How to proove that PB doesnt suck |:

[Michael Vondung]

Well, I realise that "Basic" has a "bad reputation", because people still associate the term to spaghetti code of the 80s, and I agree that "Pure" would be a "sexy" name, but then again, I found out about PureBasic when I ran a Google search for "basic", and today I purchased my copy. I'd probably not have found it if it had been named just "Pure". Or if I had heard about it, I would just have thought, "Oh, yet another new niche language".

"Basic" doesn't have a negative meaning to me personally. It's the language I learned in the 80s (Locomotive Basic, ST Basic, GFA Basic, then VB up to 3.0), and I was quite creative and productive in those dialects. Today, I use Ruby for scripts, but have been looking for an application language to keep my mind in a semi-decent shape ... and since OO isn't really my cup of tea (just can't wrap my mind around it, even though everyone claims it is more intuitive than the procedural approach), it just had to be a Basic.

[Psychophanta]

"Basic" has a negative meaning for ignorant and delayed people.
F--k them in the ass, and sorry for them.

It is my opinion, and sorry my way to say it.

[Tranquil]

Thats "Basic" for me:

Pro:
- Rapid Development
- Easy readable code
- Comes very fast to a (stable) result coused by better reading code

Con:
- You have to trust the "Coder of the Basic" language. (In the moment, for e.g., I dont trust PB 4 beta in ThreadSave Mode, but its just a Beta)