PureBasic Forums - English

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Danilo.

He doesnt break the copyright because the DOCs
dont mention you are not allowed to make DLLs.

You can make DLLs and you can write whatever
you want, because nobody can limit what you code.
(Also, PureBasic doesnt have a license agreement)

Fred said here in the forum that he doesnt want
that to happen, but the user who bought PureBasic
has not to read this forum every day.
Thats a fact, so every user can write what he wants.

You can create DLLs in PureBasic, and you cant say
this is allowed and that is not.
The programmer can write what he has in mind, there
are no limits.
You can also write DLLs with Delphi, VB, C, C++, Pascal,
PowerBasic and _many_ other languages - WITHOUT LIMITS.
This code is copyright by me. I was thinking how
i can do something, and after some hours i wrote
this solution.

Now, do you want to censor all codes (from all people)
written with PureBasic ??
You cant limit coding in this way, sorry...

Only solution would be that Fred removes support
for DLL-creation, but as i said: you can do it with
all other languages...

I know this is a very hot topic and i respect Freds wish -
but one thing i will fight: Nobody can limit what somebody codes...

Fred also said its not allowed to sell the own copy of PureBasic.
Maybe he should read international laws a bit more, because
here in germany (and i think europe too) i´m allowed to sell
the software i bought - i just have to delete all copies of it
(and ofcourse remove it from HD). But thats another topic...

cya,
...Danilo

(registered PureBasic user)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Andre.

You can make DLLs and you can write whatever
you want, because nobody can limit what you code.
(Also, PureBasic doesnt have a license agreement)

Maybe, it should get one.

No problem with writting DLLs, which make use of PB functions. But simply making DLLs to include original PB functions in other languages isn't a nice way...


Regards
André

*** German PureBasic Support ***

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Danilo.

1.) No problem with writting DLLs, which make use of PB functions.
2.) But simply making DLLs to include original PB functions in other languages isn't a nice way...


Can you tell exactly the difference ??
Point 2 includes Point 1, because a "wrapper"
uses also PB-functions only.

Its not nice, but nobody can change it.

H.Brill was in the german forum some time ago,
and it looks like he loves IBasic and uses PB
only to make functions for IBasic.
(You know, IBasic has not enough power to do what PB can do easily)

What can you do against that, except writing him
a nice mail and talk with him about this problem ??

cya,
...Danilo
(registered PureBasic user)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fweil.

...,

So the good question could be : why one is using IBasic as a main language and PureBasic as secondary ressource ? What makes IBasic interesting ? And with some more time, maybe we all and Fred first will focus on doing things that will make PureBasic better where people find IBasic more interesting today.

Or, maybe, but that I don't know, IBasic is definitely not interesting and we have not to worry about one or two people using it with PureBasic or not.

I suppose, without any bad intention, that a coder able to make DLLs using PureBasic for making better IBasic programs is somewhere a good coder, but somewhere else a mad person because I am definitely convinced it is better doing it in PureBasic only !

Well ... this is just my opinion.



Francois Weil
14, rue Douer
F64100 Bayonne

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Kale.

we all know, i know, fred certainly knows that PB owns all other basics! i have never found anything to be as lightweight yet powerful with such good support.

--Kale

New to PureBasic and falling in Love!

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by blueb.

Users,

As a longtime 'BASIC' user, if I hear of another Basic language, I take a look to see if it is equal to or better than what I am using. (It's a guy thing)

I tried IBasic and it's easy to do the 'easy stuff', but it runs out of horsepower very quickly. And it's not a true compiler. I bought the full version to see if it improved things, but it's not even close to the power and ease of use of PureBasic.
That's not a bad thing... for some people IBasic might be just the ticket, but it's just not for me.

I'm sure I'll try another Basic (when I hear of another), but I'm sure I'll stay with PureBasic because it offers a nice combination of power and ease of use. As well as Fred, who is willing to listen to his users and has been making huge improvements in PureBasic in the last year. And I'm sure next year will be the same... after Fred gets a handle on FASM.

Kind Regards,
--blueb

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Andre.

So the good question could be : why one is using IBasic as a main language and PureBasic as secondary ressource ? What makes IBasic interesting ? And with some more time, maybe we all and Fred first will focus on doing things that will make PureBasic better where people find IBasic more interesting today.

Totally agree, Francois.

I know no one can do something against the "Wrapper" things, Danilo told. But in this way - when PB will include more and more useful functions (maybe seen in other BASICs) in the future - it should become more and more harder for other languages to compete with PureBasic...

