OOP Support (it is time)

[X]

I've been looking around forever for a 1/2 way decent OO Basic language w/o a runtime.

Oh that is a fancy statement. Have you checked out RealBasic or for that matter the new version of PowerBasic? I don't have anything against PB but there are alternatives.

RealBasic is slow and bloated. PowerBasic has syntax from the stone age and terrible support. I wouldn't call them decent alternatives.

Exactly. Both are a huge joke around the programming community However, this is getting off topic. What we do know is that PB will never be an OOP language.

[Tenaja]

Maybe Fred could make a PB-OOP version... PB Pro? I'm sure many would pay the premium price, and a "Pro" version could easily have a minimal maintenance/upgrade fee to help cover the costs of continued development. A huge limiting factor to allocating resources (i.e. time/money) to upgrades is the lack of compensation for providing the upgrades. At this time, the only compensation is possible future sales, but if he got even a measly 20% of new cost for each "significant" upgrade from even a fraction of the users, it might even help him clone Freak so we'd get updates twice as fast...

[PB]

> What we do know is that PB will never be an OOP language

Good, because that's not what I paid for. PureBasic is Basic, not OOP.

[utopiomania]

> What we do know is that PB will never be an OOP language

Fair enough, and it will die and go away in a few years.

Of course they should have come up with an OOP alternative by now..

Or someone else will give us a lightweight super simple OOP Basic, and then
we will all meet over there.

[Tenaja]

> What we do know is that PB will never be an OOP language

Fair enough, and it will die and go away in a few years.

Of course they should have come up with an OOP alternative by now..

Or someone else will give us a lightweight super simple OOP Basic, and then
we will all meet over there.

They don't even teach non-oop languages in school anymore--unless you take an assembler class. You may be right... PB will be for the self-taught hobbyist and never for the masses if it stays stone-age.

[eesau]

> What we do know is that PB will never be an OOP language

Fair enough, and it will die and go away in a few years.

Huh. PB is over 10 years old, why would it suddenly die and go away?

They don't even teach non-oop languages in school anymore--unless you take an assembler class. You may be right... PB will be for the self-taught hobbyist and never for the masses if it stays stone-age.

They do teach non-OOP languages in school, both procedural and functional.

How exactly is PB stone age? It has a very clean and modern syntax for a basic programmig language. It has more out-of-the-box libraries (XML, regular expressions, etc.) than any other programming language I've worked with. I wouldn't call that stone age.

I'd like to have simple OOP for PB too, but it probably won't happen. No reason to bash PB.

[Tenaja]

They do teach non-OOP languages in school, both procedural and functional.

How exactly is PB stone age? It has a very clean and modern syntax for a basic programmig language. It has more out-of-the-box libraries (XML, regular expressions, etc.) than any other programming language I've worked with. I wouldn't call that stone age.

I'd like to have simple OOP for PB too, but it probably won't happen. No reason to bash PB.

I, personally, have never learned OOP. I learned programming in the 80's, first with basic and then machine code, skipping assembly language. I think very linearly, and PB works well for me. However, the 80's are over, and I have realized that many oop features would benefit my recent work.

More and more schools are dropping non-oop languages. In California colleges, however they don't even list them in the programs. (Other than assy.) CSU has C++ as their first beginner class. One of my coworkers is going to the local community college, and they don't offer even one non-oop class. So, sure, maybe in some parts of the world they still teach C or retro basic, but not here.

[eesau]

I, personally, have never learned OOP. I learned programming in the 80's, first with basic and then machine code, skipping assembly language. I think very linearly, and PB works well for me. However, the 80's are over, and I have realized that many oop features would benefit my recent work.

If you haven't learned OOP and still think it will benefit your work, you are making premature assumptions. You should first try to port some of your projects to an object-oriented language using the object-oriented features of that language. Not all projects benefit from OOP. Sure, classes would help in modularizing code, but that can be achieved through other features too.

More and more schools are dropping non-oop languages. In California colleges, however they don't even list them in the programs. (Other than assy.) CSU has C++ as their first beginner class. One of my coworkers is going to the local community college, and they don't offer even one non-oop class. So, sure, maybe in some parts of the world they still teach C or retro basic, but not here.

Non-OOP is way more than C or "retro basic", and functional languages like Erlang and Haskell are getting more and more common in colleges and universities. Besides, most of the beginner classes dealing with C++ that I've gone through don't even touch the object-oriented parts of the language, but instead only the procedural part of the language. Objects usually come later.

[Fluid Byte]

There will be no OOP. Period. Now close this nonsense and let it rest in piece.

Let's hope many months will pass before another "professional" whines about missing OOP-support ....

[utopiomania]

Let's hope many months will pass before another "professional" whines about missing OOP-support

Kids would whine about that also, only they're not here..

They are over at Microsofts site, using the Express versions of Visual Studio 2010, OOp'ing.

[ColeopterusMaximus]

There will be no OOP. Period. Now close this nonsense and let it rest in piece.

Said the authorities...

Kids would whine about that also, only they're not here..

They are over at Microsofts site, using the Express versions of Visual Studio 2010, OOp'ing

Said the man...



I for one say +1, even if I know it won't happen, because if it did it will make PB better.

[Fluid Byte]

Said the authorities...

No but the developers of the software themselves. Don't try to be smartass without facts

I for one say +1, even if I know it won't happen, because if it did it will make PB better.

Ohhh! So adding OOP "will make PB better". I see you clearly know what you are talking about.

My advice kid, let it rest to avoid further humiliation ....

[djes]

I heard last day some students talking about coding a game. It was so esoteric, never talking about pixels or blit, but on objects and relations! I've almost not understood anything. Maybe I'm too old :/

[flaith]

I heard last day some students talking about coding a game. It was so esoteric, never talking about pixels or blit, but on objects and relations! I've almost not understood anything. Maybe I'm too old :/

Welcome on board

[DaylightDreamer]

It more simple than that.
Personally I`m ready to pay much more for PB OOP

OOP its just a way to develop
You don't have to use it.

The advantage of OOP is to develop a part of code without being worry if you code give a conflict with another variables or arrays of the main code.
And this is vital in a big project. Especially when one person develops interface part, another database access e.t.c.

I give you another example.

You developing a game.
You put your enemy character "object" on the stage and that's it, you don't have to worry about him anymore.
He will attack when needed, he will die when needed, and he will remove himself from the stage when needed.
Don`t say "you can do it using arrays". No you can`t. It`s difficult and uncomfortable.

And you can create instances, copies of this characters without worrying of conflicts between each other or with the main code, the rest of code still can be procedural. And each character can have different health or 3D model or even a script attached to it which works independently.
And you don't have to invent things with arrays.

I don't get it. Do you really don't want to have such features in your programs ?

I was procedural developer for a while. I started when i was 12. Now i had to learn OOP for one of my projects.
Knowing both approach i can objectively judge each one.
And now i think each approach has its place.
And i think as a developer i must have such option.

Otherwise like you sad before, "stick with another language". Definitely i will.
But i was PB developer for 8 years. I want it to stay that way.

When you say BASIC it doesn't mean it must not be OOP.

C++ wasn't OOP. It was just C
And PB can become PB++.

The OOP support might make PB better language than C++, now it is not.