If i had 1000 € to offer for a PB feature...

[ultralazor]

static zlib or gzip for compressed HTTP and buffer handling.. maybe HTTP API

Driver PE compilation and API. It's actually not much work to make a driver PE or ELF with FASM, nor a base ring0 API. It exponentially expands the market too drastically increasing finances and userbase for the authors.

I happen to know they don't have many active devs here though and barely manage bug fixes..

[Shield]

I like Danilo's indirect directness.

[Danilo]

The "basic" in the name is not there because it is basic or not. It is there because it is a BASIC-clone language. It stands for BASIC-Language not for being basic.

PureBasic does not use common BASIC-Syntax, and it is not an optimizing, modern programming language/compiler.
It is basic C with Strings and some bundled Libraries, combined with an "IDE"/Editor, nothing more.
PureBasic does not generate fast/optimized code, and powerful + low level depends on your opinion.
Every common C++ compiler generates faster code, allows inline ASM, and outputs ASM source.
The only advantage is that you get an average cross-platform library with PureBasic. With old C++ and older C
you have to search and install the much more powerful libraries yourself.
"Fun" is an advantage, because it just works out of the box... but in a very limited, cross-platform way.

[endo]

I'm not trying to compare PureBasic and C/C++, PB is enoughly fast for general use and it allows to use low level APIs which many BASIC languages don't.
Let's say we build a really powerful language as C++, if we give it a name like "XBasic" then dozens of people don't even look at its features. They just say "another Basic clone", even many experienced programmers. And its what happened to PureBasic, more or less.
I wrote a multithreaded TCP server which runs with over thousands of clients connected to it, for Arabic telekom company, and it runs for several years without problems. So I can say, yes it is enoughly powerful and loewlevel. But its a shame that so many people will not even try it.
On the other hand I know I could use C# or Java or any other good language to write that server, but PB is "enough", no need to install anything, they can just copy the files and run.

[Danilo]

Let's say we build a really powerful language as C++, if we give it a name like "XBasic" then dozens of people don't even look at its features. They just say "another Basic clone", even many experienced programmers. And its what happened to PureBasic, more or less.

You are right.

Maybe those experienced programmers just don't have a need for PB, if they can do any thing
with their C/C++/C#/Delphi/whatever setup, and if they feel comfortable with it.

[fromVB]

The "basic" in the name is not there because it is basic or not. It is there because it is a BASIC-clone language. It stands for BASIC-Language not for being basic.

PureBasic does not use common BASIC-Syntax, and it is not an optimizing, modern programming language/compiler.
It is basic C with Strings and some bundled Libraries, combined with an "IDE"/Editor, nothing more.
PureBasic does not generate fast/optimized code, and powerful + low level depends on your opinion.
Every common C++ compiler generates faster code, allows inline ASM, and outputs ASM source.
The only advantage is that you get an average cross-platform library with PureBasic. With old C++ and older C
you have to search and install the much more powerful libraries yourself.
"Fun" is an advantage, because it just works out of the box... but in a very limited, cross-platform way.

Hi, I'm thinking of converting to one of the better basics and I have heard a lot of good things about PB. Does it use BASIC style words or is it C style? I heard that it is low level and fast, but you PB users do not agree? Or what do you think about Powerbasic or Blitzbasic? Could use some advise. TNX!

[MachineCode]

PureBasic does not use common BASIC-Syntax, and it is not an optimizing, modern programming language/compiler.
It is basic C with Strings and some bundled Libraries, combined with an "IDE"/Editor, nothing more.
PureBasic does not generate fast/optimized code

Wow. Powerful statements. A long time ago you used to LOVE PureBasic, and helped newbies and posted great code for all to share and use. Then you disappeared for a few years for whatever reasons, and finally came back. But instead of being the old helpful Danilo of old, you're instead posting comments like the above, and not posting tips or helping anyone anymore. So I'm naturally curious: what happened to the love?

[IdeasVacuum]

PureBasic is really excellent. Of course it can't please all of the people, all of the time - there isn't a language that can.

The online help will give you an idea but your best bet will be to try it!
http://www.purebasic.com/documentation/index.html

[fromVB]

This may sound cynical/silly/childish but is there anything that PB cannot do that C or CPP can? No offence to PB, just curious. TNX!

