Yes... but on the other side it needs some fiddling around if you need more then that. In C/C++ you get the lib and make an #include <head.h> ... and already go on. In PB you have to wrap around with lack on types. For example I liked to use OpenSSL in the past. What to do with C? Make an include, learn the functions and use one of the lots C examples out there. In PB - there was some stuff available on the german forum... but it seems nodoby on the hole world ever used it seriously. It did not work. And you feel little bit alone. I've wrapped myself over 100 functions from OpenSSL (which took some time) and ended somewhere at mutexing callback (I think it was not really PBs fault but lack on OpenSSL doku regarding that) moved to almost thread-safe GnuTLS and had to wrap again. Means opening the header and/or read the function descriptions in the man, look what they did and try to get almost close to there with PB types... and hope that it really works. You don't have to hope and guesswork that often if you use a C lib with C language.milan1612 wrote:What seperates PureBasic from FreeBasic is IMHO the feature rich standard library.
That's what keeps me from using C, FreeBasic and C++ more often, because it
makes (effectiv) programming so much easier...
The main advantage of PB is in my opinion the windows-lib, which is mostly useable and produces fast results. The 3D-Lib, on the other side, is a trap in my opinion. It looks like it could work, but if you try to seriously use it may be very, very well that you run into a dead end soon (and get frustrated if you ever used something similar at other languages). Then you can look around for some wrappers to other engines like irrlicht (would probably even find some wrapping stuff for freebasic already at your search) and again would get some alone feeling if you - for example - like to use it crossplatfrom on Linux. There wouldn't be a reason for such workarounds if the standard-lib already is working like it should.
Compared to other Basics like BlitzBasic it just doesn't feel done... for years now (initial I tought PB is a good idea cause I get 3D stuff on Linux). Or said in other words - if you search for 3D stuff in Blitzbasic you could find lots of done projets in PB you can find lots of tries to get some wrapper to another lib. In BlitzBasic I can just work and already play (as I would do with windows in PB) where in PB I have to try to get some mesh exporter in the right version and finding out afterwrads that there are many functions just not available or does not work as they should.
Even regarding bugs that was not produced by you... if you use C and LGPL libs then you most likely don't have to fear bugs. But looking to the linux-version of PB it often feels as it's handled novceral (when bugs get from version to version over long time ant the stuff is not really playing the shipped examples you again feel somewhat alone) ... or if you have to tell your users afterwards where to copy libs into you may feel like an alien. You are out of the standard. Most linux-user know where to get libs (and lot of well working libs are already shipped with the distro) - even in that case you are in a big family with C-languages... and somewhat alone with PB.
I don't see a good reason why somebody should use FreeBasic instead of C (except some fear). You can get both for free, C is not that complicated but you are at a well used standard (and not far away from C++). I like 'for(int x=0;x<max_value;x++)' - it's clean and short. But if I like to create fast windows I would use PB. And I've even choosed to use the good looking XML lib implemention from PB (and already somewhat unregretted it after getting some annoying crash).
Greetings,
auser
