OOP in PB?

[Hroudtwolf]

Shocked What? everyone who uses C is a noob?

Hey, we don't want to have this moment a world championship in splitting hairs

[Brice Manuel]

Yes. I there is proof enough.

Then please provide us with the profit/loss projections that are solely based on PB's lack of OOP.

Yes, that would be a way.

Correction, that is not "a way" it is "the way", the "only way". Fred has made it very clear OOP isn't coming to PB. Whining about it won't change the facts.

Quote:
Unfortunately this is the arrogant attitude by people who think only newbies use non-OOP languages.

No. Thats fact.

You are showing your ignorance.

If you don't like PB or is doesn't meet your needs, DON'T USE IT! It really is that simple.

[johnfinch]

I also believe that if there was one single thing that would make PureBasic more popular with a broad band of programmers it would be built in object oriented design syntax. It would surely be at the top of the list for version 5.

We have all the advantages now of a superbly clean and efficiently compiled language syntax. It's simplicity is it's greatest asset and I think the addition of simple OOP syntax would finish off this fine product.

Before C++ brought OOP to the masses program sizes were measured in thousands of lines. For big programs it was 10's of thousands of lines. After C++ made OOP popular (yes, I know there were others before but C++ was the big one) programs grew hugely in complexity and functionality and code was measured in millions of lines!

Not because C++ was a better language, after all it was similar to C in most ways, but because OO programs are easier to maintain and easier to write by more people.

Any programming language these days, that wants to attract the masses, has to be object oriented at its core.

Fred has layed the concrete and it is good and it's strong. He now needs to start building on these foundations. And we all want PB to become more popular don't we? We need it to become more popular. That way we keep it growing and improving and keep Fred working on it.

I love PB. I want it to grow, I want everyone to use it... well, not those Forth guys, they are a bit weird

[Hroudtwolf]

Then please provide us with the profit/loss projections that are solely based on PB's lack of OOP.

Lol. We don't speak about me
Snip, here are the people ^^
Do you made a joke ?

Are you PureBasic extremist ? ^_____^


PS: I like PureBasic. Just look in my signature

[hellhound66]

Hey Brice.. Go fish!

Hroudtwolf is right with what he's saying. I am the first of many other examples. I used PB to come back to programming. Now I want to step forward, but that not possible because there is no OOP option. So I will probably change to C++ to let the novice level behind. It's a current project that binds me to PB. But this project is over sometime, and then Pb is over for me.

@C programmers post:
One, who uses C is a veteran, a freak or a bloddy beginner. Don't know many good C coder, but many good C++ coder (and no good PB coder until now, sorry)

@topic:
I badly need a OOP option in PB otherwise I must switch to another language. Non-OOP programming is too old-school for me.

@John:
The asm output of PB works, but is what one calls "efficient" ^^. It's small, okay, but it's not fast. But for me it's enough. We only need OOP ^_^

[Brice Manuel]

It's simplicity is it's greatest asset and I think the addition of simple OOP syntax would finish off this fine product.

OOP itself is a subjective term. If you want an example of a half-assed OOP BASIC implementation, you should check out BlitzMax. It has one of the most F'ed up OOP implementations you will find. You want some more OOP'd BASIC examples that suck Rosie O'Donnell sized ass, check out RealBasic, KBasic, etc.

Not because C++ was a better language, after all it was similar to C in most ways, but because OO programs are easier to maintain and easier to write by more people.

This argument doesn't hold weight. C++ is the "standard" for the industry, you are not going to find multiple programmers working on a multi-hundred-thousand line project done in an indie language whether it is OOP based or not.

Any programming language these days, that wants to attract the masses, has to be object oriented at its core.

If you are the developer of an indie language, that is the #1 way to guarantee you will lose your customers and be out of business.

You can never compete against Microsoft or Borland who are giving away free versions of their OOP languages which ARE the industry standards. Why try and compete in a market there is no chance in hell you will ever be able to turn a profit.

