Help me defend PB "reputation"

[Julian]

You could use a shovel to dig a swimming pool, but it would be quicker to use an excavator.

Yes, but that's only valid if time is an issue.

Yes exactly like my original challenge...

Why use C++ when you could use Assembly?

Time

Why use Purebasic when you could use C++?

Time

Also...

If you had 100 people using shovels to dig a pool it would probably be as quick as an excavator...
If you couldn't get the excavator on site due to size constraints you would need to use a shovel...

You see my point?

[Dude]

You see my point?

You're preaching to the choir, mate. I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[TI-994A]

Why use Purebasic when you could use C++?

Well, let's see...
1. faster development
2. easier implementation
3. single-source for three platforms
4. small and fast compiled executables
5. no runtime or framework dependencies
6. almost no disadvantages compared to C/C++

Just a summary of my more detailed answer, posted here.

[sancho2]

Much like C++ and Purebasic, each tool is suited to the person/project/timescale etc, one is not "better" than the other

I agree, and I think I understand now where you are coming from with the challenge.
You deliberately stacked the challenge to show that PB has strengths in some areas that C++ may be weak in.
I hope I got it right.

Anyway speaking to the 4 points that were mentioned in the op,
1. I don't understand this point. What do they mean by amateurish? Specifics are necessary. Esoteric - ideas preserved or understood by a small group of those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest. There may be some truth here, but then no programming language is any different in this regard, relatively speaking.

2. Although I like oop, the PB system is non-oop by design. I can't see the OP changing any ones mind in their preferred system.

3. Small but excellent community. Very skilled and knowledgeable people. Questions asked in the forum rarely go unanswered. I don't know very much about the libraries aspect of this point.

4. Foggy future is a fair point (IMO). Being old doesn't necessarily make anything more sure. Latest word I have read is PB is "still being developed". I see going from monthly blog posts to 0 blog posts in 8 months (give or take). I see a small team of developers, and two products on the go plus the real world. Yikes. Good luck to them.

A version of this very argument is older than PB. Its not going to happen, that the OP will convince these people to switch to PB for that which they have already been successful in C++ . Although they might try it and even like it.

[TI-994A]

You deliberately stacked the challenge to show that PB has strengths in some areas that C++ may be weak in.

Hi sancho. We know that PureBasic has many advantages over C/C++, especially in terms of development speed and portability; and not just for Hello World apps.

But to say that the challenge was stacked, you'd have to establish some premise where PureBasic would under-perform when compared with C/C++.

You have not done that.

[Julian]

Much like C++ and Purebasic, each tool is suited to the person/project/timescale etc, one is not "better" than the other

You deliberately stacked the challenge to show that PB has strengths in some areas that C++ may be weak in.
I hope I got it right.

Exactly right

[TI-994A]

You deliberately stacked the challenge to show that PB has strengths in some areas that C++ may be weak in.

Exactly right

Hi Julian. What would you consider PureBasic's weaknesses to be? As compared to C/C++, for example?

[Danilo]

As compared to C/C++, for example?

I doubt you know the C++ programming language.

OOP support with inheritance, generics/templates, lambdas, function/method/operator overloading, exception handling, nested classes, namespaces, variable arguments,
type safety, strongly typed enumerations, smart pointers, initializer lists, auto types, available on many more targets (actually almost everywhere), much much more...

See C++, C++TR1 , C++11, C++14, C++ reference

[Julian]

As compared to C/C++, for example?

I doubt you know the C++ programming language.

OOP support with inheritance, generics/templates, lambdas, function/method/operator overloading, exception handling, nested classes, namespaces, variable arguments,
type safety, strongly typed enumerations, smart pointers, initializer lists, auto types, available on many more targets (actually almost everywhere), much much more...

See C++, C++TR1 , C++11, C++14, C++ reference

The thing is, that whole list doesn't make a program written in C/C++ any more possible than one written in PB, it just allows for different ways of getting to the same result, a working program to do what you intended it to do.

You deliberately stacked the challenge to show that PB has strengths in some areas that C++ may be weak in.

Exactly right

Hi Julian. What would you consider PureBasic's weaknesses to be? As compared to C/C++, for example?

