PB vs C

[Quin]

As for the ternary operator, perhaps a page could be taken from Kotlin, which actually implements it with a very simple and readable BASIC-like syntax. That would be an excellent addition to PureBasic.

Ooh...you're right! That is nice!

Code: Select all

value = if (a == 1) true else false

I think that could blend nicely into PB's existing syntax.

[plouf]

Every time one of these arguments comes up I ask this, and no one answers it...
What exactly does "keep it basic" mean? PB is what I'd consider to be BASIC-enspired. "real" BASIC has subs/functions, dim var as string etc., and PB is one of the farthest languages from the rest of the BASICs I've used (VB, BCX, B4X, etc).

My guess at "keep it basic" is having a syntax that is more wordy and allows new programmers to quickly bring up graphical applications within hours to days of starting.
No trailing ; semicolons, pointers are pointers everywhere in the code.
(C defines a pointer once and then you must remember everywhere else it is referenced. )
This is my favorite syntactical sugar PB brings.
Also very glad PB uses base 0 for array indexing.

It is debatable the number of keywords of PB vs C, since many are api and lib driven.
Ex. UseSHA3Fingerprint, UseSQLiteDatabase, etc. are not in C.
The existence of so many starting libs under one uniform IDE and syntax, it is a disservice to label it basic.

agree to most points of skywalk
BASIC is established syntax rules, these syntax is more readable than "competitors" so even if involves shoud do it THEIR way not "some other way"
also the exosystem with build in commands which are simple to use also.
so f.e. Create a window and throu a gadget in it, need exactly 2 commands, not 2 pages of includes 3 pages of initializations and a few more ...

As for the ternary operator, perhaps a page could be taken from Kotlin, which actually implements it with a very simple and readable BASIC-like syntax. That would be an excellent addition to PureBasic.

Ooh...you're right! That is nice!

Code: Select all

value = if (a == 1) true else false

I think that could blend nicely into PB's existing syntax.

the above example is a posible BASIC approach
IIF macro is also good and ALREADY active if wanted

however i have to agree to the thinking of "do we really need it ?"
i mean the main reason of ternary is to make a 4 line if /then/else to a single line,
but can already do it just in four lines (or cheat with : )

consider that EVERY Adition done in PB , the team has to maintan it, that mean bugfixes/ adaption to all possible syntax now and in future (bug fixes actualyl too) and extra work in general

to me is not that important to use a single line for these speciall occasions, other stuff like raspberry support is by far more important / usefull

[AZJIO]

Code: Select all

value = if (a == 1) true else false

This makes it more logical and there is no need to do complex code analysis.

Code: Select all

value = Ask(expression, true, false)

[idle]

That's much easier on the eye AZJIO

[Little John]

We're all entitled to opinions.

That is – or at least should be – a matter of course.
However, there are people who consider themselves extra clever, but don't even understand simple things like this.

[tored]

What is funny is that I have it easier to grok low level stuff in PB over C and even more bizarre I also find it easier to import C functions in PB rather than writing everything in C. It is something in the mental model of PB that makes more sense to me.

[PBJim]

I would prefer to see the developers' valuable time concentrated on important and worthwhile advancements, by which I mean features that add substantial value and maturity to the platform :

1. Networking SSL/TLS and making the networking operation more robust — it is currently quite easy to cause a network process crash on disconnections unless we employ some API workarounds

2. Printing to a specific named printer device — to my knowledge there is still only a dialogue box, which is not relevant in an unattended application

[idle]

We're all entitled to opinions.

That is – or at least should be – a matter of course.
However, there are people who consider themselves extra clever, but don't even understand simple things like this.

The Dunning Krugers in the world probably, wouldn't agree!

[Lord]

...
The Dunning Krugers in the world probably, wouldn't agree!

Dunning-Kruger is out. Read Gaze et al.

[idle]

...
The Dunning Krugers in the world probably, wouldn't agree!

Dunning-Kruger is out. Read Gaze et al.

how about a link and lets get back on topic!

[Lord]

...
The Dunning Krugers in the world probably, wouldn't agree!

Dunning-Kruger is out. Read Gaze et al.

how about a link and lets get back on topic!

I didn't introduce "Dunning-Kruger" in this topic.
https://theconversation.com/debunking-t ... age-195527

[idle]

I suffer the Dunning Kruger effect from time to time, though I'm aware of my incompetence plus I'm dyslexic which is why I prefer pb over c. I prefer to call it optimism otherwise I wouldn't try something sometimes if I didn't think it was achievable.

off topic. This still appears to be true today. The Peters Principle of incompetence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

[TI-994A]

I suffer the Dunning Kruger effect from time to time...

In some form, to some degree, we all do.

Although, some more than others.

[Piero]

Incompetence never matters, if you are curious

[idle]

most of what I do is out of curiosity and PB is a lot easier to use than C in that respect and also easier to use assembler.
The only things missing from PB are minor. like unsigned longs and integers which can be a pain to deal with sometimes
or bitfields which are somewhat a rarity anyhow or multi dimension array [][] iterators and filling arrays with defaults

Code: Select all

Structure ar
  a.a[0]
EndStructure 

Global *ar.ar, i.i 
!unsigned char ar[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,0}; 
!gp_ar = &ar;

While *ar\a[i] <> 0 
  Debug *ar\a[i]
  i+1
Wend