PureBasic Forums - English

heartbone wrote:I'm feeling a serious lack of respect for, or caring about Linux users

Entirely understandable. And the principal reason that I avoid Linux. But it probably won't change soon:



But there is at least hope for the future. While I'll never be tall enough for the NBA or short enough for the kiddie pool, Linux might eventually get more market share. I think that having a whole plethora of different distros is holding it back though. If one large company would produce a version that costs around $20 and is able to convert most Linux users, that would be the springboard.

netmaestro, Where the heck did that piechart come from?
I'm confident that it presents incorrect data.
In fact I just checked it.

According to http://www.netmarketshare.com/
Desktop Operating System Market Share - April 2014
Windows® 7 was at 49.27%
Windows® XP was at 26.29%
Linux a paltry 1.58%

Granted that XP has fewer users than 8 months ago,
(Desktop Operating System Market Share - December 2014 Windows® XP was at 18.26%, still above your data's claim, and still comfortably ahead of 8+8.1's 13.52%)
but I'm positive that Linux has more users today than than 8 months ago.
1% of millions is a not insignificant tens of thousands of users.

There really isn't a significant difference between the two results, 1% vs 1.5. In all the charts I looked at, Linux was between 1 and 1.5% and often just lumped in with a group called 'other' at 2%. Bottom line is that with a showing under 2% it isn't going to motivate very many developers. Even MacOS at 9% only gets a fraction of the support and features that the Windows version gets.

What's the matter, don't want to have the distinction of taking part in the first flamewar of 2015?

I have to answer since I usually reply to a direct question, unless I have a good reason to not do it.

The answer... is no

I think this is not too much dissimilar from the various discussion about GOTOs where I had a lot to say.
Most people hates or ridicules GOTOs, so I talked about their pros, the fact they are not inherently bad and the fact I (and people a lot more smart than me, probably still rug owners) found them relevant in a language like PB and why.
If someone will say GOTOs are a godsend and that you should have at least 5 of them per line maybe I will say something against them.
I like to see both sides in everything, and since the majority is already composed by a lot of people I'm usually drawn to the other side at least in the discussion, while staying firmly in the middle ideologically. I'm a fan of gray instead of black and white, when possible.
And in jumping between them depending on the situation.

With respect luis while I can partly agree with you I do find that most of the tools in PureBasic are solid and reliable. For the most part it "just works". There are certainly some bugs but I've never come across one that couldn't be avoided with a bit of extra code that I shouldn't have had to write.

I think what I wrote in my "notes" reflect this, I just have some problems with some aspects, and so I wanted to talk about them.
It's legal right ? Doesn't matter, I'm doing it anyway.

What I find a real benefit to using PureBasic is the library set. For example, how many languages do you know that have native hash tables? or a full-featured Canvas control that you can build almost anything on? A native purifier? The IDE is advanced and solid and the 2D graphics library is robust too. Full support for alphablending and callbacks for custom filter creation make advanced image manipulation a breeze. Notice I said robust and not perfect.

I agree and again I've mentioned most of that in my "notes".

No offense luis, I just think that sometimes you spend too much time worrying about the pebbles in your sandals and not enough appreciating the rich countryside all around you.

The pebbles are part of the scenario.

netmaestro wrote: Peace

Sure

skywalk wrote: I am glad luis is so thorough. He helped me avoid several tricky bugs.

See ? I'm already happy.

netmaestro wrote:I do find that most of the tools in PureBasic are solid and reliable. For the most part it "just works". There are certainly some bugs but I've never come across one that couldn't be avoided with a bit of extra code... Notice I said robust and not perfect.

Hear, hear!

heartbone wrote:...the wrongness of releasing a compiler with known SERIOUS bugs... the latest compiler version was released with several reported deal breaking Linux bugs...

skywalk wrote:luis lists them in his New to PB? blog.

And yet no one has referenced any of those heinous bunch of breaches. Words like gigantic, shameful, serious, deal-breaking have been freely thrown around, but none backed with relevant issues.

