http://www.purebasic.com
https://www.purebasic.fr/english/
I think this posture can be open to interpretation.Olby wrote:This is how I feel about the original PB IDE:
I agree with that quality comment wholeheartedly.USCode wrote:It doesn't NEED a cure IMHO, I like it just the way it is. Consistent, straightforward, uncluttered and intuitive, just like the language itself and keeping with the core principles of PB. I don't think it would be that way if it was designed by committee. Keeping it elegantly simple but still functional is harder than just adding every feature someone requests. I personally never cared for the IDEs that try to be everything to everyone. Some of them have a zillion flying listboxes, trees, dropdowns, buttons and editors cluttered all over the place.
One of the goals of Visual Studio 2012 was to reduce clutter: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj618297.aspx
Please just keep doing what you are doing PB guys.
Now that you mention it... and I always thought that the PB logo was the letter Z.luis wrote:I think this posture can be open to interpretation.Olby wrote:This is how I feel about the original PB IDE:
No. I can hear the complains from here: "Why PB needs 100 Mb just to compile a program ? Why JAVA runtime is needed for the IDE ?". Also we want to have a big program written in PB, to apply the "eat you own dogfood" (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/04/16.html) paradigm.Kruno wrote:Was there any point during the development of the PB IDE you guys wanted to use something like the Eclipse platform?
Oh my...Kruno wrote:Was there any point during the development of the PB IDE you guys wanted to use something like the Eclipse platform?
