Thank You

[TI-994A]

...let's just say anybody who knows JavaScript will find it very easy to be productive with OpenFL because the proprietary haXe language that OpenFL uses is so remarkably like JavaScript you'll hardly notice the difference.

Let's not. Instead, let's say that anyone who's well-versed with the JavaScript language, Haxe's proprietary extensions, the OpenFL API, and a handful of other framework functions, would find it very easy to be productive with OpenFL.

Clearly sufficient performance to write games that run on constrained devices.

Again, not on its own. Like you yourself said, the underlying libraries are C, and Lua is just the glue code.

...Haxe 2.0 was released in July 2006, adding support for Javascript programs.

The basic syntax is derived from ECMAScript.

The Haxe Programming Language was designed to be simple yet powerful. Its syntax largely follows the ECMAScript standard, but deviates where necessary.

Are you still running on a TI-994A by any chance?

Every chance I get.

[the.weavster]

Again, not on its own. Like you yourself said, the underlying libraries are C, and Lua is just the glue code.

Err.. yes, that is kinda the point of embeddable languages like Lua (as I thought I'd already stated). You seem to want to use Lua in a way it wasn't intended just so you can complain that it's slow when you do that. I'm guessing you like those benchmarks where you do a gazillion loops with a few mathematical calculations in just so you can show language x is n faster than language y, never mind such a test is very unlikely to mimic anything that most programs will ever do in reality.

Fortunately for enthusiasts of high level languages like Lua other developers have invariably already done the groundwork of creating the low level C libraries and bindings for you so it's possible to write programs just using Lua and the APIs that they have created. That's why it's entirely possible to write games for most modern smartphone OSs just using Lua. It might just be the glue code, a thin layer over C, but that's all you have to concern yourself with and you get the required performance. Most developers using Lua wont create their own low level libraries any more than C# developers would implement their own .NET framework or Java developers would create their own JVM.

[Keya]

You seem to want to use Lua in a way it wasn't intended

Like the authors of Stuxnet/Flame! lol!
https://securelist.com/blog/incidents/3 ... nswers-51/ ...

Lua is a scripting (programming) language, which can very easily be extended and interfaced with C code. Many parts of Flame have high order logic written in Lua – with effective attack subroutines and libraries compiled from C++.

The effective Lua code part is rather small compared to the overall code. Our estimation of development ‘cost’ in Lua is over 3000 lines of code, which for an average developer should take about a month to create and debug.

[TI-994A]

You seem to want to use Lua in a way it wasn't intended just so you can complain that it's slow when you do that.

Embedded or not, a snail's a snail, no matter how you want to spin it. And boy, are you spinning it.

The major developments that opt for Lua do so purely for its simplicity and portability, knowing full well that it's a trade-off on speed and performance. That's precisely why the usage of such scripts are kept to a bare minimum, mostly for glue code, and never for speed or performance-critical tasks.

But if it's so slow, why use it? Simple economics.

Professional expert programmers are scarce and expensive. So, the affordable few are hired to develop the real speed and performance-critical low-level code, wrap them up nicely and neatly with a bow on top, and present them to these dime-a-dozen "enthusiasts of high level languages".

Furthermore, although it may be well-suited as an embedded language, you don't seem to realise that Lua is also a full-blown development tool. There've been many native builds for it on as many platforms, which include Windows, OSX, Linux, and even Android.

Are these the intended ways you were mentioning earlier, perhaps?

Regardless, it's still slow.

Most developers using Lua wont create their own low level libraries any more than C# developers would implement their own .NET framework or Java developers would create their own JVM.

This statement makes me wonder if you even know what you're talking about.

[coder14]

@ANDY ANDERSON, that is a whole lifetime of coding. Congrats man. How do you compare PB with everything you used?

@TI, do you have something against LUA?

[ANDY ANDERSON]

@coder14, It is difficult to compare PureBasic right now because I have
just started using it. But as a first impression, I feel confident that
it will be adequate for the type of programming I do. It appears to me
that it is a cross between classical Basic and C both syntactically and
conceptually. For instance, it doesn't directly support random files
but it is quite easy to construct your own random access routines. I was
able to convert my binary tree routine and it operates almost as fast as
it did in PowerBasic and faster than it did in Visual Basic and Fortran.
PureBasic doesn't read as well as classical Basic but it is far more
fluent than RPGII with which I coded several major projects.

