PureBasic Forums - English

ricardo wrote:

Kale wrote:

milan1612 wrote:...and I hate extern dependencies

You do realise that all exes have external dependencies? Seriously go with C# and forget about the runtime.

C# compile same executable that VB.NET right?

Why preffer C# then?

Because VB.NET is an ugly throwback to times long gone.
C# is modern and elegant.

fsw wrote:

Kale wrote:I was a partner developer with Aurora but i have since sold my share in it.

I thought the meaning of the word "partner developer" is to code on the compiler or am I wrong?

The compiler doesn't need hardly any work doing to it and also Paul is the only one who could make sense of it. Even seen a compiler source? The partner devs are for library coding, fixes, promotion, examples, graphics, etc...

Kale wrote:

ricardo wrote:

Kale wrote:

milan1612 wrote:...and I hate extern dependencies

You do realise that all exes have external dependencies? Seriously go with C# and forget about the runtime.

C# compile same executable that VB.NET right?

Why preffer C# then?

Because VB.NET is an ugly throwback to times long gone.
C# is modern and elegant.

I don't think so, have you ever used VB.NET? It's very easy but has also some
very powerful features! But that horrible framework

Kale wrote:Even seen a compiler source?

Actually yes, more than once.

Kale wrote:The compiler doesn't need hardly any work doing to it...

Because of EBasic Paul didn't have time for Aurora, but it didn't need hardly any work anyhow...

Kale wrote: ...also Paul is the only one who could make sense of it.

Because the code is not well documented?

Kale wrote:The partner devs are for library coding, fixes, promotion, examples, graphics, etc...

Hmm, the compiler didn't need hardly any work and the partner developers didn't work with Paul on the compiler core, but on the libs.

When I look at the libs and the functionality of the Aurora compiler it's pretty descent for such a young compiler...

So what did you really miss?

Now I can understand your move, thanks for the explanation.

Just saw this while browsing around:

You get Aurora and Emergence with source code plus more source code (like a dx9engine) for $99.95 until July 31st.

http://www.ionicwind.com/forums/index.p ... 60.15.html

For the ones that are interested...

BTW:
here the license (point 1 to 5 is missing):
6. The IP rights of the source code remains with Ionic Wind Software. You may not sell or otherwise transfer the source code in its unmodified form for a profit.
7. You may not publish or reprint any portions of the source code without the express permission of Ionic Wind Software.
8. You may create derivative works from the source code provided you credit Ionic Wind Software with the original.
9. The source code is provided "as is", with no guarantee of fitness for a particular purpose, and no support will be provided for the use of the code.

Kale wrote:

ricardo wrote:

Kale wrote:

milan1612 wrote:...and I hate extern dependencies

You do realise that all exes have external dependencies? Seriously go with C# and forget about the runtime.

C# compile same executable that VB.NET right?

Why preffer C# then?

Because VB.NET is an ugly throwback to times long gone.
C# is modern and elegant.

But other than that, there is another difference?
Can achieve same things with VB that C#?

ricardo wrote:Can achieve same things with VB that C#?

Yes

ricardo wrote:But other than that, there is another difference?
Can achieve same things with VB that C#?

I'm not really up to full speed with VB.NET but i prefer C# from what i have read. VB.NET promotes bad coding practises too much. I'm sure you could write excellent code in VB.NET but i think you will have to be very disciplined.

Here's a run down of some differences between the two:
http://www.lacoude.com/docs/public/VBversusCsharp.aspx

Kale wrote:

ricardo wrote:But other than that, there is another difference?
Can achieve same things with VB that C#?

I'm not really up to full speed with VB.NET but i prefer C# from what i have read. VB.NET promotes bad coding practises too much. I'm sure you could write excellent code in VB.NET but i think you will have to be very disciplined.

Here's a run down of some differences between the two:
http://www.lacoude.com/docs/public/VBversusCsharp.aspx

Thanks !!

You can easily convert your vb.net to c# with a converter.
What I'm using is very accurate and ready to compile.

You may choose vb.net if you are familiar with basic programming but if you are very comfortable in c/c++ style syntax then go for c#.

fsw wrote:Just saw this while browsing around:

You get Aurora and Emergence with source code plus more source code (like a dx9engine) for $99.95 until July 31st.

http://www.ionicwind.com/forums/index.p ... 60.15.html

For the ones that are interested...

MY GOD....I missed that offer...

Kale wrote:I would recommend an OOP language, something like C#, Java or Python.

Hi,
Kale,

Looking at your back ground I think that you should contribute to the development of the OOP part of PureBasic.

Making PB OOP based would surely attract many main stream developers towards it.

What do you think.

Yogi Yang wrote:

Kale wrote:I would recommend an OOP language, something like C#, Java or Python.

Hi,
Kale,

Looking at your back ground I think that you should contribute to the development of the OOP part of PureBasic.

Making PB OOP based would surely attract many main stream developers towards it.

What do you think.

Lol, don't open that can of worms again. There are some nice OOP preprocessors available for PB that some members have written which can be used.

I've always thought that PB didn't need the OOP bagage but now more i'm using C# on a daily basis and i do miss OOP constructs in PB. I do think PB is awesome as it is and i still use it often, but i'm more and more thinking about what it would be like to see this OOP stuff natively included in PB. It's all down to Fred and Freak though. i've always fought on the side of not including OOP but i think now i'll sit nicely on the fence.

Kale wrote:Lol, don't open that can of worms again. There are some nice OOP preprocessors available for PB that some members have written which can be used.

Using preprocessors is not the right way for doing OOPs. It is like saying that one can easily implement OOP based concepts and develop software using pure C and a few people have already done that in the past but that is not truly OOP.
My ideas is to have OOP right in PB.
Sitting on fence is better than being near the fence. What do you say.