[Danilo]

PureBasic does not use common BASIC-Syntax, and it is not an optimizing, modern programming language/compiler.
It is basic C with Strings and some bundled Libraries, combined with an "IDE"/Editor, nothing more.
PureBasic does not generate fast/optimized code

Wow. Powerful statements.

Too much beer yesterday, so it was just blah blah, not the ultimate truth.

[fromVB]

PureBasic does not use common BASIC-Syntax, and it is not an optimizing, modern programming language/compiler.
It is basic C with Strings and some bundled Libraries, combined with an "IDE"/Editor, nothing more.
PureBasic does not generate fast/optimized code

Wow. Powerful statements.

Too much beer yesterday, so it was just blah blah, not the ultimate truth.

OK. Can you please tell me PB's limitations?

[IdeasVacuum]

Limitations? With any language, it all depends on what you want your apps to do. Tell us what type of apps you write, I'm sure the forum can give you an idea as to PB's general suitability for them. It's also true that you can get most languages to do most things, there is always a work-around, so often your choice will come down to what the language can do rather than any real or perceived limitation. What I will say, as a C developer, is that PB can be used to develop robust solutions very rapidly - when I have a choice, I use PB.
Rosetta Code Tasks
The Rosetta website is informative, you can see a comparison of PB with many other languages - pick the type of code example/problem of interest and see how PB can be used to define a solution compared to many others.

[TI-994A]

OK. Can you please tell me PB's limitations?

Hi fromVB, and welcome to PureBasic. I too am a fairly new user of PureBasic, after having used some other BASICs and some C/C++ for many years. In my opinion, PureBasic offers the power and convenience not found in other development tools. You can quickly and easily develop games and applications right out of the box, and tweak your development further by implementing OS and third party library and API functions. It is a virtual powerhouse capable of almost any type of development, generating small and fast standalone multi-platform executables.

The gripes about limitations are referring to the depth of certain internal commands. However, these are still only minor obstacles, and not roadblocks. For example, Danilo's comments about the lack of text selection functionality can be easily overcome by calling the relevant O/S API functions. With PureBasic's fundamental capabilities, such solutions and workarounds are usually not a problem.

With most other development tools, you'll find yourself hunting down libraries, learning how to use them, and having to live with bloated apps running on bloated dependencies. With PureBasic, support and development is all in one place, and your resultant apps are very small and lightning fast, and virtually run independently.

[endo]

Well, every program can be written in any language, easily or not. But this doesn't mean that all languages are suitable for writting any program. Many languages have specific purposes.
If it was not, there will be no languages like PHP etc. You can still use C for CGI, but it would be much harder to do than in PHP.
And there are some languages for mostly "general" use. Like C, C++, C#, Java etc. PureBasic is one of them (even it is used for game development mostly, it has many other "general use" functions & libraries like SQLite, ODBC, FTP etc.)

Does it use BASIC style words or is it C style? I heard that it is low level and fast, but you PB users do not agree? Or what do you think about Powerbasic or Blitzbasic? Could use some advise.

It is in BASIC style not C, it is "enoughly" low level and fast. But you should not expect that compiler will optimize a bad written code.
What I like in PB is to be able to use all Win32 APIs directly without "include"ing anything like in C or many other language.
For example there is Beep() API in Win32, I can use it in PB like "Beep_()" that's it. (just putting and underscore so PB knows its an OS API)

On the other hand, it has structures, linked lists, pointers, maps are very useful features for advanced programming. If you use them correctly you can write optimized codes.

I didn't use Powerbasic and Blitzbasic, but I know Blitzbasic from old Amiga times, it is a good language, it has a similar style with PB.
Give a try for PB, you may like it. First download and have a look to the CodeArchive: http://www.purearea.net/pb/download/Cod ... 4-Beta.zip

And also: http://www.purearea.net/pb/download/PureBasicBook.pdf

[Tenaja]

OK. Can you please tell me PB's limitations?

PB's biggest limitation is that it has simple, cross-platform gui commands. That means they are very simple to use, so you can make rudimentary gui's very fast... but it does not offer some of the complex features available to you if you were to use an advanced "toolkit" with C or C++. (toolkits... i.e. gtk+, wxWidgets, Qt, etc.). And, because PB does not use one toolkit, if you want to perform one of those complex tasks (such as Danilo was beer-whining about), you have to write a separate API call for each OS.

To sum it up, PB is so fast and simple for most projects that it gets very frustrating when you want to do advanced tasks. (Especially when those tasks are not documented...)