Kale wrote:In fact i think i read somewhere in another thread that Fred wouldn't even know where to begin implementing OOP in PB (me neither), it would take a massive redesign and a huge amount of learning on his part.
Dunno where you read this, but i won't have to learning anything to build an object oriented version of PB. I do use object language on daily basis (C++ and JAVA) and trust me, it's not that difficult to do a compiler which handle that (there is quite some BASIC around with OOP support btw). The fact is you can't have both approach in the same langage. C++ is a real mess in this regards. You can still code in procedural way and object oriented way, at the same level, in the same programs. It result is very hard to maintain code, especially from old C ports which have been 'objectized'.
Now, we have some plan for PB to handle bigger programs, but that's only a draft for now, and we have to implement it. Stay tuned.
I seem to remember you saying years ago Fred that the compiler would need a complete redesign before it could support OOP in any meaningful way? Perhaps it is to that comment which Kale referred?
I may look like a mule, but I'm not a complete ass.
srod wrote:I seem to remember you saying years ago Fred that the compiler would need a complete redesign before it could support OOP in any meaningful way? Perhaps it is to that comment which Kale referred?
This is true, it would need a major overhaul as it hasn't been build for it from the start. That doesn't mean it would be hard but probably very time consuming
Fred wrote:
Now, we have some plan for PB to handle bigger programs, but that's only a draft for now, and we have to implement it. Stay tuned.
In accord BASIC acronym I consider PureBasic as a tool for casual programmers („beginers“). Small a medium tasks are typical for such users.Objects are not essential.
I (and many others) like PB just for simple procedural syntax.
In 2005/10 Fred said in one interview:“ I don't plan to add class and such I think it will split the PB world in 2 classes (!): the one which have understood fully how OOP work and other which don't. Which means than you couldn't share source codes easily anymore at one place. Procedural and Object Oriented Programming are two opposite concepts and it's not a good idea to mix them in a BASIC language (which is intended for beginners...)”
Lubos wrote:In 2005/10 Fred said in one interview:“Procedural and Object Oriented Programming are two opposite concepts and it's not a good idea to mix them in a BASIC language (which is intended for beginners...)”
Is this opinion still valid?
Yes, it's still valid. It's exactly what i wrote above
Lubos wrote:In 2005/10 Fred said in one interview:“Procedural and Object Oriented Programming are two opposite concepts and it's not a good idea to mix them in a BASIC language (which is intended for beginners...)”
Is this opinion still valid?
Yes, it's still valid. It's exactly what i wrote above
Fred, have you ever though of developing a language that isn't targetted at beginners? A complete new language using OOP from the ground up? I'd buy such a thing.
Thoughtfully, if you want a language which is not beginner oriented, you've got some choice already available on the market. I can't see any point to a Fred-developed, hard to use language... Still, to me, OOP isn't that hard to write and is easier to read (tell me, when you open a year-old procedural code, can you immediately understand what you were doing?).
But I still enjoy PB the way it is.
