About my recent discussion

[threedslider]

Sorry with my discussion about C++ for Purebasic. Well, it's considered trolling by some people. I'll never talk about C++ here again because I wanted to do the best possible for PB, but to in vain it is not... We'd better leave PB alone. If I got too carried away with C++, then again, I wouldn't do that.

Let's make peace, and thank you for reading my posts.

And better to Happy coding and for everyone love that !

[idle]

It's not cc+ it's oops did it again. It's like rust never sleeps.

[X0r]

There will never be OOP in PureBasic. And the reason is given here: https://www.purebasic.fr/blog/

Enne: How manageable would you say the compiler source code is, given how long PureBasic has existed?

I would say it’s barely manageable and very messy. The whole project is a pain to work but I guess it’s not that unusual for a project which has grown over 30 years.

Implementing OOP into a language and compiler is not a piece of cake. And with a non-manageable compiler source code, you can forget that. I guess that's also the reason why we have not seen any substantial language improvements in PureBasic for quite some while.

[Olli]

There will never be OOP in PureBasic

Natively, maybe.
But in pre-processing (non stand-alone), the pb compiler allows it perfectly. I built it in 2018, because I love OOP (the OOP on CPP). I made a non stand-alone purebasic source code which converts a CPP source code between two directives CompilerIf 0 and CompilerEndIf, to a pb target code, and then pbcompiler was used a second time to compile it.

Excepted the IDE which breaks the genius, it worked fine. Metamorphism is okay. Just the target code is... huge, because all the functions are dupplicated.

It is [by] creating himself, that we know exactly the limits of a concept. OOP is magic. OOP is communicative. OOP is evolutive ("evolving" ?) but OOP cannot manage 20 objects or more, as it manages perfectly 3 objects. More there are objects, less the OOP has convenients on procedural.

This is not my opinion : this is the technical break I met.
Create a level on procedural for complex systems (i will define below) is simpler than oop.

"complex" definition = which keeps an equal relationship whatever the object. Example : the atoms, moleculs, biologic cells, living units, ideas, etc...

Example in example : If you code the characteristics of a hydrogen atom, you have all the characteristics of every natural atom, you can code easily the relationships between an hydrogen atom and an other atom, whatever the second one. But it is absolutely unable to know the behaviour of 20 different atoms together, on a single computer.

On procedural, it is unable also. But the memory size of an executable file, is not the same depending of the origin : procedural or oop. Which wins ? Procedural. So, which can simulate the bigger set of different atoms in a fixed hardwared configuration ? Procedural.

Procedural/OOP debate is like interpreter/compiler debates.
Interpreting reachs the money of the people quicker than compiling. But the money is only a tool. Discovering new concepts, needs hardware, clock cycles, fixed buffers, defined states, because more a technology is known in its totallity, more the quantity of concepts available is a number which explodes.

@threedslider

If you have a subject title which attracts, think the readers behind need to read a work of synthesis. You use an automatic translator now : maybe have you seen several characteristics in the article ?

[threedslider]

It's not cc+ it's oops did it again. It's like rust never sleeps.

Ok alright

[threedslider]

There will never be OOP in PureBasic

Natively, maybe.
But in pre-processing (non stand-alone), the pb compiler allows it perfectly. I built it in 2018, because I love OOP (the OOP on CPP). I made a non stand-alone purebasic source code which converts a CPP source code between two directives CompilerIf 0 and CompilerEndIf, to a pb target code, and then pbcompiler was used a second time to compile it.

Excepted the IDE which breaks the genius, it worked fine. Metamorphism is okay. Just the target code is... huge, because all the functions are dupplicated.

It is [by] creating himself, that we know exactly the limits of a concept. OOP is magic. OOP is communicative. OOP is evolutive ("evolving" ?) but OOP cannot manage 20 objects or more, as it manages perfectly 3 objects. More there are objects, less the OOP has convenients on procedural.

This is not my opinion : this is the technical break I met.
Create a level on procedural for complex systems (i will define below) is simpler than oop.

"complex" definition = which keeps an equal relationship whatever the object. Example : the atoms, moleculs, biologic cells, living units, ideas, etc...

Example in example : If you code the characteristics of a hydrogen atom, you have all the characteristics of every natural atom, you can code easily the relationships between an hydrogen atom and an other atom, whatever the second one. But it is absolutely unable to know the behaviour of 20 different atoms together, on a single computer.

On procedural, it is unable also. But the memory size of an executable file, is not the same depending of the origin : procedural or oop. Which wins ? Procedural. So, which can simulate the bigger set of different atoms in a fixed hardwared configuration ? Procedural.

Procedural/OOP debate is like interpreter/compiler debates.
Interpreting reachs the money of the people quicker than compiling. But the money is only a tool. Discovering new concepts, needs hardware, clock cycles, fixed buffers, defined states, because more a technology is known in its totallity, more the quantity of concepts available is a number which explodes.

@threedslider

If you have a subject title which attracts, think the readers behind need to read a work of synthesis. You use an automatic translator now : maybe have you seen several characteristics in the article ?

Good from your synthesis but to me I promise to no talk in C++ or OOP here

Thanks @Olli

[Olli]

It is a little bit shame, this unability.

One-sentence synthesis : Longer compiling durations, in the future.

Thank you also.

[Piero]

I got too carried away with C++

I UNDERSTAND YOU HUMAN, BUT THAT'S PRIMITIVE…

[miso]

Off: If you change the letters in HAL to the next ones, you got IBM. I don't know if it was intended by Arthur C. Clark.