truth and lie about purebasic

[coma]

As you can see the plot command is fast as lightning.

True, 0.016 secs here to fill a 1152x864 32 bits screen isn't bad .

just a little thing fred, this is curious :

Code: Select all

initsprite()
hw=OpenWindow(0,0,0,800,600,0,"")
OpenWindowedScreen(hw,0,0,800,600,0,0,0)
ti=GetTickCount_()
StartDrawing(ScreenOutput())
frontcolor(rgb(200,124,50))
For n=0 to 10
  For y=0 To 599
    For x=0 To 799
      Plot(x,y,rgb(y/3,124,50))
      ;plot(x,y)
    Next
  Next
Next
StopDrawing()
ti=GetTickCount_()-ti
FlipBuffers()
MessageRequester("Plot Speed","PB needs "+StrF(ti/1000)+" sec for "+Str(n*800*600)+" pixels!")

here plot(x,y) takes a lot more time than plot (x,y,color) (v4beta2)
bug ?

[chris319]

Do we really want to go back to stoneage? If we want the original basic, why don't we download it from somewhere and use it?

I have the ANSI/ISO BASIC standard and you wouldn't want to program in it. That's why Microsoft took it upon themselves to modernize the language with QBasic. Still, the OP is correct in that there are a number of statements/functions contained in the standard, as well as others he didn't mention, which are missing from PB (and QBasic as well) and which PB and all of these other "dialects" would do well to have as part of the core language.

to me it looks very old and the syntax is very hard to read. This is partly to do with the fact that most standard Basic commands are abbrieviated so they don't really read as real words anymore.

Do you consider this

Code: Select all

for (a = 1; a <= 10; a ++) {

}

to be more readable than this?

Code: Select all

for a = 1 to 10

next

Plus all commands nearly always seem to be in CAPS which is horrible! yuck!

Modern BASIC implementations besides PB will let you use lower case.

[chris319]

None of your mentioned keywords appears to be in that ANSI standard. So do not post your own interpretations as a common standard as it is just your own limited view. The mentioned ANSI standards are obsolete because they represent the old BASIC dialects. The 6373 has even been proposed for deletion

Let's do a little fact checking:

1. 113-1987 is alive and well and was revised just three years ago.

2. The keywords I mentioned and more are all in 113-1987 (which I assume you have never read) from which I have quoted in this very thread.

3. 6373 (which I also assume you have also never read) is a subset of 113-1987 and is no longer necessary.

Time for you to get a little more in touch with reality.

[dracflamloc]

I do find it funny how he mentioned DarkBasic pro... Those commands are ridiculus! More than one word commands like "Make Object Rotate About X Axis" are just ridiculus.

[Thomas]

Time for you to get a little more in touch with reality.

Show me a modern BASIC dialect that complies to this standard. What a laugh! You can standardize everything for what it's worth. Face it, BASIC is sort of a free "standard" since every implementation has it's own rules. You can weep as long as you want, that is the reality.

[chris319]

Show me a modern BASIC dialect that complies to this standard. What a laugh! You can standardize everything for what it's worth. Face it, BASIC is sort of a free "standard" since every implementation has it's own rules. You can weep as long as you want, that is the reality.

We're talking about including 6 - 12 functions which are spelled out in the standard for BASIC (which you claim doesn't exist), not full standards compliance. Are you saying PB shouldn't have ATN(), SGN(), EXP(), etc? Is there a compelling reason these should be withheld from the language?

[chris319]

The following keywords/functions are part of the ANSI/ISO standard for BASIC:

Where did you get these? Post your sources, please!

ANSI/ISO 6373 Programming language - Minimal BASIC

Promotes the interchangeability of BASIC programs among a variety of data processing systems. It establishes the syntax, formats of data, semantic rules, procedures for the detection and handling of errors and defines the keywords BASE, DATA, DEF, DIM, END, FOR, GO, GOSUB, GOTO, IF, INPUT, LET, NEXT, ON, OPTION, PRINT, RANDOMIZE, READ, REM, RESTORE, RETURN, STEP, STOP, SUB, THEN and TO.

