[Implemented] I miss these features

npath · Post by **npath** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:47 am

I agree with Shannara. PB is already a hybrid language, which is what makes it unique as well as powerful. I think additional C-like features would be great. I just hope that PB always remains a procedure-oriented language. None of that OOP stuff for me.

Another idea would be to officially drop the "Basic" from the title so as not to confuse people (because the language is certainly not a 'pure' form of basic, which is good). The name "Pure" by itself is quite cool.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:51 am

I agree with nPath, "Pure" for the name of the language sound much more cooler and professional then .. well, just about everything out in the market besides Perl and Python

And maybe Ruby ...

akee · Post by **akee** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:01 am

I second the procedure based language... oop is a waste of overhead.

Well while we are at that, besides the NOT that I truly miss... the other would be...

Code: Select all

myvar=(x=y)?100:200

and variables of type variant and Procedures with optional parameters.. Ex in VB

Code: Select all

Function X(ByVal first as integer, optional ByVal second as integer = 4)

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 am

I donno about the procedure type part. Purebasic already have a few "OOP" type features in. . EXTENDS and UNION for structures to name two

I find EXTENDS extremely useful.

Now if only we could have multiple procedures of the same name with different parm type/nums.

dell_jockey · Post by **dell_jockey** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:33 am

Akee,

in C the statement:

Code: Select all

a = (( x < y) ? x : y ) ;

gets treated by the compiler exactly as the next snippet:

Code: Select all

if  ( x < y)
  a = x;
else
  a = y;

The resultant assembly code will be the same, even for non-optimising compilers. Why use the terse form when the verbose form expresses so much more clearly what the programmer intended?
There's no merit in making PB into a language that merely emulates other well known languages; introducing idiom that can be expressed perfectly with the core language as it is doesn't suit any purpose, other than making (former?) C programmers feel at home.
FYI: I use both C and PB (and a bit of Eiffel). Horses for courses!

akee · Post by **akee** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:34 am

dell_jockey wrote:The resultant assembly code will be the same, even for non-optimising compilers. Why use the terse form when the verbose form expresses so much more clearly what the programmer intended?

Yes Sir! I know!

This is just a wish list right? I suggest it because I feel comfortable with such a method of programming...

Amiga5k · Post by **Amiga5k** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:34 am

Although there are a few things in c I'd like to see in Pure, I'm soooo glad that Pure is not as cryptic (syntactically speaking) as C/C++ is: This is the reason I use Pure in the first place!

The "flexibility" in C's For/Next loop is trivial, as far as I'm concerned. Pure does a fine job of it. If you need more flexibility in your loops, you can always get creative and write your own in inline asm...

Russell