PureBasic Forums - English

ostapas wrote: 1. Amateurish, esoteric language.

Thats not true and they know it. After this there is no point in discussing anymore because the discussion is not serious.

ostapas wrote: 2. No real OOP.
3. Small community and number of libraries.
4. Foggy future of it.

This is all true.

OOP isnt something which is required for any problem. It's a different way of programing which has is pros and cons. For me personaly OOP is a minus for a language. I am allways struggling with OOP constructs. Not because i dont get how OOP works, but because it tends to produce hard to track bugs, which i dont encounter in imperative languages. OOP was the main point for me to move to PureBasic, because i just don't like OOP.

The best argument for PB is the worst property of C++.
C++ is unnecessary complicated and has a very messy syntax. You get used to it, so if you only use C++ you will not see this. But if you use any Basic language it should be very apparent to you.
Very small mistakes can lead to very different outcomes you dont get with languages with clearer syntaxes like PB.
Remember when Apple authenticated everything? That was a very small syntactical mistake by the coder.

Realy the only things going for C++ is the amount of librarys, the big community and that there is a compiler for about every plattform. Technicaly it's not a modern language. There are languages which are much better at many tasks than C++. A serious coder should have a set of languages and should not stick to only one.

Awesome programmers write awesome code.
Cool programmers write cool code.
Good programmers write good code.
Ugly programmers write ugly code.
Bad programmers write bad code.
Shitty programmers write shitty code.
Regardless of the language...

fsw wrote:Awesome programmers write awesome code.
Cool programmers write cool code.
Good programmers write good code.
Ugly programmers write ugly code.
Bad programmers write bad code.
Shitty programmers write shitty code.
Regardless of the language...

PureBasic programmers write pure code.

TI-994A wrote:

fsw wrote:Awesome programmers write awesome code.
Cool programmers write cool code.
Good programmers write good code.
Ugly programmers write ugly code.
Bad programmers write bad code.
Shitty programmers write shitty code.
Regardless of the language...

PureBasic programmers write pure code.

STRIKE !

TI-994A wrote:

fsw wrote:Awesome programmers write awesome code.
Cool programmers write cool code.
Good programmers write good code.
Ugly programmers write ugly code.
Bad programmers write bad code.
Shitty programmers write shitty code.
Regardless of the language...

PureBasic programmers write pure code.

And then Pure would be a more relevant name

Dude wrote:The language is irrelevant, because the end result is all that matters. An egg boiled by you is no different to an egg boiled by Jamie Oliver. Your pot (PureBasic) does the same job as Jamie's (C++). Just because Jamie has a flashier pot and a nice OOP stove to boil it on, doesn't make the egg taste better.

I thoroughly agree. There are only two settings for a binary switch.

Danilo wrote:Just compare plain language features, without any libraries at all.
There are too many big libs available for C++, so it's more fair to concentrate
on the language features itself...

That is an excellent observation.

said wrote:

TI-994A wrote:

fsw wrote:Awesome programmers write awesome code.
Cool programmers write cool code.
Good programmers write good code.
Ugly programmers write ugly code.
Bad programmers write bad code.
Shitty programmers write shitty code.
Regardless of the language...

PureBasic programmers write pure code.

And then Pure would be a more relevant name

You beat me to pointing out that inconsistency.
PureBasic programmers write PureBasic code. is the logical extension.

What BASIC and C++ both do is to allow a programmer to coordinate his switch flipping schemes.
It is important to consider ostapas, that such debates are much more about how the programmers are accustomed to thinking, than about effective switch flipping.

Julian wrote:If they have ingrained opinions about all other languages compared to C++ then you will be banging your head against a brick wall.

Challenge them to write a "Hello World" windowed application in Window/Linux/OSX in C++ while you do the same in PB and see who gets there first.

This is a stacked challenge and would prove nothing. You have designed it so PB wins. Even html would win in this challenge vs. C++.
OP, the debate is not sensible. A dirt bike vs. an F1 racer? Winning depends on the track.

sancho2 wrote:

Julian wrote:Challenge them to write a "Hello World" windowed application in Window/Linux/OSX in C++ while you do the same in PB and see who gets there first.

This is a stacked challenge and would prove nothing. You have designed it so PB wins. Even html would win in this challenge vs. C++ ... the debate is not sensible. A dirt bike vs. an F1 racer? Winning depends on the track.

