SendNetworkFile

[American Ninja]

I'm just worried about the precedent it sets.... and I'm truly concerned that whatever I write now, may have to be re-written in future just because Fantaisie Software decides to change.... I've got a business to run, and I don't need these worries.... How can I rely on this product being stable when such a major change has already occurred??? Does nobody else see this as a problem???

[skywalk]

Clearly not...
Careful, or you will be quoted here...doomsday

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

I'm just worried about the precedent it sets.... and I'm truly concerned that whatever I write now, may have to be re-written in future just because Fantaisie Software decides to change.... I've got a business to run, and I don't need these worries.... How can I rely on this product being stable when such a major change has already occurred??? Does nobody else see this as a problem???

These changes happen from time to time... this language evolves.

To be honest, on major releases, there are usually some quite significant changes. Sometimes they break older programs, but, normally, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to get things going again. These changes are never made lightly. It's not done to annoy you, it is done either for security, or to make the language better.

PureBasic has really grown, and with each new iteration it becomes more complete. Don't be so afraid of the changes... There are some really friendly, helpful folks around here like netmaestro as an example, who go out of their way in their own free time, and offer some great advice/help and point people in the right direction. And most of the time (With the minor revisions) its only a slight name change to a command, or a constant. so literally, you might have to just change one line of code. So for a couple of years you might not have to significantly change anything... but you have kinda joined the fun on a major update, and yes, stuff is changing thick and fast, but it will all settle down soon enough.

look, honest, I'm not trying to be an obnoxious shit to you or anything, but you are being a little melodramatic

And with that, I'm going to bed... it's like almost 5:10am and haha, I think my wife is gonna kill me

[Anden]

Sometimes they break older programs, but, normally, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to get things going again.

Well, this time it isn't "normally" because it will take a huge amount of effort to get things going again.

look, honest, I'm not trying to be an obnoxious shit to you or anything, but you are being a little melodramatic

No, he isn't. He just expresses his concerns in a friendly but direct language.

by American Ninja » Thu Jan 17, 2013 04:12
I'm just worried about the precedent it sets.... and I'm truly concerned that whatever I write now, may have to be re-written in future just because Fantaisie Software decides to change.... I've got a business to run, and I don't need these worries.... How can I rely on this product being stable when such a major change has already occurred??? Does nobody else see this as a problem???

I fully understand that. If you run a business, there's still time = money.

We've already learned our lesson and do not develop new software with pure. But we have to maintain the old stuff, so a freeze has been made (Pure 4.xx) as a workaround solution.

BTW: As M$ dumped VB6, they lost a lot of developers to Eclipse and Java. And it turns out, we have to thank M$ for forcing us todo so. Now we have an excellent fundament for Android development .

[PMV]

There are always people who blame you about the right way ...
... it could be really funny, but it makes me sad. Even after
explaining everything ... they still ignore the obvious reasons.

But thats how it is ... it was clear from the beginning that
there will be people like that ...

Maybe i have missed something ...
Maybe it is better to give a hacker the chance to crash
our servers repeatedly, not able to do anything about it,
as just waisting one hour to write the send-file-functionality
ourself.

MFG PMV

[Anden]

There are always people who blame you about the right way ...
... it could be really funny, but it makes me sad. Even after
explaining everything ... they still ignore the obvious reasons.

But thats how it is ... it was clear from the beginning that
there will be people like that ...

Maybe i have missed something ...
Maybe it is better to give a hacker the chance to crash
our servers repeatedly, not able to do anything about it,
as just waisting one hour to write the send-file-functionality
ourself.

MFG PMV

Yes, you missed something.
A coin has always two sides and you're clearly seeing only one ...

[Psychophanta]

There are always people who blame you about the right way ...
... it could be really funny, but it makes me sad. Even after
explaining everything ... they still ignore the obvious reasons.

But thats how it is ... it was clear from the beginning that
there will be people like that ...

Maybe i have missed something ...
Maybe it is better to give a hacker the chance to crash
our servers repeatedly, not able to do anything about it,
as just waisting one hour to write the send-file-functionality
ourself.

MFG PMV

Yes, you missed something.
A coin has always two sides and you're clearly seeing only one ...

Still, some of us are able to see also the edge of the coin
Agree with you, PMV

[Anden]

Still, some of us are able to see also the edge of the coin

Living on the edge is dangerous business, you know

So, here are the known facts and questions:
It can't be fixed because it's completely broken.
It's been included since "forever" but after all this years it has to go, because now it's dangerous.
It won't be replaced because that can't be done either. Is that true?
But we offer you a "solution" as "open source". Just everybody do it yourself, because your implementation will be much safer than anything we could come up with, like ever.
We can't put the same source in a compatible lib/command, because we can't tell you everything.

