I've been programming in serious languages since 1976. I meet many people I've lost touch with since university, and the conversation always comes around to:
"what tools are you using these days? Working with any of the cutting edge technologies?"
and my answer is always:
"you bet!"
"Great, which ones?"
"Well, the one I'm really interested in right now is PureBasic."
"Oh." (looks down)
Face it, "Basic" has connotations of programming in an environment with training wheels. A language to learn early concepts on. Nobody can seriously look at PureBasic version 4 and put it in that class. What class is it really in, then? I say it's in a class all its own, a cutting-edge class that draws on the strengths from several languages that have been around for decades and manages to filter out most of their weaknesses, resulting in a truly unique "Pure" concept. Want to program like C? You can. Prefer OOP? Go ahead. It's all there to use or not as befits your style. And the power will blow you away.
Why not call it that, then? "Pure."
What do I use? Pure. It's a young language, growing fast and combining simplicity with amazing performance.
Anybody?
"Pure"... Time to lose the "Basic" ?
-
netmaestro
- PureBasic Bullfrog
- Posts: 8452
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
"Pure"... Time to lose the "Basic" ?
BERESHEIT
Re: "Pure"... Time to lose the "Basic" ?
But as soon as anyone sees a source, they're going to say/know it's Basic.
Simple as that. It has a Basic syntax and there's no getting around that.
Simple as that. It has a Basic syntax and there's no getting around that.
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.
-
netmaestro
- PureBasic Bullfrog
- Posts: 8452
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
-
DarkDragon
- Addict
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 9:16 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
My teacher also said: "Huh? Then it's no basic?!"> Yes, of course you're right. Basic encapsulates the whole Windows API.
> How could I have forgotten that?
I know what you're saying, but just because PureBasic supports the whole
Windows API as an optional feature, doesn't make the language not Basic.
That's like saying Excel is not a spreadsheet app and should really be called
a word processor, just because documents of text can be printed with it.
As for calling it just "Pure" -- that would be hell to find with a search engine.
And who's going to pay for all the trademarks, domain name, copyrights, and
so on that Fred registered?
Besides, all this has been discussed before... so why not continue the debate
at the following URL instead of having multiple threads of this exact topic:
viewtopic.php?t=16487
> How could I have forgotten that?
I know what you're saying, but just because PureBasic supports the whole
Windows API as an optional feature, doesn't make the language not Basic.
That's like saying Excel is not a spreadsheet app and should really be called
a word processor, just because documents of text can be printed with it.
As for calling it just "Pure" -- that would be hell to find with a search engine.
And who's going to pay for all the trademarks, domain name, copyrights, and
so on that Fred registered?
Besides, all this has been discussed before... so why not continue the debate
at the following URL instead of having multiple threads of this exact topic:
viewtopic.php?t=16487
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.