In his blog, luis whines over several paragraphs, but references only two so-called bugs. The first is simply syntactical and ignored thusly, and the second is new. Not exactly smoking guns.

luis wrote:I like to see both sides in everything ... while staying firmly in the middle ideologically. I'm a fan of gray instead of black and white...

luis wrote:IMHO (PureBasic) is not particularly robust or the best compiler. Not by any stretch of imagination. In the realm of the indie compilers, where most BASIC dialects are available, it is probably one of the best, this due not in small part to the fact many really suck.

While you might fancy yourself objective, your words sing a totally different tune.

tonyaimer wrote:I have chosen PureBasic as the tool for the job because...

My apologies for detracting from your question, although all this talk shouldn't detract you from considering PureBasic. You wouldn't find anything better in its class. And that's a fact.

TI-994A wrote:

netmaestro wrote:I do find that most of the tools in PureBasic are solid and reliable. For the most part it "just works". There are certainly some bugs but I've never come across one that couldn't be avoided with a bit of extra code... Notice I said robust and not perfect.

Hear, hear!

heartbone wrote:...the wrongness of releasing a compiler with known SERIOUS bugs... the latest compiler version was released with several reported deal breaking Linux bugs...

skywalk wrote:luis lists them in his New to PB? blog.

And yet no one has referenced any of those heinous bunch of breaches. Words like gigantic, shameful, serious, deal-breaking have been freely thrown around, but none backed with relevant issues.

Next time do a little bit of research before posting.

PB 5.31 b2 OpenWindowedScreen() initialization errors Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:07 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=60774

I took a different tact after a couple of beta weeks with no real feedback to the submitted bug report, on the day after the final version was announced...

PB5.31 Box(), LineXY(), DrawText(), etc, don't work windowed Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:01 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=60847
No work around.!!!!
Hear, hear???
How the heck could this even considered to be a proper release?

PB 5.31, hangs when changing output from screen to window Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:59 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=60849

PB5.31 ClearScreen() does not work after OpenScreen() Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:13 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=60848

.wav files play too fast - PB 5.22 x86 x64 Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:45 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=59663
This one actually has a work around.

[all versions] certain keyboard inputs ignored Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:22 pm
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 23&t=59587

If the report was made after the beta period, then the lack of response from the developers MIGHT be understandable.

heartbone wrote:How the heck could this even considered to be a proper release?

Did you honestly expect bugs (if they're bugs in the first place) to get addressed and fixed just days before the final release? You must be kidding!

And before crying wolf, it would be better if you revisited your programming practices first. No offense, but you don't seem to be adhering to PureBasic's coding conventions. One example would be your insistence that the ClearScreen() function could indeed be called inside a drawing block, when the manual clearly states otherwise. Perhaps the bugs are yours.

That could very well explain the lack of response from the developers.

And for future reference, try not to be too quick on the trigger. From the bug-report guidelines:

freak wrote:(4) If something doesn't "seem to work", then post it in the Questions section first, unless you know it's a bug. A lot of times a bug is just lack of knowledge by a newbie of how to use a command correctly.
(11) Read the doc twice, just to be sure you didn't have missed something obvious.

Hope you got that.

TI-994A wrote:

heartbone wrote:How the heck could this even considered to be a proper release?

Did you honestly expect bugs (if they're bugs in the first place) to get addressed and fixed just days before the final release? You must be kidding!

12 days is a long time and the release date was not set in stone.

And before crying wolf, it would be better if you revisited your programming practices first. No offense, but you don't seem to be adhering to PureBasic's coding conventions. One example would be your insistence that the ClearScreen() function could indeed be called inside a drawing block, when the manual clearly states otherwise. Perhaps the bugs are yours.

Crying wolf? No offense? You must be fooling yourself.
Although unrelated to the reported bug, yes I do insist that the Linux compiler allows the function to be used inside a drawing block.

That could very well explain the lack of response from the developers.

I doubt if their analytical capabilities are that limited. Probably more to do with Linux being only about ~2% of computer users.

