PureBasic Forums - English

I bet he saw it but can't give any specific date yet...

PB wrote:There's nothing stopping anyone from registering again if they want to
show their appreciation. That's a good way to "donate" if somebody
feels they want to.

I sent a little extra $$ to Fred recently because I appreciated his increasing attention to Linux users.
Joe

i said it before, but i *will* buy an additional license once some features are in there... or should i buy it first to have that guaranteed?

Christian, this thread might be of interest to you:
viewtopic.php?t=11270&highlight=

Once you get cross-platform compiles (which everyone agrees would be a good thing), you can then look at adding handheld Palm and PocketPC platforms (both have very limitted coding language options).

Being a huge fan of the Amiga (I still own 3), I have to say that Fred should not concentrate too much on continuing the Amiga version of PB. It is reasonably capable as it is at version 2.90 and there are few people using amigas right now. Fred would be better served (as would we) concentrating on Windows, Linux and MacOSX. Those three platforms constitute about 99.8% of the total PC market (.2% goes to the fringe users out there who are still using their Commodore 64s to do their taxes on )

Fred, stick with the 'big three' and you'll be alright!

Russell

Adding to Ivory's point, it would also be cool if the inline asm worked on all platforms (by treating the Fasm syntax as generic, which would be converted to the host PC's native code - This would mostly be useful to Mac users since the vast majority of Linux PCs use x86 compatible CPUs).

So, a generic asm syntax that gets converted to PPC, Sparc, Risc or whatever. As far as I know, this would be the first and only language that does it.

(Yes, I know there are big-endian and little-endian differences, as well as number and type of registers, segmentation versus non-segmentation issues, etc but I'm confident it could be done.)

Russell

Yeah, sadly I have to agree with Amiga5K there.
Focusing on the big three is best, if/when the Amiga kickas back up to where it is competitive,
THEN I guess updating the feature set of the Amiga is worth it.
But as flakey as the AmigaOS efforts has been over the years,
I got no clue how the AmiaOS will proceed.
(man is the life of AmigaOS complicated, it's like a darn soap series)

Yeah, I love the Amiga and it's ahead-of-its-time architecture/philosophy, but it's time to admit defeat and move on...

Yes, there are a number of 'just around the corner' initiatives, but they are always 'just around the corner'.

I think Amiga's best chance of making any kind of come back would be to go open source like Linux... <dodges fruit thrown at him>. Of course, then Amiga would not exist as a company any more. It would mean, also, pretty much a complete rewrite to be more generic (Amigas are VERY hardware specific now).

Oh well.

Russell

Adding Palm and Pockter PC support would be cool but I am more excited about the PureBasic's engine being upgraded to the newest version of Ogre along with the other improvements planned for ver. 4. I wouldn't want the PureBasic team spread too thin at the expense improving the 3 major OS versions. Perhaps when all versions are up 4.0 with along with the latest IDE a cut down version could be created for them (equivalent to the Amiga version.)

Pb should rather move to the 64bit verison of Windows. That is the future.

What's more important for PB4? Depends on who you ask!

If you're a Mac user, I'm sure a non-beta PB would high up there on your list. Likewise, Linux users, I'm sure, would like to see some (or all) of the now Windows-only functions made for Linux...

Amiga users would love to see a version 4.0, but I would be extremely surprised to see it (an update to the current version number would even be a surprise). And honestly, I don't blame Fred one bit, even though I am a huge fan of the Amiga (as you may have guessed by my nickname).

Russell

Russell,

Adding to Ivory's point, it would also be cool if the inline asm worked on all platforms (by treating the Fasm syntax as generic, which would be converted to the host PC's native code - This would mostly be useful to Mac users since the vast majority of Linux PCs use x86 compatible CPUs).

The core of Purebasic compiler is a Virtual Processor, which is how PB manages to be cross platform.

Fred describes it here:

The early design and the first line of PureBasic started in 1998. The main differences against normal compiler was the integration of a Virtual Processor (which actually use the 680x0 assembly mnemonics) right from the beginning to allow different kind of assembly (or any langage in fact) output without changing the compiler core.

viewtopic.php?t=9739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=9

Wouldn't it be cool if there was an option to write inline code for the Virtual Processor?

Perhaps we should start lobbying.

Instead of messing with x86 assembly on x86 platforms we could use a virtual assembler language?
Now that..is a interesting idea indeed,
as in theory the compiler would map the assembly instructions from the virtual processor to whatever platform it's compiling on/for.
But...I'd rather see PB 4.0 first

> (.2% goes to the fringe users out there who are still using their
> Commodore 64s to do their taxes on )

The C64 rocks! No need to worry about viruses, security patches,
automatic updates, phishing schemes, etc. It's a fantastic little PC.