Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:29 am
by thefool
PB wrote:> If Fred says a clear no, then they should accept it

He has. That's why we're so frustrated -- because some people WON'T accept
no and keep asking for it. That's the entire basis for this OOP argument in the
forums. Some people just can't take no for an answer. It's very childish.

Freak is an official PureBasic team member too -- second in charge. He has
also stated OOP is not happening. So the two lead developers of PureBasic
have said no. OOP fans need to accept this, get over it, and stop asking.
Freak is a german.. :P
Joking. He just stated it too slow.

But you have to agree that kale was a bit rough..

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:34 am
by hellhound66
Can you all please polish your decadence somewhere else. I said "Good Bye, Community", that doesn't mean I died. Open a new thread for this and don't dance on my corpse.

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:43 am
by thefool
hellhound66 wrote:Can you all please polish your decadence somewhere else. I said "Good Bye, Community", that doesn't mean I died. Open a new thread for this and don't dance on my corpse.
Eventually i was saying good things about you :)

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:45 am
by hellhound66
Thank you :D I meant "the others" ^_^

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:57 am
by rsts
Welcome back. We missed you :)

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:09 am
by Brice Manuel
PB wrote: He has. That's why we're so frustrated -- because some people WON'T accept
no and keep asking for it. That's the entire basis for this OOP argument in the
forums. Some people just can't take no for an answer. It's very childish.
I agree 100%, even my six-year old doesn't act like that.

I particularly like the points the kids moaning for OOP have made:

* Only beginners don't use OOP *
* The generated code of PB is relatively slow *
* I don't think the compiler isn't well programmed *

People say crap like that, then think OOP is going to solve all their problems :lol:

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:12 am
by freak
Whats wrong these days ? Is it the moon or something? :)

Seriously, where is the connection between this and the OOP thread !?
What reason is there to continue the bashing here !?
I really dislike the attitude some people are displaying here.

Just because some of you happened to agree with something Fred said on one subject
does not give you the right to think you can go off on other people like this.
None of us (PB team) said no to this request, what makes you think we actually disagree?
This is the feature request forum, its purpose is to request features.
If one of you disagrees with a certain request, voice your opinion in a polite manner,
there is no place for people trying to protect the status quo at all cost.

@hellhound66 (and also to the rest of you):
The problem i was having with this is not about the request itself. It is about the bumping.
If you would have politely asked for this to be brought back into discussion and considered by us,
maybe even elaborating a bit, why it is important to you, everybody would have understood that,
and there would have been no problem at all.

Just writing a *bump* like message with no real content, and especially on many topics
at once is something i find rude, and i hope you can understand why.
I am a real person, and if people want me to do something for them (implement a feature),
i want to be asked nicely, thats all. I think you would feel the same if somebody
wants you to do something for them, and all you get is a "bumb on the side" (figurativly spoken)
It kind of makes you feel that the other one only cares about what he wants
from you and doesn't care a bit about you otherwise.
So all i want is to be asked in a polite way. I think i am entitled to that,
since you (or anyone else requesting something here) are the one with the request, not me.
I hope you can understand that.

@all:
Long story short:
All of you just take a deep breath, and think about the fact that there is a real person on the other side.
A person that is entited to their own opinion and is allowed to tell it, just like you are.
Show that you are intelligent people able to discuss a topic in a polite way and we will get along well.
This goes for those requesting a feature, but also for everyone else who has an opinion to voice on the subject.

At the end, a word about the actual feature requested here:

I actually agree that this would be a useful feature for building good macros,
and have even suggested the same to Fred quite a while ago (iirc).
The fact is though is that we are pretty much decided on what will be done
in the 4.1 release, and we have not planned any further yet (we are still working on 4.0/mac and linux after all).
So i cannot really give you a "yes" or "no" on this one at this point.

