To Fred and Timo: Can we have a discussion about the future?

[mk-soft]

OOP works quite well with Purebasic, even if interfaces were not designed for it.

That's probably why the description for interfaces is not very good either.

The effort to program an object in Purebasic is as big as with 'C'. Had I once found somewhere in 'C' (not 'C++') how complex it is.

Goes easier with Purebasic

[langinagel]

Hi folks,
just adding some other opinion...(good ol' German: "Senf dazugeben")

Language progression: wellll....the C character of PB cannot be denied. Workarounds add OOP possibilities.
From my professional view PB could have still a very nice future in the embedded world. There is C and just C and maybe Assembler....and perhaps some C++. Why not PB for a Linux based most embedded platform: ARM.
So for some functional programming and self optimising code compilations..is that what language future should be about? Maybe I am too old fashioned, but what really professional software has been evolved by such languages? Compare TIOBE, the top programming languages remain the same ...and a BASIC dialect is still among them.
And don't put on the newest developments of C++ V 11. Will they help to build more reliable software?
As long as PB can compete in execution speeds with C compilations, all things are fine for me.

Argument of Freds now being married:..well, getting married needed also time to persuade the lady that he is the right person. Did we had to complain about missing support during this time? I don't think so. I am sure that Freds wife knew that he is an entrepreneur with some clients and fans out there.

So much for a late evening.
Good night
LN

[djes]

Even if BASIC had beginners in mind (and in its name), the paradigm has evolved for a very long time, and I think the main difference is no more about professional/beginners but only project size anf finality. A lot of professional stuff has been made with PB.

Personally, I use PB as a tool, as a swiss army knife, and I'm sure it could be what VB has been, a great RAD tool. It's definitively not a toy, but I know such future is not what the team has in mind. Anyway, if I don't care if it becomes popular, I care about PB as I value it up very much. It's great !

[idle]

I'd really like to see unsigned types and the ability to make static libraries, both of which aren't hard to achieve.
and if it's not in the hard basket extend the macro preprocessor to perform static assignments for arrays and compiler loops
I like seeing new libraries and features though we can easily do that ourselves, but we can't extend the language.
PB is like c on acid so why not make our halcyon days last a little longer.

To claim a language is for professional coders is just admitting that it's to complicated for it's own good.
It seems to me that professional language development on the whole has had more to do with reactive coding than anything else
it's like I've got a glass or beer it's half full, I extend the glass with a handle, it's still got beer and now some jerk wants to put tea in it!
when the task masters change their minds half way through or want to add new features, no language is really going to save you from that
but it could make it easier to accommodate the changes.

[ozzie]

Even if BASIC had beginners in mind (and in its name), the paradigm has evolved for a very long time, and I think the main difference is no more about professional/beginners but only project size anf finality. A lot of professional stuff has been made with PB.
...
I care about PB as I value it up very much. It's great !

My thoughts exactly. I found PB several years ago when I was looking for a replacement for VB6 and didn't want to move to a .net product. I did look at various flavors of C but, to be frank, I hadn't the patience to learn C. My program (Show Cue System) is written in PB but with a few external libraries included, such as the BASS audio library. When I compile the source the compiler reports about 349000 lines compiled, which I guess includes blank lines and comments. Sure there are some things I'd liked improved, but overall I'm very happy with PB as my development platform. Great work, Fred, Timo and anyone else who contributes. Thanks also to Forum members who post useful tips and advice.

[Trond]

Compiler wise, I don't think we will add a tons a new stuffs, as PureBasic has been created to be a beginner friendly language, and that's our main target. I'm also using other languages (mainly C#) on daily basis, and while I like a lot of features of it (LINQ, Generics, Garbage Collector, Lamba, etc.) it's designed for professional coders. Doing a competitor of professional langage makes just no sense, who will actually buy it ? Professionals have C#, C++, Java, and it covers all the use cases.

BTW, we already added too much IMHO. Interfaces for example is a cool feature but it's bring complexity to the code and almost a different paradigm (a bit of OOP in PB). Indeed current compiler can still be improved here and here, and it will be done when I can squeeze back some more time to focus on it.

That's also why we are focusing on libraries, it's easier to jump on and off, and makes some valuable progress for everyone.

C# and Java are high-level "managed" languages with huge runtimes and unpredictable perfomance (tracing GC), they are not competitors to PB at all. The competitors are C and C++. However, the lack of crossplatform libraries, and their harder to learn syntaxes, puts them at a disadvantage for a many people.

So improving PB makes sense, as there is no good alternative in many situations.

I can think of several small and big things that can be done to the compiler:
- When doing UseModule and there are name conflicts, don't give an error. Simply don't import those names, and require use of the module prefix for that name only.
- Non-arithmetic shift
- Fix the broken boolean handling (Not, etc)
- Automated reference counting (not tracing GC), explicitly declared when declaring individual variables (or maybe better, declared on structures?).
- Templates (like c++), or even better, metaprogramming.
- Better code generation
- SIMD operators. Just double the normal operators (++ is simd addition, ** is simd multiplication, ...), and allow them on structured variables.
- ProcedureASM for assembly procedures without overhead, same calling convention on all platforms.

ARC and metaprogramming would be powerful improvements without changing the imperative and low-level programming model. OOP doesn't belong in PB, IMO. When people use Interfaces to simulate OOP, it sends shivers down my spine.

