PureBasic on Larkware.com
Num3, please don't add #MAX_PATH=260 to the PureBasic snippet; it's not
needed. PureBasic knows this constant! Putting it there makes it look like
PureBasic needs the declaration, when it doesn't, which is the whole point
of comparing it to the Visual Basic snippet.
needed. PureBasic knows this constant! Putting it there makes it look like
PureBasic needs the declaration, when it doesn't, which is the whole point
of comparing it to the Visual Basic snippet.
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
Awesome job everyone!
I can't imagine anyone who's not familiar with PB reading that and not being impressed!
My original reason for asking for this was that I'm looking to submit PB as a topic to Larkware.com to help PBs exposure.
So I'm off to do it and suggest to those interested people that they read the wikipedia PB entry.
Feel free to continue to update the PB wikipedia entry with info as it really needs to be a living document.
Let's hope Larkware covers it!
I can't imagine anyone who's not familiar with PB reading that and not being impressed!
My original reason for asking for this was that I'm looking to submit PB as a topic to Larkware.com to help PBs exposure.
So I'm off to do it and suggest to those interested people that they read the wikipedia PB entry.
Feel free to continue to update the PB wikipedia entry with info as it really needs to be a living document.
Let's hope Larkware covers it!
When all is said and done, more is said than done.
One more thing.
The thing that clinched it for me with PB after I had taken in all the technical features was the price and license.
Fred has set a very fair price along with an outstanding upgrade path and I think it might be good to mention that in the Wikipedia entry.
For independent developers in particular, these details are important.
What do you all think?
The thing that clinched it for me with PB after I had taken in all the technical features was the price and license.
Fred has set a very fair price along with an outstanding upgrade path and I think it might be good to mention that in the Wikipedia entry.
For independent developers in particular, these details are important.
What do you all think?
When all is said and done, more is said than done.
> Fred has set a very fair price along with an outstanding upgrade path and
> I think it might be good to mention that in the Wikipedia entry.
The thing is, one of Wikipedia's guidelines is that the entries mustn't look like
an advertisement. Commenting on "free upgrades" would violate this. Even
the comment of "advanced users will definitely love it" is a bit risky to have.
Wikipedia just wants the facts about the item, and not the prices or personal
opinions of the users.
> I think it might be good to mention that in the Wikipedia entry.
The thing is, one of Wikipedia's guidelines is that the entries mustn't look like
an advertisement. Commenting on "free upgrades" would violate this. Even
the comment of "advanced users will definitely love it" is a bit risky to have.
Wikipedia just wants the facts about the item, and not the prices or personal
opinions of the users.
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
-
dell_jockey
- Enthusiast

- Posts: 767
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:56 pm
Try again:dell_jockey wrote:Can't reach the PureBasic entry in WikiPedia, got this error:
Parse error: parse error, unexpected $ in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/checkers.php on line 101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PureBasic
maybe it was just a temporary error.. Works fine here.
Btw someone should also take a screenshot of the new pb editor!
-
dell_jockey
- Enthusiast

- Posts: 767
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:56 pm

