PureBasic Forums - English

Blood wrote:I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

Thanks! That was a good chuckle to brighten my day a bit.

I disagree - big projects? Yup, there are people here with some very big projects.

Now - used by big businesses? No, I usually find that everything has to have a big name behind it before big businesses will buy into it, i.e. Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Fantaisie Software, etc...

Blood wrote:I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

I'm making quite a tidy sum from a PureBasic app. It's not the size of the app that matters; it's what it does.

Blood wrote:I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

I'm tired of the OOP argument. Perhaps "OOP" could be added to the Forum's word censoring list to block any future postings that mention it.

As for PB never getting used for big projects, I reckon my PB project is pretty big - approx 139000 lines and loving PB

I had a discussion with someone recently, and a statement I made sums this up perfectly.


"OOP isn't taught, it is indoctrinated"

Python is the only OOP language I have worked with, that I felt I really liked and actually had fun learning about.
However as a person who has certain learning limitations and is aware of them, I find that working with a Procedural language like PureBasic is much more to my liking. I think in a very logical manner, in very finite terms, and Procedural fits well with that.

All these 1337 kiddies who scream about how awesome OOP is, usually don't know anything else, and have never had the chance to work with something else. Or at the least were taught to view other paradigms as inferior.

That's fine by me. I ask enough dumb questions on the forum; we don't need more n00bs

Foz wrote:I disagree - big projects? Yup, there are people here with some very big projects.

Now - used by big businesses? No, I usually find that everything has to have a big name behind it before big businesses will buy into it, i.e. Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Fantaisie Software, etc...

Yes, you hit the nail squarely on the head! People are using it, not companies, not industry, not professionally. Of course you can make money developing using it, i do so myself but lack of OOP features means it will not grow beyond that.

In fact, even if PB had OOP features, it would still be a relatively unknown language. I mean look at D!

And THAT is why OOP threads end up locked. Because they degenerate into name calling and flaming.

It's his thread and we shouldn't have derailed it as far as we have. So let's stop.

Blood wrote:A Fascist is a person who doesn't accepts other opinions than his own but rather tries to force (also with violence) his opinion on everybody else.

This thread is not about suppressing opinions, or about OOP, or about being fascist; so please drop the name-calling. There's nothing wrong with a thread author asking for his thread to stay on-topic, as Zach understands. This thread is solely about laughing at posts that declare PureBasic to be dead, or dying. Please take any off-topic OOP discussion to an existing OOP thread. Thank you.

My posts were on topic, i just wasn't fully sharing the authors opinion. I agree PB has a future ahead of it, of course it does, but to say OOP doesn't matter is not correct for professional use.

As a relative newbie to PB (found it about a year or so ago) I looked at many, many languages with which I might restart my programming interest (which started what seems like many years ago with 8bit Basics and various assembly languages).

Funnily enough I looked at D

In the end I decided that what I liked the most was making the computer do things, that's where the satisfaction is for me. And all of this looking and learning new programming languages kind of got in the way of that. So, I thought what do I know well. Well, I know Basic well and I know assembler reasonably (assuming I could remember any of it, haha). Why learn something different?

But I didn't want any old Basic. I wanted something powerful. I value powerful languages that let you do what you want at both a low level (if you want to) but also at a high level too.

I didn't want a language that relied on a runtime so VB was out -also it appeared extremely bloated to me like most MS stuff (both VS and the language runtime, etc.) and I didn't like that, plus you couldn't get your hands dirty. Also, it didn't seem very fast from some tests I performed. Oh and, it was very OO biased.

I won't go through the many other Basics I looked at but it was clear that there weren't that many that gave me both powerful high-level built-in functions (and I rather like that rather than calling external libraries, etc - what's wrong with powerful built-in commands), access to assembler, no bloaty runtimes, fast code, and game-oriented, hardware accelerated support. The latter was very important.

And one other thing...ever since I learned about OO in school, it didn't resonate with me. Over the years I've tried time and again to understand its benefits but can't. Either it's me (and I'm happy to believe that) or there's something rather sinister about it's proliferation around the software world Sorry, I don't want to promote any more bad feeling.

What I'm trying to say is that I didn't want an OO language, I wanted a procedural, modern language and the other one that fit the bill was PureBasic. I love it. It does what it does very well and I can see no reason why, with so many other OO choices (Basics included), PB needs to be one. If it was OO, I would have moved on.

Keep up the good work guys. Keep PB doing what PB does best!

Blood wrote:but to say OOP doesn't matter is not correct for professional use.

Nobody is forcing you to use PureBasic. I am sure there are many OOP languages where you would be very happy.

Blood wrote:but to say OOP doesn't matter is not correct for professional use.

And I use it for professional use. Granted it's a one man effort (namely me) but I do have clients who are using PB written software.

I'm going to add a new prediction quote, with a PB Doomsday topic. At the very least, it will stimulate a few discussions.

Seeing how Win8 is going to be working on ARM, I'd take that to mean MS is going to increase their reliance upon a .NET-style framework...basically, the ms version of Java.

Based on that, and also looking at the direction of the sales curves of ARM vs. x86, I'd say that if PB sticks to their guns to never supports ARM, then if they don't at least port it to the new flavor of .NET, PB may die at a rate proportional to the growth of the adoption rate of Win8+ o/s's.

...hmmm....

Of course, I could be all wrong. But I'd bet most PB users use Windows, just based on the market share. That means the current PB is dependent upon Windows remaining primarily x86. You never know...Apple switched cold turkey. MS is starting a switch right now...