PureBasic Forums - English

Num3 wrote:Just my 1 euro cent...

Compiler Option -> Bloat Exe

This would really make the diference! No one would argue with the power of purebasic if your executable is at least 1.2 Mb !!!

Hmmmm...who wrote this...
viewtopic.php?t=9679&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight=

You can easely write a lib with one command to bloat the exe

GedB wrote:What I wouldn't want to see is for Purebasic to make ActiveX central in the way you describe.

The whole design of Activex leads to bloat.

I don't want it to be central, I just want it to be possible :)

and no, the design of ActiveX does not lead to bloat - the design of MFC is what leads to bloat - an ActiveX component can be just as compact and effective as any other DLL or executable, but of course not if you use MFC, since that's "where the bloat's at" ;)

freak wrote:I think it is kind of funny, that everytime somebody wants a new feature, it
becomes the *one single thing, that makes PB superior or even to other languages*

Everybody has his wishes, but not all will be implemented, and certainly not all at once.

Timo

true that - however, most people wish for various library functions, more 3D functions most commonly, physics etc. ... very few people wish for actual language extensions, and very little gets implemented. If more effort was put into growing the language itself, there would be more features to enable us PB programmers to build our own library functions.

I would like to see some kind of *easy* support for COM and ActiveX in PureBasic. Now that I'm doing more with PB I'm running into a lot of problems trying to use 3rd party components that are COM/ActiveX (it seems hardly anyone writes straight up DLLs anymore).. I still haven't been able to wrap my head around Interfaces, but I'm trying

I know that ActiveX/COM sucks and I know it *could* bloat, but I have faith in the great powers of Fred and the team that they'll come through for us in the end!