[netmaestro]

We've already learned our lesson and do not develop new software with pure. But we have to maintain the old stuff, so a freeze has been made (Pure 4.xx) as a workaround solution.

You aren't making any sense. If that's the case what do you care whether something gets taken out or not?

[Anden]

We've already learned our lesson and do not develop new software with pure. But we have to maintain the old stuff, so a freeze has been made (Pure 4.xx) as a workaround solution.

You aren't making any sense. If that's the case what do you care whether something gets taken out or not?

Well, let's think about it ...

I got it, i got it! --> There are still bugfixes in newer versions, not only removals of longstanding features. First part is very good (so i want that), second part not so much (so i don't want that).

Ah yes, and the freeze happend recently after the proud announcement to remove send/receive network files.

[PMV]

>It can't be fixed because it's completely broken.
I would not say broken, but brakes the complete network-lib

>It's been included since "forever" but after all this years it has to go, because now it's dangerous.
I can't remember since when it is known to be, but yes it
is a while ... and yes it should be removed right after that
but ... (read at the end)

>It won't be replaced because that can't be done either. Is that true?
right

>But we offer you a "solution" as "open source". Just everybody do it yourself, because your implementation will be much safer than anything we could come up with, like ever.
Are you kidding? You sound like a child that wants his doll
back. But it is known that this doll is (highly)
dangerous and there is no other (saver) chemical to make
it again.

>We can't put the same source in a compatible lib/command, because we can't tell you everything.
Wrong! As long as this function exists, regardless where ...
the complete network-lib is vulnerable.


PureBasic is created by one, ok now by a really small team.
A complete language is a really big project. As one person
... you can't think about everything and thats why there are
many bugs in it. Bugs that can appear any time. For Business,
that would be really living on the edge.

As you say, you have already used PB and as your reaction
says, it is not that bad. Because you have used PB and was
deeply satisfied, until now. Now you are surprised that this
language is evolving. Now, when Fred is already working
fulltime on PureBasic ... now where fixes are done much
faster, so fast that it is ok even for (most) business cases ...
And by the way, there are already other companies and i
would say much more self-employed people using and earning
money with PureBasic.

C is evolving, Java is evolving, PHP is evolving, PureBasic is
evolving ... and if you say you are using Java i can just
think about the news that are coming about security holes
who many people suggest you to deactivate it ... maybe
you don't care because you are using it in a closed
environment but as you see, even such big companies as
Oracle have problems with that.

Everyone who have only a clue on what it takes to create
a language knows what big thing Fred (and the rest of the
team) have created. And for that, it is really stable. Of
course that is not important for business. At the end
everyone needs to make his own decision.

Just one more thing: If you want to have stable version,
just test your projects always with the new version and
report everything, that doesn't work. As long as the beta
takes, it normally will be fixed until the final. Especially
now ... Fred has a lot of more time as in the past to
take care about any bug that is found and the PB 5.10
will be again a more stable version as the one before
For business, to be sure ... there will be (mostly) a
bugfix-only version 5.11 in the future

For a short-version ... there are many advantages and
disadvantages, but if you are make good test-cases
and always take care about documentation and quality-
checks, there is no other disadvantages like broken
functionality with every single version. It is just the
one question as always: Is it the best tool for my needs?

MFG PMV

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

We've already learned our lesson and do not develop new software with pure. But we have to maintain the old stuff, so a freeze has been made (Pure 4.xx) as a workaround solution.

You aren't making any sense. If that's the case what do you care whether something gets taken out or not?

Well, let's think about it ...

I got it, i got it! --> There are still bugfixes in newer versions, not only removals of longstanding features. First part is very good (so i want that), second part not so much (so i don't want that).

Ah yes, and the freeze happend recently after the proud announcement to remove send/receive network files.

You are in a programming forum, complaining about having to program something... Are you for real?

You have been given alternative solutions, you may not like them, but thats the way it is. You just can't be bothered to bolt in the alternative code It's already called NetworkSendFile(). Maybe you would like somebody else to hold your "Gentleman sausage" for you when you go to the bathroom? Seriously, If you cannot be bothered to do that, you have no right to even call yourself a programmer. You should hang your head in shame, for pretending to be something you most certainly are not!

[Shield]

"Gentleman sausage"

lol

I noticed that a lot of people in these forums try to "outsource" their needs to Fred / Freak instead
of trying to accomplish it by themselves. There are a lot of codes out there, free to use, but sometimes
a little initiative and creativeness is needed. After all, we're programmers by choice.

BASIC programming languages are tools to help programmers solve problems "easier" (highly subjective).
That doesn't mean that the problem itself becomes easier as if magic was involved.

[Fred]

It's going off topic, so let's close this subject !