PureBasic Forums - English

I don't know why i won't be able to fix the few bugs which plague the linux version of PB, we already fixed several thousand during all PB lifetime. That said, good luck with your project !

Fred wrote:I don't know why i won't be able to fix the few bugs which plague the linux version of PB, we already fixed several thousand during all PB lifetime. That said, good luck with your project !

It is possible to know which bug you are not able able to squash-out ? Maybe some of hardcore PB user can help to find alternate solutions instead of working on your side alone.

Best regards
Guimauve

Guimauve wrote:

Fred wrote:I don't know why i won't be able to fix the few bugs which plague the linux version of PB, we already fixed several thousand during all PB lifetime.

It is possible to know which bug you are not able able to squash-out ?

To me it sounds more like that there are no bugs that Fred isn't able to fix.

Brujah wrote:Computers with more than 4 gig do not work at all with the 64 bit version of the compiler.

Huh? I couldn't quite understand this, what does it mean?

Sorry to hear you going. But it seems like you really had no choice, and I completely understand that.
I don't think its taking a swipe, so much as it is giving relevant developer feedback about what folks consider to be their current needs.

If you can't write programs that work on linux, then switching to a tool that will allow you to do that is obviously the best choice.
I hope to perhaps, one day, pick up the C/C++ mantel myself.. Perhaps put these Programming books my parents wasted money on all those years ago, to good use.

I certainly see PB as a means of achieving that goal, and whatever the case I hope its cross-platform ability improves in time. Just remember to keep PB in mind for projects you CAN realistically use it for!

Shield wrote:Also, eight eyes see more than just two.

PB would be unusable due to the bugs if that were to ever happen. The old adage "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies to programming languages, too.

Kuron wrote:

Shield wrote:Also, eight eyes see more than just two.

PB would be unusable due to the bugs if that were to ever happen. The old adage "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies to programming languages, too.

Instead of too many cooks, think some hunters to catch food, some waiters to serve it, some dish washers to clean up, etc.
It is unrealistic to expect Fred & freak to do it all in record time.

An other solution can be using Raydium for game development

It's programmed in Procedural C, I think a simple ImportC/EndImport will do the job but I never try it my self. But I think it should worth a try

Best regards.
Guimauve

skywalk wrote:It is unrealistic to expect Fred & freak to do it all in record time.

I agree, but I am very confident that things on the Linux side will change for the better once April 1st hits.


I don't necessarily agree with the decision Brujah has made -- I really wish he would have given it until June to give Fred a chance to catch up on things once he is back in full capacity. But, I do understand his frustration and I know he feels he is doing what is in the best interest of his game. I just wish he would wait a couple of more months. A couple more months of waiting won't hurt and it will take at least that long to evaluate game engines for use with C++.

Kuron wrote:A couple more months of waiting won't hurt and it will take at least that long to evaluate game engines for use with C++.

Are SDL and OGRE not good?


Re: Mouse still not working in fullscreen

Kuron wrote:

Brujah wrote:So basically we try to make the game work by jumping over compiler bugs.

Wondering how I could release new versions of my game now?

It might be time to look for a new compiler.

Danilo wrote:

Kuron wrote:A couple more months of waiting won't hurt and it will take at least that long to evaluate game engines for use with C++.

Are SDL and OGRE not good?

Why are you asking me? You would have to ask Brujah what would meet his needs.

Personally, OGRE would not be my choice for a "2D" game.

Danilo wrote:Re: Mouse still not working in fullscreen

Kuron wrote:

Brujah wrote:So basically we try to make the game work by jumping over compiler bugs.

Wondering how I could release new versions of my game now?

It might be time to look for a new compiler.

That post was made three weeks before Fred made this announcement. Obviously, the situation has changed since my old post and Fred has affirmed in this thread, he intends to get the Linux issues fixed.

Kuron wrote:That post was made three weeks before Fred made this announcement. Obviously, the situation has changed since my old post and Fred has affirmed in this thread, he intends to get the Linux issues fixed.

Being a man of action, it may be Brujah does not change his opinion every few weeks.
He wants to get something done, so I understand his personal decision after your hint.