Heck, even non-OOP indie languages have taken a huge hit since Microsoft & Borland released their products for free. Sales for PB became so bad, Fred had to get a full-time job and now only does PB part-time. PB's competitors are also hurting for $$.

well, not those Forth guys, they are a bit weird

Whatcha got against Forth

[Brice Manuel]

So I will probably change to C++ to let the novice level behind.

If you can't figure out how to code a program in a procedural based language, an oop language isn't going to help you.

[Character]

So I will probably change to C++ to let the novice level behind.

If you can't figure out how to code a program in a procedural based language, an oop language isn't going to help you.

[Brice Manuel]

It is silly to expect a language conform to your needs, only a beginner would expect that. If a language doesn't meet your needs, you need to choose another language that does. That is what a programmer does and more importantly that is what a professional and experienced coder does.

Worth repeating, since it is lost on the beginners.

[hellhound66]

Hey Brice: PLONK

[johnfinch]

I look at the competition and see what they are doing. They are the ones that are taking customers that we should have!

For PB to compete it has to be better than them in some way. For me, it already is, in its syntax, in its simplicity (no DLLs to distribute etc) and in its community but so many programmers and beginners want the bells and whistles. I truly believe that one of the main bells and whistles they look for is OO functionality. As soon as they read that PB doesn't support what they percieve is a standard they look elsewhere. I would rather PB could offer it.

I totally agree that it could be implemented badly and that other have implemented it badly but you know, to the novice who, knows no better, the bad implementation doesnt matter! To the experienced they work round it or use the language for only for small projects. Now, if we could just get them to buy PB and use that for their small projects it would grow.

I think everyone here will know that, of the top ten popular languages in popularity, C is the only non OO one. Of course, it is taught at college and university as a professional language and is a good grounding to C++, hence C's popularity and huge userbase.

So why don't they teach Basic as a professional language. Because it has an air of novice to it, wrongly we all know, but it has that air. The way some companies have got round that is to add professional style syntax like OO to it. Hence VB and RB. (VB is probably being taught more at colleges now but I've not met anyone yet that has taken it). These companies can advertise their flavours of basic as advanced/up-to-date/Object Oriented! Don't you hate that... they are not as good as PB but are perceived as better. It's a crazy world.

So, IMHO and with respect to all the excellent coders here, what we need, to compete in this cut throat language maket, is OO built right in!

I used to program in Forth for a while.... but it slowly sends you nuts....

[Hroudtwolf]

Hey people, what's wrong ?
There are many people how wants to have a optional OOP support in PB.
---> OPTIONAL <--

If you don't want to develop OOP, that isn't your thread

I love PureBasic and want to develop further with it.
But also, I learn and become professional. And it's my wish (Feature Requests and Wishlists) to have a native OOP support in PB.
'Cause without OOP in PB, I have to look at C++ or Java.



@Brice

How old are you ?
Don't you see, that isn't your discussion ?
I don't see any good arguments by you against OOP in PB.

Yes, there are freedom of expression.
But you don't have to have an optinion to all.

[Brice Manuel]

I don't see any good arguments by you against OOP in PB.

There is a great argument against OOP in PB:

FRED SAID NO to OOP in PB!!

That is the end of the discussion and the argument

Personally, I love OOP, but since Fred has said he has no plans to implement it in PB, starting threads every other month to piss and moan about the lack of OOP accomplishes nothing other than to irritate your fellow community members

[Hroudtwolf]

There is a great argument against OOP in PB:

FRED SAID NO to OOP in PB!!

Are you freds press officer ?

[Character]

starting threads every other month to piss and moan about the lack of OOP accomplishes nothing other than to irritate your fellow community members

Hey, I am not irritated at all.
OOP would be nice as an [option] indeed. Most of us know that Fred said no to OOP(s). (with good reasons, I'm sure)
Why not make a chapter in the manual about it. Then everybody knows.

One last thing:
If Fred is forced to get a fulltime job again wouldn't OOP help PB out of the shadows? Just a thought.
I think, in that perspective, PB has nothing to lose.
(OOP as an optional extension of the Visual Designer?)

But, before Brice explodes, I like the way PB is. (OK, I'm just a hobbyist)
And he is right:
If you're not able to handle things a procedural way, OOP will probably not save you.