Page 3 of 8
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:20 am
by GedB
Lets make one thing clear: Purebasic supports objects.
When you working with Windows and Controls, you are working with objects.
When you work with Files and Directories, you are working with objects.
The way in which PB does this is quite ingenious, and the longer you use the language the more you come to appreciate the cleverness of it.
When working with PB I can build complicated object structures with just a few commands.
When working with PB I never worry about memory leaks, without any of the expensive overhead needed for garbage collection.
I've spent a lot of time looking at adding an OO syntax to PB, but the conclusion I have come to is that I don't need it.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:21 am
by Kale
Hroudtwolf wrote:Shocked What? everyone who uses C is a noob?
Hey, we don't want to have this moment a world championship in splitting hairs
You started it with broad sweeping statements that aren't true.
hellhound66 wrote:@C programmers post:
One, who uses C is a veteran, a freak or a bloddy beginner. Don't know many good C coder, but many good C++ coder (and no good PB coder until now, sorry)
PureBasic is written in C. Does this make Fred a veteran, a freak or a bloddy [
bloody] beginner?
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:24 am
by Kale
It amazes me when people ask for OOP in PureBasic, because it's almost already fully implemented using interfaces and prototypes. Please learn these before asking for OOP or starting arguments about it.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
by Hroudtwolf
Ok, "I've written a book"-Kale.
I never said C programmers are noobs.
I just said that procedural programing is fewer professionel than OOP.
I've spent a lot of time looking at adding an OO syntax to PB, but the conclusion I have come to is that I don't need it
Ok. Thats your decision.
But we others don't want to join your decision.
Thats my current way to develop OOP.
http://purebasic-lounge.de/viewtopic.php?p=42786#42786
The overhead of it is the time i've to spend for.
Thats what i wish.
Code: Select all
Class CLASSNAME
Define.l Test
Define.s AlsoTest
Declare.l TestMethode (JustaTest.l)
EndClase
..or...
Code: Select all
Class CLASSNAME
Define.l Test
Define.s AlsoTest
Methode TestMethode (JustaTest.l)
*This\AlsoTest = "Hello World"
EndMethode
EndClase
It amazes me when people ask for OOP in PureBasic, because it's almost already fully implemented using interfaces and prototypes. Please learn these before asking for OOP or starting arguments about it.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:39 am
by Brice Manuel
Why not make a chapter in the manual about it. Then everybody knows.
A sticky in the feature request forum would suffice.
But, before Brice explodes
Over the past few years, this question has been asked every couple of months. This surpassed annoying a long time ago :roll:
Like I said, I like OOP. But also like I said, it is silly to expect a language to conform to your needs. If PB doesn't meet your needs, find a language that does. That is what I have done and what others have done.
If Fred is forced to get a fulltime job again wouldn't OOP help PB out of the shadows? Just a thought.
I 100% believe that family should always come first and I don't fault Fred for having to get a full-time job. Hell, have you ever seen a picture of the kid? He definitely needs more money so he can eat
Unfortunately, the financial stuff hit as PB was undergoing a huge overhaul for 4.0, not to mention supporting Linux and Mac, and don't forget to throw in Macs switching to Intel chips. Time seems to be such an issue for Fred that development has crawled to a snail's pace compared to what we are used to out of him.
In spite of everything, PB is in good hands. Fred has made it clear where he stands on the OOP issue, so we should respect his decision. Fred is a smart guy and knows where he wants to go with PB. We should trust him enough to let him do what he thinks is right for PB and the community.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:48 am
by Hroudtwolf
Fred has made it clear where he stands on the OOP issue, so we should respect his decision.
Fred isn't a constant. (#Fred) ^^
I belive, he is a clever man. And when he notes that his community hungers for OOP, he would think about it.
And I don't thing you are mouthpiece of Fred ,Brice
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:50 am
by Kale
Hroudtwolf wrote:Ok, "I've written a book"-Kale.
I never said C programmers are noobs.
I just said that procedural programing is fewer professionel than OOP.
No you didn't, you said that it is a fact that only newbies use non-OOP languages. :roll:
Hroudtwolf wrote:Ok, "I've written a book"-Kale.
Yes thats right i have written a book, which is obviously something you should read.
I do like the way you use the phase '"I've written a book"-Kale.' as if it's a derogortory statement. ...lol, It's something that you could never achieve.
Hroudtwolf wrote:
Code: Select all
Class CLASSNAME
Define.l Test
Define.s AlsoTest
Declare.l TestMethode (JustaTest.l)
EndClase
This is already possible natively in PB! :roll:
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:52 am
by Brice Manuel
And I don't thing you are mouthpiece of Fred ,Brice
Don't need to be, Fred has been quite vocal about the OOP issue
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:53 am
by Hroudtwolf
Yes thats right i have written a book, which is obviously something you should read.
No, thanks. I don't need it
Retopic:
Many of the pb programmer wishs OOP in PB.
That's just a
wish
A few of people of the community and myself planed a petitions pro PB-OOP.
We will see, how many other developers thinks the same.
Optional OOP support wouldn't kill anything.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:12 am
by Brice Manuel
29. Will the support of OOP in PureBasic be further extended/improved? Or will PureBasic be orientated rather at the procedural BASIC also in the future?
Fred wrote:No. It will stay a procedural BASIC, I don't plan to add class and such I think it will split the PB world in 2 classes (!): the one which have understood fully how OOP work and other which don't. Which means than you couldn't share source codes easily anymore at one place. Procedural and Object Oriented Programming are two opposite concepts and it's not a good idea to mix them in a BASIC language (which is intended for beginners...)
Fred's official answer from September/October 2005.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:17 am
by Hroudtwolf
Yes, freds press officer.
We know that you know that fred said that ^^
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:43 pm
by Kale
Hroudtwolf wrote:Yes, freds press officer.
You know, the more you keep trying to insult people the more idiotic you sound.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:50 pm
by Hroudtwolf
I think you and brice idiotic your sounds with your total stupic contra against OOP in PB.
Thats a PRO OOP thread for optional OOP in PB.
Not more.
What is your problem?
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:51 pm
by Kale
Hroudtwolf wrote:I think you and brice idiotic your sound with your total stupic contra against OOP in PB.
Thats a PRO OOP thread for optional OOP in PB.
Not more.
What is your problem?
ffs, just learn Purebasic as it is first:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=19416
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:54 pm
by hellhound66
PureBasic is written in C. Does this make Fred a veteran, a freak or a bloddy [bloody] beginner?
I think, he is a beginner. Otherwise he would have taken C++ ^_^.
@Brice: Keep calm, we did get it for the first time, you don't need to repeat it again and again.
Code: Select all
repeat
if NewPost
Brice(DropNewPostwithSameInfoAgain)
endif
forever
This is already possible natively in PB!
Didn't hear the last impact? Got some bad drugs? What are you talking about. My 4.02 doesn't support Class/EndClass.
There is no sense in talking damn crap here. The question is:
@all: Do you want OOP in PB ?
a.Yes.
b.No.
c.I'm too stupid to answer questions.
/edit: @kale: Wolf is in a project that codes OOP in PB and we have got about 15000 lines of code. I think he knows all variants of programming OOP in PB. And none is really good.