In the library department I have some ideas:
- Fixing the keyboard and mouse game libraries, so they don't skip keystrokes and clicks when done inbetween examine___() calls.
- Add a GadgetWeb library, that would work like the Gadget library, but over an https connection, with the ability to serve multiple web browser clients at once, of course.
- Automatic increase of size of Map.
- Integer-indexed sparse arrays (the difference from Map is that you can wedge an element, and all elements after it will be moved back, so when wedging an element at index 5, the old element at that position, is now at position 6, instead of being overwritten). Also, it should have fast indexing (like binary search tree). (This is done by letting the key in each tree node be a delta value instead of the actual value, so that when following the tree from the root node, and adding all delta values directly downwards to a node, the result is the key.)

[bbanelli]

Compiler wise, I don't think we will add a tons a new stuffs, as PureBasic has been created to be a beginner friendly language, and that's our main target. I'm also using other languages (mainly C#) on daily basis, and while I like a lot of features of it (LINQ, Generics, Garbage Collector, Lamba, etc.) it's designed for professional coders.

Seldom do I feel the urge to participate in threads like this, and I am aware that I oppose you, Fred, as PB's father, but I simply fail to see what makes this statement valid.

To begin with, if we can define something as "being professional", than I would chose the definition that would say that something being professional is simply something you can utilize for generating revenue. Therefore, one can make Brainfuck a language "designed for professional coders", sorry.

Additionally, we basically use everything in the world based on two criteria:

a) usability
b) personal preferences

I think we can all agree that PB has long time left the train of "hobby tool", if it ever was. That is especially true for Windows platform.

There is a critics on your part, Fred. No matter how much I immensely respect your agenda to keep PB users covered with a single perpetual licence "until the end of time", I firmly believe I am not the only one that would be very happy to pay for "accelerated" development. After all, it would not be hard to hear vox populi on that behalf...

With my very best,

Bruno

[Mistrel]

Compiler wise, I don't think we will add a tons a new stuffs, as PureBasic has been created to be a beginner friendly language, and that's our main target.

I think that this is where PureBasic can continue to really shine. I'm advocating for the addition of enhancements in a way that can help to introduce more complex concepts to beginners. An open dialog will allow us to hear what people really want.

We all know and cherish the simplicity of this product. The last thing any of us want to do is spoil that. Please just talk to us. Let us vote on proposals. You're welcome to turn them down! Just give us a chance to discuss what may be possible.

[Cyllceaux]

Maybe it would be a good idea to split Versions.

A Beginner-friendly-one and a professional-one.

Because, NO beginner uses the Windows-API, but it is there.

I mean, there is a lot of professional stuff in it.

[applePi]

i think Fred should change the way of the purebasic licensing.
for a comparison Powebasic 9 is a different product than powerbasic 10, if you own v9 you can't get v10 for free. and the updating periods measured by loooong years and not months like purebasic.
so who own purebasic 5 should pay for v6, if he is a previous user then the pricing should be smaller than the new user. it is possible to watermark (somehow) every version downloaded by a user . exactly like OpenLibrary.org ebooks.
the new versions plan should be by years (like PowerBasic in its glory past time). except for the bugs hunting.

since purebasic is the last standing basic on the Globe (in x64 and multiplatforms) then the licensing should be changed. else it will stay a freeware product like it is now, i don't consider $70 paid 10 years ago a payment, it is usually returned back to the user through the forum bandwidth consumed by the user activity

[Mistrel]

I think some of you are taking this to the extreme. I'm not looking to completely redefine PureBasic or create a whole new product. It's already been made clear that there is no desire by Fred or Timo to make any sweeping changes.

There are plenty of small, logical changes that can enhance the language in a powerful way.

[Marc56us]

I think (yes, sometimes, but not too much ) that if you had to make another product with new licensing mode, the best would be to make a totally visual version, i.e. the same engine, but articulated around a complete RAD (like VB, Delphi/Lazarus).
The current Form Designer works well (yes ) and could therefore be extended so that each object drawn since trigger several procedures (depending on the received event) and not only one as currently.

I also think (again, sorry) that business customers are not interested in the game part (3D) and that for them Linux/Mac compatibility is not a priority.

There are still companies that are looking for VB6 skills and don't (rightly) want VB.net

So there is a place for a new product using the same engine (as for SB)
And keep the current version in parallel, so everyone is happy

[wilbert]

I also think (again, sorry) that business customers are not interested in the game part (3D) and that for them Linux/Mac compatibility is not a priority.

I think you are wrong about the last part. Cross platform compatibility is one of the most important features to make PB an interesting choice.

[applePi]

sorry Mistrel, i don't mean my opinion as a reply to your main topic which is fully legal, i want to post my opinion from long time ago, somehow i have posted it here while it should be in off topic.
i remember the first person who talk about the necessity to change the license policy for purebasic is Danilo years ago in off topics forum , and i agree with him.

[Marc56us]

I also think (again, sorry) that business customers are not interested in the game part (3D) and that for them Linux/Mac compatibility is not a priority.

I think you are wrong about the last part. Cross platform compatibility is one of the most important features to make PB an interesting choice.

Yes and no, I speak potential professional users, We should do a survey, but how?

since purebasic is the last standing basic on the Globe (in x64 and multiplatforms)

xojo ? (realbasic) (but very expensive), FreeBasic ? (yes, not really standing up since 2015)