internally a setup code/init code for any program like where to find the jump adress of a included lib and so on... some basically stuff but maybe some to much not needed stuff!

It would be great, if purebasic really only insert needed stuff (libs and same for the header/startup code !! Just take a look to FASM examples, where an example getting commandline and display the result in a messagebox, ist just only 1536 bytes!

This would be very cool, even it make it possible to code 4k intros in purebasic too, while having about 1k+ more of coding space

Btw, why use the header/startup code CRTDLL.dll, memset, wsprintf and what is the 90 bytes long stuff @ $800 in the exe when compiling a=2 ?? Because it seems this 90 byte long stuff will be added to any exe at the end of file!

Another point i would like are more splitted and optimized commands like OpenWindow! Why is just a simple OpenWindow exe 10240 bytes?

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:52 am

Yes, size should be the smallest header and just the compiled code; smallest as posible, please.

Post by **Fred** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:49 am

It's already the case. 2,5 kb for a small executable isn't bad at all, you're getting really picky. If you look closely to the generated code, there isn't a lot of garbage or unuseful stuffs. For OpenWindow(), there is the event loop in it and some routine to manage the objects. Well, opening a window alone isn't that useful, right ?

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:48 pm

I'm agree. just compare PureBasic with other basic language, then you love PureBasic executable size when you see 500KB or 1MB executable size

. i think if it's possible fred more of we like do that

dell_jockey · Post by **dell_jockey** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:55 pm

Fred wrote:It's already the case. 2,5 kb for a small executable isn't bad at all, you're getting really picky. If you look closely to the generated code, there isn't a lot of garbage or unuseful stuffs. For OpenWindow(), there is the event loop in it and some routine to manage the objects. Well, opening a window alone isn't that useful, right ?

Fred is right, I can't understand why you'd want your executables to become smaller still, unless of course you're programming embedded applications. Are you by any chance?