The only weakness I can see that PB has over C/C++ is that it is a closed system, meaning that it is privately owned/programmed and this can affect the time it takes to add features and/or correct bugs. However on the flip side it makes sure that silly things don't get added that can be done another way with a bit of thought.

As far as my limited experience with PB goes to date, you can pretty much do anything in it that you can with C/C++ apart from "proper" OO which is personal preference at the end of the day.

[Marc56us]

PB vs C/C++

A lack of PB
- Lack of fast and easy string formatting functions (printf, sprintf, scanf etc), which requires a lot of instructions (str, strf, val) to do the same thing.

- Main disadvantage of C/C++
C/C++ programming windows can do everything, but it is very long, very hard, and quickly becomes unreadable unless you spend a lot of time. So there is often professionals who use it for this purpose.

[Danilo]

The thing is, that whole list doesn't make a program written in C/C++ any more possible than one written in PB, it just allows for different ways of getting to the same result, a working program to do what you intended it to do.

That's true, also for D, C#, Python, Java, Ruby, ...

So why do we have so many programming languages? I think it's about expressiveness and language features
that help programmers to express their ideas. Ideas become reality, and the more features a language has,
the more ways you have to express yourself. In some languages you have to write 3 times the code to express
the same idea, and that's a big difference. Some languages don't support different ways of thinking.
All together it is also a question of manageability and maintainability, that differs between languages with
different features.

If you are used to PB, you just write PB code. Nothing wrong with that. But I doubt that you can convince most hardcore C++ programmers,
who use and love the expressiveness, to switch to something like PB, loosing almost all of the features they use every day.
That may be different for plain C programmers that are happy with Win/Linux/Mac targets. In this case PB could win, in my opinion.

[TI-994A]

The only weakness I can see that PB has over C/C++ is that it is a closed system...

Hi Julian. But still, like you said, it "doesn't make a program written in C/C++ any more possible than one written in PB."

I doubt you know the C++ programming language.

Hi Danilo. That's quite irrelevant.

The bottom-line is, even without all those features that you had listed, PureBasic is still equal to any task that can be accomplished using C/C++.

So why do we have so many programming languages? I think it's about expressiveness and language features that help programmers to express their ideas. Ideas become reality, and the more features a language has, the more ways you have to express yourself. In some languages you have to write 3 times the code to express the same idea, and that's a big difference. Some languages don't support different ways of thinking. All together it is also a question of manageability and maintainability, that differs between languages with different features.

Eloquent, but inaccurate.

1. the more features a language has, the more ways you have to express yourself
Not true. The language features only determine how easily you express yourself, but does not limit your expression.

2. In some languages you have to write 3 times the code to express the same idea
Yes; and in my experience, PureBasic code is more succinct compared to C/C++, making it easier to manage and maintain.

Nevertheless, these are still irrelevant to the discussion.

If you are used to PB, you just write PB code. But I doubt that you can convince most hardcore C++ programmers, that use and love the expressiveness, to switch to something like PB, loosing almost all of the features they use every day.

And you'd also have a hard time convincing PureBasic programmers, who use and love the ease, speed, and expressiveness of PureBasic, to switch to anything else.

Why would they, when they can do the same things in PureBasic!

[Danilo]

Eloquent, but inaccurate.

You are the boss!

[Thorium]

Some mentioned the speed of PureBasic. Actualy it's very slow compared to optimizing C or C++ compilers. The process of compiling is much faster with PB but the resulting executable is much slower. There are some cases in which it might be faster, like with linked lists. But that are librarys actualy written and compiled with C++.

If you want to have good speed with PureBasic you need to use assembly. With C/C++ there are very good optimizing compilers and instrinsics to use CPU features like SIMD, which PureBasic does not provide.

The nice thing about PureBasic is that you can work very low level and very high level at the same time. It's the C of the Basics. ^^

[TI-994A]

You are the boss!

No; you are. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Actualy it's very slow compared to optimizing C or C++ compilers ... the resulting executable is much slower...

Hi Thorium. Very slow? Much slower?

With no optimisation options, speed disparities are to be expected. But what do you consider very much slower?