Hi sancho. This is a highly inaccurate point, and I beg to differ.

Firstly, your dirt bike - F1 racer analogy is way off. Against any high-performance, high-level language out there today, they'll have a close race against PureBasic, on any front.

Secondly, HTML is not a native desktop programming language, but only a browser-based interpreted mark-up language - apples and oranges.

On the other hand, both PureBasic and C/C++ are native desktop programming languages that compile their codes to native OS-executable binaries - same genre of tools, level playing field.

So, as far as development speed is concerned, Julian's proposal is a fair and valid one. And we all know that PureBasic will emerge tops in such a challenge.

It'll prove that PureBasic is not only an effective development tool, but also a rapid one.

How's that a stacked challenge?

My dirt bike analogy is spot on although easily misconstrued to mean speed alone. As has already been stated in this thread each language has its own niche (or strengths might be a better term). What gets you to the goal easiest is what is best.

TI-994A wrote: How's that a stacked challenge?

Its a stacked challenge because there is 0 demand for a windowed hello world program. Nor is it either languages main use. So its like standing at the bottom of a hill with your dirt bike and saying to the f1 driver, "race you to the top". And then stating that the dirt bike is better because it got to the top or the f1 car sucks because it lost
If you want a fair(er) fight then purport a challenge that is more real world. In the case of a large project, for example invoicing system, dbase, gaming, PB will lose to C++. If cross-platform is the challenge then PB stands a chance (although I thought C++ was cross-platform - I don't really know).
For me, programming is a hobby (addiction). I like PB and have been mucking with it for quite a while (although new to the forums). I wonder if I am most enjoying overcoming the overt limitations (and extra limits imposed on the trial version). I came across a forum thread earlier this evening similar to this one, and someone posted that PB made C easier to understand. I had been thinking these last couple of months that PB has helped me to better understand pointers ergo C.
I have tried C++ at least 3 times and each time I have succumbed to its enormous learning curve and complexity. And I am going to try a 4th time soon thanks to what I have learned from PB.
What language is the PB compiler written in?

[offtopic]
C# however is insanely easy to get into, and quickly rewards if needs are solely windows desktop. Everything just seems to be there. Mastering it is, well its beyond me.[/offtopic]

edit:
I will agree however that PB is a world class hello world app language. [java script shut off so please assume I inserted a winking smiley]

sancho2 wrote:My dirt bike analogy is spot on although easily misconstrued to mean speed alone.

Hello again sancho. The contention that I hold with that analogy stems not from speed, but from overall performance. You seem to think that applications developed in C/C++ far outperform those developed in PureBasic. That's just not the case. Granted, each major language would have its own strengths, but the results would not vary by any great degree.

On this basis, the cross-platform RAD aspect of PureBasic makes it a forerunner.

sancho2 wrote:...its like standing at the bottom of a hill with your dirt bike and saying to the f1 driver, "race you to the top". And then stating that the dirt bike is better because it got to the top or the f1 car sucks because it lost...

The dirt bike and the F1 racer are in no way analogous to PureBasic and C/C++. A more apt analogy would be to compare a Learjet with a 747. The Learjet needs just one pilot, less pre-flight formalities, shorter runaways, and takes off faster and easier. But once at cruising altitudes, the 747 might have a slight speed advantage - sometimes.

sancho2 wrote:What gets you to the goal easiest is what is best ... If you want a fair(er) fight then purport a challenge that is more real world. In the case of a large project, for example invoicing system, dbase, gaming, PB will lose to C++.

Totally untrue. Even such projects would be faster and easier to develop with PureBasic, producing not only comparable executables, but cross-platform ones at that. That's simply unbeatable.

Without a host of third-party libraries, C/C++ wouldn't be able to do half the things PureBasic is able to - out of the box. And most of those libraries aren't even cross-platform; so that increases development time, not to mention the learning curve to implement all those diverse libraries. This would also mean maintaining, debugging, and versioning separate source codes for each platform.

And finally, after all that hard work, and only if it is possible, the code has to be meticulously linked and optimised to avoid the bloat from using all those libraries; otherwise, the resultant executables might even be bigger and slower.

Not a trivial task, I assure you. But PureBasic makes it seem so easy.

sancho2 wrote:...PB is a world class hello world app language.

That's probably the most wrong statement you've made so far.

