PureBasic Forums - English

PB wrote:It's like this: when someone finds out you wrote an app in Basic, they think the app is a toy, or not mature, or a laughingstock.

Then "someone" lacks a brain and that's not your fault...

It's the end-result, stability, portability, sometimes speed and other things that counts - not what programming language you use.

(Well, when you are involved in large project, with several other programmers, programming language DO count... *lol* The same goes for Military or Aerospace projects... No M$ there, mostly special ADA, Fortran and C compilers)

>> when someone finds out you wrote an app in Basic, they think the app is
>> a toy, or not mature, or a laughingstock
>
> Then "someone" lacks a brain and that's not your fault...

I know that, you know that, and okasvi knows that... which is why he created
this topic. The question is: how do we prove to them that they don't have a
brain?

PB wrote:>> when someone finds out you wrote an app in Basic, they think the app is
>> a toy, or not mature, or a laughingstock
>
> Then "someone" lacks a brain and that's not your fault...

I know that, you know that, and okasvi knows that... which is why he created
this topic. The question is: how do we prove to them that they don't have a
brain?

Ask them to unscrew their top of the head?

I knew you are "cool" when you program in VC++ , C# or just say the magic words ".NET" and everybody stares at you with big eyes.

I'll just try to explain for my fellow colleagues what I wrote in my last post - sometimes they are convinced, sometimes not...

i don't like this discussions, but from my POV this:

Purebasic just doesn't have the capabilities for a large-medium size project.

is wrong.

And PB aint thread safe...

again and again: there is no problem with threads, PB just don't do the work for you. multi-threading and serialization technics are basics, that every software developer should spend some more time to study, before making such a statement.

Perhaps explain the real strengths of PB?

Trying to justify areas where PureBasic is weak is arguing from a weak position and loses credibility.

So: You cannot develop life-critical NASA shuttle-like apps with PureBasic. Nor (doubles needed for the precision) can you easily get software up for a finance house. To try to argue on those points is to lose before you begin.

However: You can get a businesslike PB app up and running in no time flat compared to C++. It is easy to maintain and modify. You can be OS-ignorant and still make a working app with buttons and so on. Etc.


It's been said here a few times, horses for courses. Don't sell what you don't got. Do sell what you do have.

Well, Mr prospect, seems to me your decision to go with F++ from Acme is wise. Only way, really. *cheesy grin* Now - for the quick stuff outside of the project you'll want to contract in one of our PureBasic qualified programmers. You'll need a PureBasic licence as well. Would you prefer the young hot chick, or the tired old git .. we throw in the PB licence fee if you go with the latter. He may not be so easy on the eyes but he is pretty darn good on the keyboard!

* Note: This is not politically correct - use with caution *

Dare2 wrote: So: You cannot develop life-critical NASA shuttle-like apps with PureBasic.

why not..? currently a pb program written by me controls the daily rocket-launches from my garden. eh i know we are not talking human life but i have cats and dogs in the rocket and they are all alive [till i push the enter key then the rocket explodes..]

* phones the RSPCA *

Purebasic just doesn't have the capabilities for a large-medium size project.

Im working on 2 big projects using PureBasic.

Thing is, are YOU capable of holding and developing a large-medium size project? Don't blame the language, its better than all the "basic"-like languages around.

Was reading the thread today morning and it really made me laugh this time!

So: You cannot develop life-critical NASA shuttle-like apps with PureBasic. Nor (doubles needed for the precision) can you easily get software up for a finance house. To try to argue on those points is to lose before you begin.

This is ridiculous. What makes a programing language suitable for a specific task. Lets take for example FORTH http://www.ultratechnology.com This language is used in a tremendous amount of embedded controllers in equipment at NASA and Aviation. I've more faith in an airplane which equipment is driven by FORTH than by C/C++.

Read the stories on the FORTH site and you will learn that it is the programmer that cripples the horse. There is a nice story of "Thinking Forth". Read it and apply it in your work with PB. See the films of Mr. Moore and his way of inventing, purifying FORTH and COLORFORTH. It is amazing what he does. He develops complete FORTH chips http://www.ultratechnology.com/okad2.htm with this software.

So you can do the same with PureBasic. The limit is the programmer.

Marcel

As I said.
Think about this.. you can buy a house, but theres 10 other similar houses around, you watch them all, you notice one has AC already equiped and the one you wanted doesnt, but what stops you from getting the AC on a place like homedepot and install it?, nothing stops you from doing that. So, once you've bought the house, you realise its legally possible to build a shop at the front of your house (using the frontal part of the house as shop), now.. what you sell on the shop, how you manage it and the money you make with it, thats all your obligation, if you're capable then it doesnt really matter the shop you're managing, you'll make it go up no matter whats going on.

So, why buying the house that already has AC ? if its the same thing as the one that you wanted, but just with AC, and they are charging way more money than its worth! ...

- Its kind of weird but it should make sense (else, read it twice, else blame me).

lol.

Okay,

I'll accept that it is my inability (or laziness) as a programmer that makes working out daily compunding interest on sums of 1 million or more so iffy.



Those darn doubles in QB/FB have made me REALLY slack!



Anyhow, PureBasic rocks.
[EDIT] Heres why: viewtopic.php?p=100528&highlight=excell ... ity#100528

Dare2 wrote:

* phones the RSPCA *

again and again: there is no problem with threads, PB just don't do the work for you.

Exactly... The problem is some people do not know how to write thread-safe code, lol.

People use BASIC instead of ASM because they get the the same job done quicker.
That's why they want MORE and MORE to get the the job done quicker.

Think about it:
If Fred would listen to users that say: "I don't need that, I can do it myself..."
PureBASIC would not be where it is today.

nuff said

BTW:
Sure you can code almost every thing in BASIC but let's face it:
most people use a hammer if they have to nail something.
Some people use a spongehammer for that.
Maybe they get the job done too.
But you need less time if you use the right tool.

What's good about PureBasic?

Okay, I've hesitated about posting this, but here goes:

The number one thing about PureBasic is that it allows you to get applications up and running very quickly. This in turns means fast turnaround on projects which equals profit. However you measure that, be it money or time savings or just satisfaction.

Right now I have 5 computers networked and connected online via a router. All of the gear was "bought by PureBasic", this calendar year, working part-time for "fun and profit", as the saying goes. I have also had some good nights out and a few personal perks, and have some cash in hand. For, all up, max 40 serious hours. Add 20 for the yarning and relationship-building you do when you deal with people.

All of the earner apps are almost purely Pure. A few API calls for things like getting current directory name, and similar. No user libs, no ASM. If it needs heavy ASM it needs MASM. If it needs heavy libs, it probably needs to be in C/C++ or VB/FB.

Importantly, all of the Apps are within the capabilities of PureBasic and don't require expensive (in time, and therefore in money) workarounds. This translates into more competive quotes to the prospect. Which in turn translates into more wins. Both ways - mine and the end-user's.

That has to be a plus!

As Pure adds more - like double precision and unsigned longs and etc - more doors will open. (Or, more accurately, I will be willing to go through more open doors.)

For others, perhaps PureBasic allows the framework to go up quickly and they are willing to then do the workarounds. For me, keep it pure or use something else. It doesn't really matter, the fact is it is a RAD without the RAD.

Scattered throughout these forums there are stories like this. Some are earner stories, some are time-saver stories (same thing, really) and some are by people who do heavy duty work with industrial-strength languages. In other words, very credible people (despite the sniping some of them took on this thread lol)