Like Fred and team, I don't do OOP. For my purposes, it doesn't allow
enough articlation and besides, the bloat and hit on performance is not
acceptable.

All languages are trade offs, pick your poison.

[Danilo]

.removed

[ANDY ANDERSON]

@Danilo: I understand your position and if I did general development,
I might very well feel the same way. In your market, production is
paramount. However, I am specialized in a particular market niche and
speed along with resource conservation are very important. Ultimately,
we are each doing what we must to make our way.

I would like to see PureBasic change their business model so that it
could provide the financial resources for refinement and enhancement.
Their GUI commands are easy to use but a little weak and their string
manipulation needs more articulation. But I'm grateful to have found
a development path after PowerBasic.

[Keya]

I would like to see PureBasic change their business model so that it could provide the financial resources for refinement and enhancement.

Me too! id rather pay another $100 or so every year or two if i knew it would be put into development.

I understand that this 'lifetime license' fee (a model usually associated with small programs that are expected to have a very limited lifetime and very few updates) was introduced when Purebasic was just an infant, so it probably made a lot of sense at the time, but now Purebasic is a proper solid platform, so the license model unfortunately does nothing to help with that, so while it's initially attractive to the PB newcomer like me and wouldve been helpful 'back in the day' to get the initial momentum of people switching to Purebasic, i've quickly realised that it does nothing to really help Purebasic as a long-term development platform.

So, the end result of 'lifetime license' = less money for PB developers hard work, and less money available to put back into development, so the product isn't being developed as well or productively as it could/should be, and that comes at the expense of everyone using it. Isn't that what we call a LOSE-LOSE model!?

[Danilo]

.removed

[Keya]

That's where MonkeyX2 comes in.

Their website states "Monkey is a next-generation games programming language"
i guess its not for me then

This also means you can't directly use lower-level hardware features in Monkey, such as pointers. Threads are also a bit of an issue, as they are platform dependent.

No pointers, and threads are "an issue"... ok its definitely not for me then heehee

So, after 15+ years of using PB, I think it's coming to an end, slowly.

Whaaaa? but i only just started heehee

[Danilo]

.removed

[Samuel]

Win95 style is over... and super-multi-platform object-oriented style is IN.
Win/Mac/Linux are not the only platforms in existence, in case somebody missed it!

Don't forget that those are three major platforms and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. The market is big enough on Windows alone for most developers.

So, after 15+ years of using PB, I think it's coming to an end, slowly.
.....
To be more general, because PowerBasic and PureBasic are pretty dead.

Yes, Powerbasic is pretty much dead, but I don't see Purebasic dying off anytime soon unless Fred decides to call it quits. Which seeing how much he put into Purebasic I doubt he would stop developing it without a good reason.


Just because a few people like you Danilo are leaving Purebasic behind doesn't mean everyone else is. It seems like every day or two we have a new face around the boards asking for help.
As long as Fred keeps working on and improving Purebasic (which he has for 15 years). Then it will be around for many more years to come no matter what some people say.

[skywalk]

Danilo, easy to agree with you on PowerBasic, but the demise of PureBasic is unfounded.
Yes, the compile targets may be limited, but that can change with LLVM. It would be a big benefit to add C++ lib importing too, but we'll see what we see when a new update comes.

[TI-994A]

...do you have something against LUA?

Not at all; although someone seems to have it in for PureBasic.

...public statements like

...we do believe that object oriented programs are very hard to maintain.

are provoking laughters in other communities. And to be honest, I'm laughting about that myself.

And how many object-oriented languages have you written lately?

...modern developers don't stop there, they want also Android, iOS, Raspberry Pi (2), HTML5/EcmaScript and other platforms.

If there's such a tool, go ahead and use it. But if not, don't whine about it like a lazy amateur.

That's where MonkeyX2 comes in ... The language itself is already better than PB and supports OOP fully, additionally to procedural programming, and plaftorms like Win/Linux/Mac/Android/iOS ... and that's exactly where guys like me can jump in to make a better world.

Unless I missed its official release, MX2 is still just vaporware, and you're just rambling; as you always do. Being such a Sibly-fanboy, why have you not pledged to his project, Danilo? Jump in and make a better world!

...super-multi-platform object-oriented style is IN.

Of course it is; but not without being super-bloated as well.

In fact, in terms of speed and size, very few cross-platform integrated development tools even come close to PureBasic.