PureBasic Forums - English

Beach wrote:Karbon, after 1500 posts, your status is now "Guru"... Respect!

BTW: Will you eventually port K-Billing to .NET? Are you using C# or VB.NET?

If he does that, he can expect the source code to that bugger be all over the internet. It may be a dream to script in, but hell for proprioty (sp?) programmers.

If he does that, he can expect the source code to that bugger be all over the internet.

I thought one could compile the code... Is this not the case?

kBilling will stay where it is, but we are working on a new "pro" version in .NET that will offer quite a bit more than the current version does..

I love PureBasic, though, and will never "switch" and use a single language for everything. I'm just using the best tool for the job...

If he does that, he can expect the source code to that bugger be all over the internet. Smile It may be a dream to script in, but hell for proprioty (sp?) programmers.

Foo. You are pretty easily influenced by the alarmists out there

Any application can be decompiled, reverse engineered and otherwise hacked, cracked and broken. It doesn't matter in the end. People that would go to such extremes would never buy the product anyway, so it's a moot point. My software isn't rocket science and certainly isn't unique so there would be no gain at all in having the source code. Of course, if someone got the source code and tried to releae their own version then I'd sue their pants off

If you'd like to have a stab at getting something useful out of one of my .NET applications I'm happy to send it over so you can have a go at it!

Beach wrote:

If he does that, he can expect the source code to that bugger be all over the internet.

I thought one could compile the code... Is this not the case?

"Compile" and "program" are used very loosely (if at all) with .NET. I'll not get into the specifics again (there should be a thread on this forum on this very subject in the past). However, basically, even with fake "obstructor" programs out there, the source code is distributed with the script (they are not programs except for the unmanaged vc++.net).

So any scripts you see out there scripted in .NET, you can get the source easily (and in some cases fairly easily) just by having the "binary" in your hands.

.NET is a pure joke for a programmer/coder. But is a sheer dream for any scripter. However it is haven for anybody who need to create a quick prototype solution for just about any problem

That being said, barring unmanaged VC++, Visual Studio is now the most expensive scripting development environment in existance. Thus the most over-priced.

To respond to your post Karbon ... .NET scripts are not compiled Traditionaly, compiled programs are assemblized (new word?). MSIL is one of the most readable code out there and can quite literally be translated back into the source language.

I used to be really into translating .NET scripts back to their source. But not any more as there are literally tons of proggies out there that does this automatically.

Besides Karbon, I like your proggies

Anyways, I think this may have gotten off topic.

Shannara wrote:

Beach wrote:

If he does that, he can expect the source code to that bugger be all over the internet.

I thought one could compile the code... Is this not the case?

"Compile" and "program" are used very loosely (if at all) with .NET. I'll not get into the specifics again (there should be a thread on this forum on this very subject in the past). However, basically, even with fake "obstructor" programs out there, the source code is distributed with the script (they are not programs except for the unmanaged vc++.net).

Was "obfuscator" the word you were searching for? Code obfuscators have existed for years for TCL, Ruby, Perl, PHP and other popular interpreted languages. Oh yeah, those languages aren't for "real" programmers though, are they...

So any scripts you see out there scripted in .NET, you can get the source easily (and in some cases fairly easily) just by having the "binary" in your hands.

Do you think using the word "script" is getting you something? VB.Net is certainly not any higher level than PureBasic, so hop off your high horse and dine with the rest of the mere mortals down here..

.NET is a pure joke for a programmer/coder. But is a sheer dream for any scripter. However it is haven for anybody who need to create a quick prototype solution for just about any problem

More brilliant logic! No "real" programmer uses an interpreted language! Of course! I'm sure that will be news to all developers that use PHP, TCL, Ruby, Python, Perl and all these other languages(link).

I used to be really into translating .NET scripts back to their source. But not any more as there are literally tons of proggies out there that does this automatically.

Oh, I'm quite sure you were the 'super l33t' .NET cracker kiddie once upon a time. Congratulations!

You crack me up Shan!

Hmm, It looks like you read my post wrong. Let's see .. Programmers code, scripters script ... since .NET is a set of scripting languages ... where does that put it? As for that leet junk, thats a great funny joke, I now have my smile for the day, thanks!

Shannara wrote:Hmm, It looks like you read my post wrong. Let's see .. Programmers code, scripters script ... since .NET is a set of scripting languages ...

I don't think I read anything wrong. You seem to want to single out interpreted languages as not being "real" programming languages. Part of my post was an attempt to show you how stupid that idea is.. Interpreted or not, why would that play a part in making something a "real" language? It is all the same to the human behind it writing out the code..

If I stated the word "real", then I used the wrong word. Scripting languages are just that, scripts. Source open to the world. So of course they are not programming language, that's more or less a given. I just do not understand why you think it is stupid.

Still though, there is at least one advantage over scripts and code, one is faster ..

Shannara wrote:If I stated the word "real", then I used the wrong word. Scripting languages are just that, scripts. Source open to the world. So of course they are not programming language, that's more or less a given. I just do not understand why you think it is stupid.

WTF are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense! A programming language is "A formal language in which computer programs are
written.". We are talking about the LANGUAGE here, not the execution method. Whether or not the commands are compiled and executed on-the-fly or not makes ABSOLUTELY no difference in defining it a programming language.

mhmm..

And an update to the previously linked article:

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+walks+VB+ ... =nefd.lede

Let me take Python as an example as i use it frequently.

I wouldn't call Python a scripting language. Sure you can create small scripts to automate simple tasks, etc. but Python is so much more even if it is a semi interpreted lanuage. I say semi because the *.py (text) files can be compiled to *.pyc (Binary) files to protect code. Even thought if you have compiled these files you still need a Python interpreter to run them. So is this a scripting language? I think not. Python is interpreted but it is able to accomplish much much more than a simple scripting language.

I would call Javascript a scripting language.

well damnit every language is a scripting language.. you script what you want it to do. Question is wether its interprettet or not.

Purebasic produces real exe's, vb.net produces some interprettet type [probaly higly optimized.]. I bet that purebasic is faster and that but i must say vb.net is a dream to program in. I just quit it because i didnt like that shitty 20 mbyte package.. Purebasic is my choise, and ill stick to it.
Of course vb.net is a real programming language.

Python i would call an advanced scripting language.

my 2 cents

My point is that "scripting language" is only our slang for referring to an interpreted programming language. The only difference between interpreted languages and anything else is at *execution* time, so it's all the same to the programmer.

and i agree on your point

Kale wrote: So is this a scripting language? I think not. Python is interpreted but it is able to accomplish much much more than a simple scripting language.

Stop thinking of a "scripting language" as being a bad thing. It isn't. Scripting language is just another way to say "interpreted programming language" - and with the popularity of Perl, Python, Ruby, TCL, PHP and so on, I think the world at large has been put on notice that being interpreted doesn't really mean anything in this day and age. .NET and python share the same kind "compiled interpreted" vision but .NET calls it "managed" to get away from the negative stigma associated with interpreted languages.

I would call Javascript a scripting language.

Javascript is fairly unique - it isn't a standalone language. You can't write applications *just* using JS (at least not that I know of!). It is interpreted, but is more a superset of HTML than a standalone language..