He wants to use a stable and optimizing C++ compiler on linux (GCC or Intel C++) and some Libs like SDL. No waiting.
Unfortunately the announcement is no guarantee that every bug in PureBasic gets fixed, no new bugs are introduced,
or some of the 10 years old feature requests get implemented. No guarantee, just hope and believe. Some people give up
their hope after many years...

auser is the next candidate:

auser wrote:This is really frustrating (again). Isn't it a basic-requirement to know which item was double-clicked?
What should I do with a gadget that I can't check afterwards (no I don't know what happend just something happened)?
What should I do with a language that could compile something on different platforms (linux, windows) when it get stuck
already at such basics?
Sometimes I get the feeling almost nobody is using PB seriously.
At least the current behaviour does not make sense at all.

I tell you the simple reason all those people leave:
They are here for years, they are very happy and they give their heart to PB. They hope it will get better
and they make one feature request after another... for years.
But some day they realize that waiting isn't the solution. Wait 5 years or 10 years... there are still many
basic things missing. That's what the users say for years and they make suggestions, a.k.a. feature requests.
They want to help because they hope and believe.

On the other side, the development team thinks everything is fine. Just a few bugs they can fix easily.
I don't understand why. I made also many suggestions and feature requests over the last 10 years.
Simple basic things like "changing/getting the text selection for StringGadget" that are required in a
cross-platform GUI.
auser wants more cross-platform gadget events and most users here will agree, but the developers of PB
ignore it or they do not understand the requirements of its users.
How many guys have requested a line joining _
operator over the years? Is it non-sense? No, it's not and so many other products have it, it's a standard
and very useful thing. It is a little simple thing that would make so much better.

I'm sure you know the 80/20 rule: Implement the top 20% user requests that make sense
and 80% of your customers will be satisfied and happy.

It's just sad, so very sad. You love PB when you start, but after some years many guys here
have a love-hate relationship with PB and they don't use it nor take it seriously anymore.
They make so many good suggestions to improve the product they love... and the developers have
either totally different priorities or it is really just a lack of manpower because the company, the team
and the product does not (want to) grow like it could.
It is a teenager now, still 20 years to grow to become mature (at the pace of the last 10 years).

PB is better than some alternatives and worse than other alternatives. PB is still here, although many competing indie languages have come and gone in the eight+ years I have been using PB.

The love-hate relationship really holds true. I have been on both sides of that fence and I am straddling it right now. I am willing to wait a few months to see if the Linux issues will get solved. Fred seems to have found a renewed commitment to PureBasic.

Those wanting to use PB for Linux or OS X are in a slightly different position than the Windows users. There are still a lot of BASICs out there for Windows. But, BASICs are few and far between for Linux and OS X. Some people don't want to (or are incapable of) making the jump to C/C++ if a BASIC isn't meeting their needs.

Brujah wrote:ding!

Gratz! You've just leveled up!

Danilo wrote:It's a good sign for your personal career and future. Good luck and welcome to the new world of boundless possibilities!

Exactly!

swan wrote:Surely no one uses just one language for every project - do they ?

People who use BASIC do tend to try and use it for absolutely everything they do, even here. The amount of times i've seen posts asking how to do something difficult in PB when it would be really simple for another language (web programming or iphone apps for example).

Seriously though, ditching a language for another more flexible choice is great! It shows you have matured above the language and you are now choosing the right tools for the job. This is nothing against PB but it's not the greatest tool for all scenarios. Sometimes you leave the big languages because a particular task is easy in PB. It's horses for courses!

Danilo wrote:Are SDL and OGRE not good?

SDL is good but OGRE or the OGRE wrap PureBasic use along physics systems is not good as is for my needs. It's unbelievable that we can't access some important data about Entity such as transformation matrix used to relocate them each frame. For example just to align a probe box for Steering Behavior, using the current 3D system, you will have to reprogram the entire Matrix calculation system and recompute a transformation matrix before to align the Probe Box. PureBasic for mathematics calculation is very fast but computing the same transformation matrix twice at each frame slow down the entire game loop whatever as fast as your code can be. Moreover, we have to reprogram the entire collision system because once again the data can't be accessed in real time.

This is due only to the fact that libraries in PureBasic as to be simple. OK I agree, but in my point of view the simplicity level as to be raised a little bit to be usable.

Best regards
Guimauve