There is a workaround i used a lot in my COM framework, something like this:

Code: Select all

Macro Test(__TEST=__UNDEFINED__)
    CompilerIf Defined(__TEST, #PB_Variable) = 0
    Debug "TEST"
    CompilerEndIf
EndMacro

Define *Event

Test()  ;debug output "TEST"
Test(*Event) ; no debug output
The downside is that *Event must be defined before the macro use (which usually is the case. If EnableExplicit is used, it is always the case),
and of course, you have to be sure a variable "__UNDEFINED__" is never used, but thats simple.
It is not a perfect solution, but it can do the trick in many places (i used it with constants a lot in my framework)

Arg, another long post today. This is getting old... :roll:

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:19 am
by freak
Brice Manuel wrote:
PB wrote: [...]
I agree 100%, even my six-year old doesn't act like that.

I particularly like the points the kids moaning for OOP have made:

* Only beginners don't use OOP *
* The generated code of PB is relatively slow *
* I don't think the compiler isn't well programmed *

People say crap like that, then think OOP is going to solve all their problems :lol:
Brice Manuel:
In my humble opinion, you are one of the worst examples of childish behaviour these days.
I would apprechiate it if you would just keep silent in topics like this if posts like this one is all we get from you.

@thefool:
thefool wrote:Freak is a german.. :P
I know, i am working on that... :D
You think denmark would take me !? :P

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:54 pm
by Brice Manuel
freak wrote:Brice Manuel:
In my humble opinion, you are one of the worst examples of childish behaviour these days.
I would apprechiate it if you would just keep silent in topics like this if posts like this one is all we get from you.
Sorry kiddo, but those were NOT my words you quoted. I was directly quoting your little buddies. Perhaps you should do something about the little brats who have popped up in the past few days who are flaming everybody about OOP and giving us crap about it because Fred said no.

Myself, PB and Kale have no control over what Fred says or the decisions that he makes and should not be flamed because of it.

Want me gone? Put your money where your mouth is and refund me the purchase price of PB.

Until that happens, I have been a PB user for a LONG time and will continue to be. Unlike the whiners, I actually use it and I actually like it.

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:38 am
by freak
There are always two sides that keep a flamewar going. You are one of them,
so do not blame others for not stopping when you yourself cannot keep your mouth shut.

Fred an I can express our opinions ourselves. We do not need you for that, thank you.

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:39 am
by Brice Manuel
So in this sense it should not be decided by its users, but instead by the market demand which drives the supply (the basic free enterprise system).
This brings back the serious question how much of a demand is there for indie OOP languages when the best OOP languages the industry has to offer are now free? MS and Borland have made it all but impossible for indie languages to compete in the market anymore.

Product loyalty has now become one of the leading reasons indie languages are still alive. Will they still be alive if they lose their uniqueness that makes them so special and they become OOP clones of the "big boys"?
Maybe this is what people are expecting and the reason why OOP keeps coming up, people paid for it and they are expecting a normal supply/demand market response like they are used to and expect when they pay for a product.
Depends on your mind-set. When I bought PB, all I ever expected was bug fixes and hopefully compatibility fixes for new versions of Windows. In this day and age, free updates and especially free upgrades are an increasing rarity. Personally, I do expect free updates, but I don't expect free upgrades.

Personally, I don't necessarily expect a language to be implementing new features (although it would be nice). I would prefer existing features work correctly and are bug-free before new ones are implemented. PB does a pretty good job on the compatibility and stability side of things. It is not as good as some, but it is much better than most when it comes to stability and compatibility.

The problem with the recent OOP requests wasn't that people were asking for OOP. It is how they were asking for it. They didn't just ask for a feature, the came and insulted the entire userbase of PB by saying everybody is beginners for not using OOP, and a plethora of other things like PB is slow and the compiler isn't done right. Asking for OOP didn't make anybody mad, its their arrogant and insulting attitudes that got people riled.

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:38 am
by Kaeru Gaman
did I miss something?
I thought this topic was entiteled "enhanced macro functions".....