Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

For everything that's not in any way related to PureBasic. General chat etc...
User avatar
fsw
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: North by Northwest

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by fsw »

Seymour Clufley wrote:Where has Fred promised amazing news?
The blog just says "maybe some big surprises".
Maybe you think it's too far fetched, but for me

"maybe some big surprises == promised amazing news"

:P
Seymour Clufley
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:13 am
Location: London

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by Seymour Clufley »

well if he's gone to the trouble of supporting cocoa maybe he's bit the bullet and had a go at targeting llvm
I'm getting confused... would that mean mobile phone apps, or Native Client?
JACK WEBB: "Coding in C is like sculpting a statue using only sandpaper. You can do it, but the result wouldn't be any better. So why bother? Just use the right tools and get the job done."
User avatar
dhouston
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: USA (Cincinnati)
Contact:

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by dhouston »

thommy.oster wrote:PureBasic is a very good language for absolute beginners in my opinion and it is a shame, that it is not Open Source.
That should be spelled Open Sores. Witness the 4057 and climbing varieties of Linux and the mish mash Google has created by making Android open sores.
http://davehouston.org
Mac Mini (Intel) 10.6.8 - iMac G4 (PPC) 10.4.11
Dell Dimension 2400 W98SE,W2K,XP,Vista,W7,Debian,Ubuntu,Kubuntu,Xubuntu,Fedora,Mandriva,Mint
(on swappable HDDs)
Vizio VTAB1008 - Android 3.1
MK808 miniAndroidPC (Android 4.1)
Little John
Addict
Addict
Posts: 4770
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by Little John »

dhouston wrote:
thommy.oster wrote:PureBasic is a very good language for absolute beginners in my opinion and it is a shame, that it is not Open Source.
That should be spelled Open Sores.
:lol: :lol:
User avatar
idle
Always Here
Always Here
Posts: 5834
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:52 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by idle »

Seymour Clufley wrote:
well if he's gone to the trouble of supporting cocoa maybe he's bit the bullet and had a go at targeting llvm
I'm getting confused... would that mean mobile phone apps, or Native Client?
I expect it'll just be the cocoa api, but it would be great if we had an open sores llvm compiler project
Windows 11, Manjaro, Raspberry Pi OS
Image
Seymour Clufley
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:13 am
Location: London

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by Seymour Clufley »

I'm not on Mac, so don't know anything about Cocoa.

But can you remind me what the benefits of compiling to LLVM would be?
JACK WEBB: "Coding in C is like sculpting a statue using only sandpaper. You can do it, but the result wouldn't be any better. So why bother? Just use the right tools and get the job done."
User avatar
idle
Always Here
Always Here
Posts: 5834
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:52 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by idle »

Initially more optimal assembly, cross compile across the desktop platforms and also target arm by using the targets native c libraries
On mac if you stuck to the cocoa framework you could probably create apps for iphone.
Windows 11, Manjaro, Raspberry Pi OS
Image
User avatar
the.weavster
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by the.weavster »

dhouston wrote:That should be spelled Open Sores. Witness the 4057 and climbing varieties of Linux...
I seem to remember you claiming Linux had been dealt a mortal blow by a patent court ruling against Google in Hicksville USA, yet here you are yonks later bemoaning the fact desktop Linux is now so popular that thousands upon thousands of enthusiasts put together their own distro. Debian live has made that staggeringly easy to do, even I've had a go at making my own distro.

Of course the core components don't differ very much, mainly the differences tend to be cosmetic and which packages and codecs are installed by default. That being said the vast majority of Linux users will still actually be using one of the main distros (Mint, *buntu, Fedora) but hey, it clearly suits your politics to pretend this stuff is a big deal.

dhouston wrote:...and the mish mash Google has created by making Android open sores.
Let's play FUD Vs Facts shall we? http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... _says.html

You probably wont like this either: http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/1231 ... droid.html

Renault will be including built-in Android running touchscreens in some of their new cars, they're even going to provide an api that offers app developers the ability to read telemetry from the car. Quality open source projects can evolve along all sorts of interesting paths.
MachineCode
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:16 pm

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by MachineCode »

aston wrote:I read once on one topic that Fred don't agree if you wrapp purebasic functions in
your own programming language(read interpreter).
But he also think that is ok when he wrapp C or C++ functions developing pure basic compiler
if is written in C/C++ (i guess)
There is no Microsoft license that prevents the wrapping of Windows API functions for developing a language, so Fred is fully entitled to do so. He is also entitled to make his own licensing rules for his said language.
Microsoft Visual Basic only lasted 7 short years: 1991 to 1998.
PureBasic: Born in 1998 and still going strong to this very day!
User avatar
aston
User
User
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:18 pm

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by aston »

Yes, I expected this answer.
But is little bit hypocritical.
To be clear, I'm not interested in Pure Basic as open
source product.
By the way 3 script interpreter are written in Pure Basic.
VMSCript, DLib and Paladium.
which indicates that the Pure Basic is very good and powerful enough for this type of program.......
User avatar
dobro
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:54 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by dobro »

aston wrote: By the way 3 script interpreter are written in Pure Basic.
VMSCript, DLib and Paladium.
and PureGolo since 08/2005 ! (type of Logo interpreter) ;)
look here :
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16221&hilit=puregolo
Image
Windows 98/7/10 - PB 5.42
■ sites : http://michel.dobro.free.fr/
User avatar
aston
User
User
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:18 pm

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by aston »

Very good even im not Logo fan :D
And you have very nice looking site...
User avatar
RichAlgeni
Addict
Addict
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:50 am
Location: Bradenton, FL

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by RichAlgeni »

For what it's worth, I think it's important to have a strong leadership team, one who is able to answer a question with the word 'no.'
User avatar
dhouston
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: USA (Cincinnati)
Contact:

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by dhouston »

the.weavster wrote:I seem to remember you claiming Linux had been dealt a mortal blow by a patent court ruling against Google in Hicksville USA...
In 2009 Texas (or Hicksville as you call it) had the 14th largest economy in the world. The UK was ranked 6th in 2010 but that was only 30% greater in GDP than Texas the previous year. Since 2009, Texas has continued to grow while the UK has stagnated. Hicksville, indeed.
Is innumerancy a common problem amongst your countrymen or are you atypical in that regard?

Last I looked, Windows had 90% of desktops and OSX had 9%. That leaves only 1% to be divided between all the rest.

And, while Mexico fell from 10th largest to 11th largest in 2009, according to Katty Kay, (reporting from Mexico City on BBC World News USA yesterday) they are expected to be one of the top 5 (ahead of the UK) within a decade or so - you just might need to reconsider just where Hicksville is.
http://davehouston.org
Mac Mini (Intel) 10.6.8 - iMac G4 (PPC) 10.4.11
Dell Dimension 2400 W98SE,W2K,XP,Vista,W7,Debian,Ubuntu,Kubuntu,Xubuntu,Fedora,Mandriva,Mint
(on swappable HDDs)
Vizio VTAB1008 - Android 3.1
MK808 miniAndroidPC (Android 4.1)
User avatar
Kuron
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Why not make PureBasic Open Source ?

Post by Kuron »

Renault will be including built-in Android running touchscreens in some of their new cars
Renault still makes cars? I thought they died back in the 70s. Wow!!

By the way 3 script interpreter are written in Pure Basic.
VMSCript, DLib and Paladium.
which indicates that the Pure Basic is very good and powerful enough for this type of program.......
You have left out a couple of others.
Best wishes to the PB community. Thank you for the memories. ♥️
Post Reply