PureBasic Forums - English

Olby wrote:Vista and 7 comes with pre-installed framework

Yes, but that doesn't make your app portable or mean it'll run on any given Vista or 7 PC. It doesn't matter that .NET comes with pre-installed frameworks, because .NET changes dramatically between versions, so a .NET app written for the latest .NET is not backwards-compatible with older versions. You need to specifically install the .NET on that PC for which the app was written. I'll take PureBasic's true standalone portable functionality, thanks.

Also, comparing .NET and PureBasic is totally unfair. A massive company with probably hundreds (or thousands?) of active developers working for Microsoft, versus a two-man team working from home? It's little wonder the speed optimizations are not as good. Let's keep it in perspective, eh?

MachineCode wrote:Also, comparing .NET and PureBasic is totally unfair. A massive company with probably hundreds (or thousands?) of active developers working for Microsoft, versus a two-man team working from home? It's little wonder the speed optimizations are not as good. Let's keep it in perspective, eh?

Then we really can't compare PureBasic against .NET in portability or the backward compatibility of it then

Can't pick and choose to compare and say it wins on one thing then throw the argument out when it doesn't on another because the other is made by a 'big' company.

Also it really doesn't matter, when you compare the speed and optimization you don't take into account the size of the company or team working on it. Maybe if you compare why then yeah but all that's being compared is the speed and optimizations. Team sizes is another matter for another thread.

moogle wrote:Then we really can't compare PureBasic against .NET in portability or the backward compatibility of it then

What do you mean? All PureBasic executables are backwards compatible with Windows, whereas .NET isn't. That's a fact.

MachineCode wrote:

moogle wrote:Then we really can't compare PureBasic against .NET in portability or the backward compatibility of it then

What do you mean? All PureBasic executables are backwards compatible with Windows, whereas .NET isn't. That's a fact.

Read the full post as to why, or if you don't understand then nevermind.

JIT compilers of today do very sophisticated optimizations, which PB does not do. There is no way PB will beat the execution speed of .NET as long as the PB devs dont focus on optimization (and thats a whole science by itself).
If you want to beat .NET you need to use inline ASM.

Thorium wrote:JIT compilers of today do very sophisticated optimizations, which PB does not do. There is no way PB will beat the execution speed of .NET as long as the PB devs dont focus on optimization (and thats a whole science by itself).
If you want to beat .NET you need to use inline ASM.

Agreed.
Also don't forget the fact that it's Just in Time compilation. .NET can optimize for the current platform specifically
and it can even optimize at runtime.

Don't forget the amount of developers that contribute to .NET, PureBasic is a great solution for small - medium sized businesses developing applications as it keeps the costs down.

PB can only get better

Sorry...

You deserve it:

Num3 wrote:Sorry...

You deserve it:

I think hot-linking has been disabled on that server the image is hosted on, which means that you can only see it if it's already in your Browser cache... Anyway, here is the link if someone is interested: Click

moogle wrote:when you compare the speed and optimization you don't take into account the size of the company or team working on it

What the? Of course you do!

It's no different to planning the food and cake for a wedding. Do you go with one little old lady down the street, who works on her own and bakes the cake and cooks her own meals for the guests; or do you book a professional catering company who have experienced chefs and cake makers? Same thing.

And some of us here prefer the food from the little old lady.

MachineCode wrote:And some of us here prefer the food from the little old lady.

Old ladies tend to decay swiftly... just a warning!

Olby wrote:

MachineCode wrote:And some of us here prefer the food from the little old lady.

Old ladies tend to decay swiftly... just a warning!

I could add your warning to the Doomsday thread -> http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =7&t=45773

Ha I know, you can do that. Recently had bad experience my self, where I wasted $60 dollars on a software product which developer quite literally abandoned a few years later, because he was a "one man show" as well. Not saying it will happen to PB but the risk is high.

Well, PureBasic is a two-man show and it still exists after more than a decade of updates, so I doubt it's going away. That's the point the Doomsday thread is trying to demonstrate.

MachineCode wrote:Well, PureBasic is a two-man show and it still exists after more than a decade of updates, so I doubt it's going away. That's the point the Doomsday thread is trying to demonstrate.

That's funny how bunch of folk gather together and say nobody is going nowhere, them dudes going to live forever and work on PB forever.. sounds like religion to me. That's why usually steer away from religious people But I guess PB is all about trust and belief.