Regards
André

*** German PureBasic Support ***

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Art Sentinel.

Hi folks,

What makes a pizza, a pizza? Is it the crispy yet tender crust? The steaming melted cheese? Sausages, pepperoni, mushrooms? How about the thick seasoned sauce--or my personal favorite, the blazing red peppers? When does the dough no longer stay just ordinary dough, and become a delectable Italian treat that melts in your mouth and arouses the hidden desire in your taste buds?

We all order our pizza differently. Not everyone would concur on what makes the perfect recipe. (Once out of shear horror I even saw someone order a raisin and anchovy pizza!) However we all agree on one thing: without the toppings the only thing we would have left is a semi-pliant baked Frisbee to throw at passers-by while we are waiting at the local bus station.

Plain dough is boring and not easily digested. If someone decides to spice up their pizza code with a heaping serving of mouth watering PureBasic, then more than all the words we could write here combined, that person has already proven that PureBasic is the irreplaceable ingredient that makes any pizza recipe an ideal one!

This is just another indisputable real-world demonstration of how powerful and valuable the PureBasic programming language is. This is a professional tool for professionals. It was never meant to be a 'do three things quick' application. It takes a little more work, a little more skill. And the rewards you will receive are exponential.

As far as IBasic being the competition? Who cares! (I used it before and it worked well for what it is meant to do.) Visual Basic is the competition also. Official reports from Microsoft themselves has indicated that they have already chosen an exact date to kill off VB and no longer support it. If a mega billion dollar company has decided they can no longer successfully compete in this field, then what hope does any other competitor to PureBasic have, right?

Now shake hands, and go eat some pizza!

Take care.

- Art Sentinel
http://www.artsentinel.net

--------------

Top Ten Reasons Not To Procrastinate:


Coming Soon...

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> Official reports from Microsoft themselves has indicated that they
> have already chosen an exact date to kill off VB and no longer
> support it. If a mega billion dollar company has decided they can
> no longer successfully compete in this field, then what hope does
> any other competitor to PureBasic have, right?

It's not that MS can't compete -- they want VB dead so that its users
have to buy C Sharp and/or VB.NET instead (two different/new products).


PB - Registered PureBasic Coder

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Fangbeast.

Originally posted by Danilo


Dont be scared by PB and FangBeast -> its a free discussion here !!

Of course he has to be afraid!! I look at my face every morning in the mirror and I am so why should he be any different ??? (ROFL)

Just one thing, I made my original comment on the basis of his post being more like a commercial than anything valid and I stand by it.
[EOF]

Fangles woz ear orright den?

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> I made my original comment on the basis of his post being more
> like a commercial than anything valid and I stand by it.

That's how I took it, too. He listed features, mentioned that the
price was low, said it may be a rival to PureBasic, and basically
drew a lot of attention to it. And the fact that he's not a regular
poster here is always suspicious...


PB - Registered PureBasic Coder

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fweil.

Well, that's strange to mix spice and price
For answering how PureBasic
In a single CPU tick
Will do a better slice.

May you find strange talking about a pizza
But if cooked in a better oven
Will surely take taste buds away to heaven
And give you the all-purpose visa.

Do not ask what it can do
And if it does worst or better
So many people can tell you
This is the best compiler.



Francois Weil
14, rue Douer
F64100 Bayonne

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by Danilo
Can you tell exactly the difference ??
Point 2 includes Point 1, because a "wrapper"
uses also PB-functions only.

I think Andre thought the problem would be if someone made a DLL which included nothing but the PB functions as they are now (effectively making a DLL out of the PB libraries). And then used it to expand/promote another basic. Fred could lose out and have done all the work for the other language.

The only thing you can do is figure out why people like IBasic, make something better and stomp it into the ground


--
It's not minimalist - I'm increasing efficiency by reducing input effort.
(Win98first ed. + SP1, PB3.40)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by H.Brill.

All my posts in the Ibasic forum are deleted from me
and i will never post such things in the forum. I am not
a 'profi programmer' (like C, ASM...) and i haven't know,
that such things are not allowed. It would be better, a
message stands in the helpfile in PB or in a readme file :

like : " It is not allowed to export any PB functions trough a DLL"

I hope, that the discusions will be ends.

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Rings.

very fair from you H.Brill .Welcome back here

Its a long way to the top if you wanna .....CodeGuru