Well, what if it were true?

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:44 pm

I'm sure quite a lot of people have seen THIS thread about (unfounded) rumors that PB might be being purchased on the condition that Fred introduced OOP.

Now, this isn't actually happening, but what would people think if PureBasic were to be purchased by some industry giant *cough*?

I think it'd be a great step, so long as PB design goals and intentions were honored, and I'd espicially love it if PB became a standard langauge (wouldn't we all!).

What do you think?

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:51 pm

Fred wouldn't sell it.

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:59 pm

I'm sure he wouldn't - with all the bitching and moaning we've done to get our own particular bug/fix/new feature and all of the blood, sweat and tears Fred's put in I'd doubt he'd ever, ever sell. This is just hypothetical.

White Eagle · Post by **White Eagle** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:00 pm

I am not really familiar with all the history behind PB, but some of the old shots I have seen of the product packaging indicated it was at one time being sold/published by Xing Interactive. If so, then Fred has already learned the hard way about dealing with publishers.

Idiotcon, killed IBasic, they did a lot of damage to Blitz and Graham will be lucky to turn COBRA into a profitable endeavor after what Idiotcon has done to it. Hopefully though, Graham has learned a valuable lesson and should be able to do pretty good even with the delays and BS that Idiotcon has caused. With such a destructive history of mishandling and mismanagement of indie programming languages, I cannot see Fred or any developer of a programming language ever giving any credibility to an offer from Idiotcon.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:54 pm

I would extremely like it if there was a compiler switch to use/compile an OOP syntax. That way, while we may have two sides, people who use exclusively OOP and others who use procedual style ... And that could cause confusion with code samples provided ..

... It may even expand PB's users .. and open up a whole new market ...

Come to think of it, if PB every goes that way or provide that option, I'm the first one on the OOP side. I love C# too much, but hate the runtime and at times, speed .. But if PB can pull that off? I'll buy a few more licenses.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:33 pm

Shannara wrote:I would extremely like it if there was a compiler switch to use/compile an OOP syntax. That way, while we may have two sides, people who use exclusively OOP and others who use procedual style ... And that could cause confusion with code samples provided ..

... It may even expand PB's users .. and open up a whole new market ...

Come to think of it, if PB every goes that way or provide that option, I'm the first one on the OOP side. I love C# too much, but hate the runtime and at times, speed .. But if PB can pull that off? I'll buy a few more licenses.

why can't people just stop making objects? i mean, if they stick to procedures only no harm is done. then the real programmers can go make classes..

Dare · Post by **Dare** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:20 pm

And after we've thrashed this one around we can discuss:

.. is there life after Fred?

Rescator · Post by **Rescator** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:03 pm

If I was Fred, and approached by a big company...
Despite the lure of a million or two, I'd refuse to sell.
I'd rather license it instead,
being a "creator" myself I'd do my outmost to not give away control of my own creation.

fsw · Post by **fsw** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:59 pm

If Fred would get an offer and he could retire: he should do it, and give a d*mn about what happens to the users.
He could do the same as Paul T. : create a new language with a different syntax, get old users to switch and "reuse" a lot of old code for his new language (and pretend he didn't do it... because he sold the old code).

And in a few month he would have most of the functionality he had with the old language (where he spend several years to get there...)
When he burns the money and his mom gets sick, just use the forum to collect some money and get back on track...
Yeah Fred, take the opportunity (when it shows up) and life can be soo easy...

Shannara wrote:I would extremely like it if there was a compiler switch to use/compile an OOP syntax. That way, while we may have two sides, people who use exclusively OOP and others who use procedual style ... And that could cause confusion with code samples provided ..

... It may even expand PB's users .. and open up a whole new market ...

Come to think of it, if PB every goes that way or provide that option, I'm the first one on the OOP side. I love C# too much, but hate the runtime and at times, speed .. But if PB can pull that off? I'll buy a few more licenses.

Have you tried the LITTLE CLASS PREPROCESSOR I made?

Fluid Byte · Post by **Fluid Byte** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:13 pm

Well, what if it were true?

It isn't so close that pointless thread!

thamarok · Post by **thamarok** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:46 pm

PureBasic as great as it now is, I don' think it's a good idea to make it into a OOP loser like C++. If PureBasic will be OOP, I wouldn't use it anymore.

Xombie · Post by **Xombie** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:48 pm

It's fred's baby so I wish him the best in whatever decisions he makes in the future. I'd bear him absolutely no ill will if in the future he sold off PB (not the user PB, that'd probably be illegal in most countries) and moved on to something else. Having said that, I'd worry a lot about the direction of the language after that point. I've seen far too many things that started out wonderfully - easy to use, small, concise, etc... that got the job done without a lot of fuss. But then many people started sticking their hands in the 'pie' and adding this, adding that and then soon you're left with a bloated mess that is nearly impossible to use. Doesn't mean that it would become like that but I've seen it happen plenty of times. Developers say, "Hey - we could reach this market if we added this or this market if we added that..." etc...

Also, reading through C++ I'm seeing how that could easily happen with PB if it became mainstream. Features and features would just be tacked on so that eventually it breaks done and becomes some hard-to-manage monster.

In fear of some OOP flamewar, I'd have to say that I am extremely pleased without it. I've coded a couple rather large projects with PB and have not missed it at all. Again, this is my own opinion. I applaud people like fsw who offer their own solution. PureBasic stays pure will still giving the people the option of adding OOP if they really want it.

Your mileage may vary. I'm just saying I like PB as it is but wish fred well in everything. If nothing else, I can always just stick to PB3.94 or PB4 if MonsterSoft buys PB and releases BlitzPureExtremeBasic.NET or something

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:04 pm

fsw: Thanks for the tip! I'll definately take a look at that. Also .. thanks for the preprocessor!

NoahPhense · Post by **NoahPhense** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:36 pm

(several beers after work on friday)

Don't sweat it.. nothing it ever permanent. There are other languages
if PB was not here. Some are a little more challenging, but none-the-less
I would be all over them, i.e. C++ I would have down in about 3 months
of tooling with it.

But, you are all getting nervous. No reason to, I have PB 4.. there is
nothing I cannot do with just it.. even if there are unfixed bugs.

I code around bugs. I might thngs work. With the ability of full api and
full asm, there are NO limitations to what you can build with PB 4 .. NONE

I can even code for Vista, and most likely the OS that Gates puts out after
that.

asm will never go away ........... nuff said

- np

PB · Post by PB » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:12 am

> He could do the same as Paul T. : create a new language

The problem is that most contracts for sale have a "no-competition" clause so
Fred might not be permitted to create a new language after selling PureBasic.

> there are other languages if PB was not here

True, but nothing like PureBasic and nothing with Fred's devotion/interest.

(Edited to fix typos)