TI-994A wrote:On this basis, the cross-platform RAD aspect of PureBasic makes it a forerunner.

Unfortunately PB has a very limited choice of targets, compared to C++ and FreePascal. Don't forget that.

See Write once, compile anywhere (WOCA) philosophy.

- FreePascal.org

Free Pascal is a 32, 64 and 16 bit professional Pascal compiler.

It can target multiple processor architectures: Intel x86, AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, and ARM.

Supported operating systems include Linux, FreeBSD, Haiku, Mac OS X/iOS/Darwin, DOS, Win32, Win64, WinCE, OS/2, MorphOS, Nintendo GBA, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo Wii.
Additionally, JVM, MIPS (big and little endian variants), i8086 and Motorola 68k architecture targets are available in the development versions.

That also includes Raspberry Pi and Android. Better see Wikipedia - FreePascal - Targets.

The cross-platform RAD IDE for it is Lazarus, see Lazarus-IDE.org

- Overview of Free Pascal and Lazarus
- FreePascal Documentation
- Lazarus Documentation
- FreePascal / Lazarus Documentation in .CHM format

Danilo wrote:PB has a very limited choice of targets, compared to C++ and FreePascal.

Hello Danilo. Of course that's true, but totally beside the point of this discussion.

The topic at hand is the defence of PureBasic; and accordingly, the arguments simply prove that PureBasic is the best at what it does.

It's a lightweight, easy-to-use RAD tool that produces very small, very fast, standalone executables on the three platforms that it supports - and it does this right out of the box.

To address your point on broader multi-platform support, there are simply no decent integrated development tools available today that could satisfactorily target multiple web, desktop, and mobile platforms.

For example, as cited earlier, C/C++ can be used for development on virtually any platform; but there are currently no integrated development tools that consolidate them for common-source compilation. Libraries for each platform implement differently, and those that attempt to be universal would simply end up with less than optimum results. Case in point: interface builders.

Even in the case of Free Pascal, they promise the moon, but deliver only a facsimile of it. In their zeal to conquer the platforms, they end up bundling the farm with every compiled executable. Bloat seems to be an inherent problem for them, resulting in megabyte-sized executables - even after best-effort optimisations.

Free Pascal Wiki wrote:Expected binary sizes for empty applications on well known frameworks: Lazarus LCL: +/- 1000kb

Free Pascal Wiki wrote:Lazarus apps on Windows are about 500k, but quickly grow to 1.5 MB as more and more of the Lazarus widgets are used. Lazarus apps binaries can become 100MB+ when debug info is linked in.

No contest with PureBasic.

Currently, these so-called multi-platform tools are nothing more than bundled compromises. While the concept is totally doable, it simply has not been done.

Which is why PureBasic is so wonderful.

Amateurish, esoteric language.

Opinion only, so not valid.

No real OOP.

Personal choice of coding style, so not valid. It's like saying Word is better than Notepad to edit a batch file.

Small community and number of libraries.

If PureBasic does all you need, then not valid as you don't need lots of libraries or a big community.

Foggy future of it.

Well, it's been around longer than Visual Basic 6, which was made by Microsoft. So, not valid either.

Conclusion: they really have no argument when you think about it. Ask them if they like declaring dependencies and constants, and typing curly braces eveywhere in their code. Here at PureBasic, we certainly don't miss it. And then ask if their Windows sources can run on Mac and Linux without any further work.

sancho2 wrote:

Julian wrote:If they have ingrained opinions about all other languages compared to C++ then you will be banging your head against a brick wall.

Challenge them to write a "Hello World" windowed application in Window/Linux/OSX in C++ while you do the same in PB and see who gets there first.

This is a stacked challenge and would prove nothing. You have designed it so PB wins. Even html would win in this challenge vs. C++.
OP, the debate is not sensible. A dirt bike vs. an F1 racer? Winning depends on the track.

That is the point of the challenge, to show how silly people can be at comparing one language to another, or saying one it better than another.

Much like C++ and Purebasic, each tool is suited to the person/project/timescale etc, one is not "better" than the other.

Person 1: My shovel is better than your excavator. I can dig any size hole with my shovel, I can even use it to bang in a nail.
Person 2: You could use a shovel to dig a swimming pool, but it would be quicker to use an excavator.

Julian wrote:You could use a shovel to dig a swimming pool, but it would be quicker to use an excavator.

Yes, but that's only valid if time is an issue.