As you can see it makes no sense to be ANSI compatible for a modern BASIC compiler.

Well duh! This is the standard for minimal BASIC. There's a reason it's called minimal. Read the standard for full BASIC.

[blueznl]

the whole discussion is somewhat irrelevant, who cares about standards, as long as purebasic gets better than the rest, it's ok with me

and standard, well, dunno, the market dictates what is standard, and BASIC simply has become Basic, better, faster, and let's face it: non-standard.

From that point of view the name PureBasic is a good one Pure power, but basic? well... who cares

[Thomas]

Are you saying PB shouldn't have ATN(), SGN(), EXP(), etc?

Sure these math functions are useful especially with doubles. But hey, who really needs them right now for a project? What I mean is that the ANSI standard is not applicable for PB because it is outdated. Or lets say it another way, the developers never cared much about the standard. BASIC is not like C, a real standardization never happened.

[chris319]

the ANSI standard is not applicable for PB because it is outdated

Didn't I just say the ANSI/ISO standard for full BASIC was updated in 2003? You call that outdated? And didn't I just say we're not talking about full standards compliance but adding a dozen functions contained in the standard?

But hey, who really needs them right now for a project?

Do you want PB to be a hobby-project language or do you want it to be taken seriously as a professional development tool? If the former, take all the liberties with the language you want. If the latter, excluding the functions the OP mentioned will only hinder the adoption of PB as a professional development tool.

[Thomas]

Didn't I just say the ANSI/ISO standard for full BASIC was updated in 2003? You call that outdated?

The standard does not reflect reality, which dialect complies then? It was an attempt for a common basis of all BASIC dialects but it failed. So it's outdated.

Do you want PB to be a hobby-project language or do you want it to be taken seriously as a professional development tool?

If PB should be a development tool for professionals, it would have to be completely rewritten. There are so many restrictions / originalities compared to other compilers, the syntax changes between releases (this is just not acceptable for huge projects) and the documentation is very sparse.

PB is a highly optimized language but sometimes you get the impression it's just a nice wrapper for assembler. The ease of the syntax and the speed of the code make it fun to write programs in PB but for professional development other things are much more important. The compiler gets better with each release but to hit the requirements for a professional language it still has a long way to go.

[chris319]

If PB should be a development tool for professionals, it would have to be completely rewritten. There are so many restrictions / originalities compared to other compilers, the syntax changes between releases (this is just not acceptable for huge projects) and the documentation is very sparse.

You're right about that. Just the syntax changes between releases would kill it as a professional development tool.

[Berikco]

here plot(x,y) takes a lot more time than plot (x,y,color) (v4beta2)
bug ?

No, Plot(x,y,color) is the higest optimized, no need to search the current color.
I believe Fred posted once the Plot(x,y,color) is a totaly different routine as Plot(x,y)

[Berikco]

You're right about that. Just the syntax changes between releases would kill it as a professional development tool.

Hehe, i think there are other languages used professional that change syntax between releases....VB3 to VB6...VB.net.

Even m$ Access is not compatible between releases..but i have seen very big commercial software packages build in these.

[VPureBasic]

Hi All,

I would like to make a suggestion about this thread and all other badly threads that spoke in the past about its name as PureBasic!

Fred, (as we know together that PureBasic was originally written to replace the Amiga version of BlitzBasic, that's why we choose it) since its beginning you made so wonderfull thing with this project. PureBasic is now very mature as a coding language! Why not change the name of PureBasic to PureCode? Just write in your web site that Pure uses most of all OLD BASIC keywords... This way, nobody will not be able to say anything about those missing BASIC keywords! You're gonna be free to use ASM/C as you want... its gonna be only CODE...

Roger