And for future reference, try not to be too quick on the trigger. From the bug-report guidelines:

freak wrote:(4) If something doesn't "seem to work", then post it in the Questions section first, unless you know it's a bug. A lot of times a bug is just lack of knowledge by a newbie of how to use a command correctly.
(11) Read the doc twice, just to be sure you didn't have missed something obvious.

Hope you got that.

About missing something obvious... exactly which Linux version are you running TI-994A?
And if you aren't, then take off those pink glasses and pipe down.
Instead of posting more of your disparaging comments, could you try to empathize with your fellow users who were delivered a compiler that won't do basic 2D drawing commands in a window?

heartbone wrote:12 days is a long time and the release date was not set in stone.

heartbone wrote:...yes I do insist that the Linux compiler allows the (ClearScreen) function to be used inside a drawing block.

Wasn't sure at first, but now it's clear that you're simply howling at the moon.

heartbone wrote:Drawing commands in windowed mode still work fine in compiler version 5.22.

heartbobe wrote:...try to empathize with your fellow users who were delivered a compiler that won't do basic 2D drawing commands in a window.

Not when the LTS version does the job, according to you.

Howling? You need to put that pipe down TI.

FACTS: For Linux In 5.31 they fixed the full screen environment and broke the windowed one.
In 5.2x the full screen graphics are not working correctly, but windowed works OK, so that's what I have to use.

Of course you know nothing about this, but like a true fanboy you continue to unsuccessfully try to save face.

And yet no one has referenced any of those heinous bunch of breaches. Words like gigantic, shameful, serious, deal-breaking have been freely thrown around, but none backed with relevant issues.

Because I provided some facts to counter your misinformation 99, you counter with attempts at personal attacks by demeaning my postings.
I'm calling out your replies as childish, and you should give it up so you won't look as trifling.

heartbone wrote:...you continue to unsuccessfully try to save face.

I'm calling out your replies as childish...

This from Mr.They-should-fix-bugs-that-I-found-in-12-days.

You truly amuse me.

My reaction when I stumbled into this thread:


On a more serious note.. Yes, there are certainly some issues with PB which probably stem from having such a small development team but I think that fact is also what's allowed PB to become as good as it is while still being very lightweight. I don't think any other language in this price range competes well in terms of ease of use, documentation, and built-in functionality.

Everyone is entitled express their own opinions based on their usage needs but when these threads about PB's merits devolve into vitriol and personal attacks, I think it reflects poorly on this community. Let's all remember that one of the best things about PB is this board and all the helpful people on it. Flame wars will only serve to scare away prospective or casual users.

Mods: Please lock this thread. It's getting out of hand.

netmaestro wrote:

Interesting that Mac OS X is at 9%. That's at least 100 million+ users, and it seems to be more and more every year... while Linux is stuck at 1% (~10%, or 1/10 of Mac users).

So, if you develop for (all kinds of) Windows, and additionally Mac OS X, you cover 98% of the market. Good to know, remembering the 80/20 rule...

PureBasic may be 98/2, and that's awesome. Developers using PureBasic may reach 1 billion+, or at least some hundred thousands of potential customers...

luis wrote:...I disagree with the absolute remarks about the total brilliancy of PB. IMHO is not particularly robust or the best compiler. Not by any stretch of imagination. In the realm of the indie compilers, where most BASIC dialects are available, it is probably one of the best, this due not in small part to the fact many really suck...

missile69 wrote:Flame wars will only serve to scare away prospective or casual users ... when these threads about PB's merits devolve into vitriol and personal attacks, I think it reflects poorly on this community.

Unfortunately, that's a forgone position when the vitriol and attacks are on PureBasic itself.

Again ? OK, you are really dumb, missed all the opportunities and don't want to let this leg go. Or maybe it's just dome kind of compulsory illness, but in that case you need a more strict supervision.
Now post once again to regain the "last post" status you need so bad and let's hope this ends here.
But probably not, it will require external intervention if someone dare to reply further.