PureBasic Forums - English

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:58 pm**

thefool wrote:I think, to satisfy the basic hungry users you should do this:

Charge extra money for every compile because BASIC was originally meant to be an interpreter language.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:58 pm**

thefool wrote:as a non graphic programmer, may i ask why the screen is gray, and not black, when using the opengl subsystem?

Because it's not yet supported on OpenGL for now.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:02 pm**

Thomas wrote:
thefool wrote:I think, to satisfy the basic hungry users you should do this:
Charge extra money for every compile because BASIC was originally meant to be an interpreter language.

Oh yeah! Sell purebasic interpretter for 69$, but charge an additional 100$ for a compiler.

@fred: Ok ill have to wait then

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:11 pm**

Fred wrote:
thefool wrote:as a non graphic programmer, may i ask why the screen is gray, and not black, when using the opengl subsystem?
Because it's not yet supported on OpenGL for now.

As it crashes here and disabling my whole computer: can you tell me why it doesn't work?

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:26 pm**

The following keywords/functions are part of the ANSI/ISO standard for BASIC:

Code: Select all

EXP(X)

SGN(X)

MOD(X,Y)

PI

ACOS(X)

ASIN(X)

ATN(X) (NOT ATAN)

but not SHL and SHR.

There are several other keywords missing from PB which are specified in the standard. IMO they all belong in PB.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:38 pm**

That brings us back to the track that purebasic isnt basic

FRED:
I think, to satisfy the basic hungry users you should do this:

REQUIRE line numbers on every line!
REQUIRE the LET keyword when dealing with variables
Make pb slower and only support console!

Because the syntax is so far removed from actual BASIC, it shouldn't be called "Pure", "Basic", or "PureBasic" -- it is none of those things. Call it anything but.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:44 pm**

chris319 wrote:The following keywords/functions are part of the ANSI/ISO standard for BASIC:

Where did you get these? Post your sources, please!

ANSI/ISO 6373 Programming language - Minimal BASIC

Promotes the interchangeability of BASIC programs among a variety of data processing systems. It establishes the syntax, formats of data, semantic rules, procedures for the detection and handling of errors and defines the keywords BASE, DATA, DEF, DIM, END, FOR, GO, GOSUB, GOTO, IF, INPUT, LET, NEXT, ON, OPTION, PRINT, RANDOMIZE, READ, REM, RESTORE, RETURN, STEP, STOP, SUB, THEN and TO.

As you can see it makes no sense to be ANSI compatible for a modern BASIC compiler.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:45 pm**

Not that I want them, but:
DO .. LOOP
( DO .. LOOP WHILE )
( DO .. LOOP UNTIL )
INPUT
PRINT
CLS
SLEEP
INKEY$
COLOR
CSRLIN
LOCATE
SUB
FUNCTION
CALL
LET
BYREF
AS INTEGER
AS STRING
TYPE
SHL
SHR
MOD
INV
AND Not completely
NOT supported since
XOR they cannot be
OR used everywhere
are all rather standard basic and not supported. Sure, PureBasic offers just as good (and maybe even better) functionality with it's functions (for example, Print()), however, if we are talking about keywords we are talking about keywords.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:50 pm**

Just found a page describing the statements and functions found in Kemeny and Kurtz's current implementation of BASIC, FYI:

http://www.truebasic.com/downloads/TB_Commands.pdf

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:52 pm**

Trond wrote:are all rather standard basic and not supported.

There is no such thing as a BASIC standard. Do a thorough read on wikipedia before posting such rubbish.

Wikipedia wrote:This wealth of variants shows that the language is an "organic" one and that it may be seen as a subculture dealing with computer programming rather than as a fixed set of syntactic rules.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:53 pm**

Do we really want to go back to stoneage? If we want the original basic, why don't we download it from somewhere and use it?

Edit: Maybe you do not know what "rather" means?

define:rather wrote:to some (great or small) extent

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:09 pm**

After downloading and trying REALbasic v5.50 during a free giveaway they had running a while back i would say that REALbasic is more akin to the Basic standard BUT i would add that the syntax looks horrible because of it! Yes it's more Basic'ified and has propbably all of the standard Basic commands, to me it looks very old and the syntax is very hard to read. This is partly to do with the fact that most standard Basic commands are abbrieviated so they don't really read as real words anymore. Plus all commands nearly always seem to be in CAPS which is horrible! yuck!

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:33 pm**

There is no such thing as a BASIC standard. Do a thorough read on wikipedia before posting such rubbish.

If you had read the Wikipedia article thoroughly you would have come across this "rubbish":

Standards

* ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard for Minimal BASIC:
o ANSI X3.60-1978 "FOR MINIMAL BASIC"
o ISO/IEC 6373:1984 "DATA PROCESSING - PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES - MINIMAL BASIC"
* ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard for Full BASIC:
o ANSI X3.113-1987 "PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES FULL BASIC"
o ISO/IEC 10279:1991 "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES - FULL BASIC"
* ANSI/ISO/IEC Addendum Defining Modules:
o ANSI X3.113 INTERPRETATIONS-1992 "BASIC TECHNICAL INFORMATION BULLETIN # 1 INTERPRETATIONS OF ANSI 03.113-1987"
o ISO/IEC 10279:1991/ Amd 1:1994 "MODULES AND SINGLE CHARACTER INPUT ENHANCEMENT"

Here is the link to the article for you to read "thoroughly" again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_programming_language

Best to pull your head out of your hind quarters before scolding someone else.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:55 pm**

If you had read the Wikipedia article thoroughly you would have come across this "rubbish":

If you read my post again you can see that I quoted one of these standards which no modern BASIC dialect complies. None of your mentioned keywords appears to be in that ANSI standard. So do not post your own interpretations as a common standard as it is just your own limited view. The mentioned ANSI standards are obsolete because they represent the old BASIC dialects. The 6373 has even been proposed for deletion so your comment is just needless.

Posted: **Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:56 pm**

Thomas wrote: So your criticism is welcome but it seems to be just a shot in the wild. My main complain is that Fred wastes a lot of time developing PB for Linux and OS X but only a minority is really using these OS's. He'd better spend this time working on the Windows version but this is just my personal opinion.

More than you might think need to use the Linux version. MacOS maybe not so much *yet*

But lets face it, even if many aren't actively using the linux/Mac versions, it WAS a detemining factor for many of us who chose to give our hardearned money to Fred. I would not have purchased PB if it didnt have a linux version that was up to date and I know quite a few more who wouldn't. At a small business level like Purebasic is at, thats a big deal and the time spent maintaining the lesser used versions is a wise investment.

Not to mention: the ability for me to tell a potential client I'm developing software for, "And if you ever switch to linux or Mac in the future, it will be possible for me to provide this software in a linux compatible version". I can guarentee you thats a big factor in modern small and medium businesses who need custom software. If you can convince them that thier investment will be future-proof, you have a good chance of getting the sale.

PureBasic Forums - English

truth and lie about purebasic

Re: truth and lie about purebasic