The PureBasic Doomsday Quotes

[MachineCode]

if PB sticks to their guns to never supports ARM, then if they don't at least port it to the new flavor of .NET, PB may die at a rate proportional to the growth of the adoption rate of Win8+ o/s's

Supporting a different OS is very different to choosing not to support a style, such as OOP. So, it's not really a Doomsday Quote as such.

BTW, it's now been a year since the last Doomsday Quote, so I've added a new one to the top of the list.

[Tenaja]

BTW, it's now been a year since the last Doomsday Quote, so I've added a new one to the top of the list.

Excellent--that was what I was hoping for!

I think the real difference, though, is that I wasn't trying to say "a" is better than "b", and "a" is required for pb to survive. My comment is more "the market appears to be shifting to a new direction, and if pb isn't prepared to turn to respond, then attrition may occur. Slight difference, but a whole different attitude.

[Foz]

Ahhh but when Microsoft completely jumps ship with Intel to go ARM and people are left in the lurch with their legacy systems, people will jump over to Intel Mac's instead, where PB has a foothold and has had the foresight to think ahead of Microsoft!

[Tenaja]

Ahhh but when Microsoft completely jumps ship with Intel to go ARM and people are left in the lurch with their legacy systems, people will jump over to Intel Mac's instead, where PB has a foothold and has had the foresight to think ahead of Microsoft!

I think you have it backwards. Apple has had foresight, and that is why they sell about 20% more ARM powered devices than intel devices...

These are rough numbers, comparing '07 apple computer sales (20M) with current ipad numbers (25M). This does not even include iphone sales, which would more than double the arm:intel ratio.

The landscape is changing.

[Thorium]

Ahhh but when Microsoft completely jumps ship with Intel to go ARM and people are left in the lurch with their legacy systems, people will jump over to Intel Mac's instead, where PB has a foothold and has had the foresight to think ahead of Microsoft!

No one is jumping ships. We talk about two different families of devices. ARM doesnt stand a chance against Intel on the desktop market. Microsoft will support all kind of devices as they allways did.

The question is if PB should add support for mobile ARM devices.

[USCode]

If the effort to port PB Windows to ARM is HUGE then the PB boys should definitely wait to see how the market shakes out.
If Intel can greatly improve the efficiency of their x86 family of processors for mobile use to where they are competitive with ARM, then it would make sense for most folks to buy the x86 mobile devices for legacy software support.

[Psychophanta]

If the effort to port PB Windows to ARM is HUGE then the PB boys should definitely wait to see how the market shakes out.
If Intel can greatly improve the efficiency of their x86 family of processors for mobile use to where they are competitive with ARM, then it would make sense for most folks to buy the x86 mobile devices for legacy software support.

To use processors for mobile is the same to say use it for small size and for low power consumption. But Intel has a big problem for it: As i see, Intel has nothing to do now against ARM, mainly because ARM uses thousands of transistors in a uP, while Intel is using much millions of transistors in a uP. For Intel is simply impossible to compatibilize the x86 stuff to some thousands of transistors. The only thing Intel could do is to change x86 to another tech, which would also significate to loose in front of ARM.
In fact, since i knew the history of the ARM architecture, and it low power consumption (due to Acorn RISC tech and to the low amount of transistors) i felt frustrated again (firstly was frustration with VHS over BETA video tapes systems, then with PC compatibles computers over Amiga, then with having to eat Intel systems over ARM ones...). Take in account the ARM tech v4 (which brough ARM7 and ARM9 uPs) is from 1996, and it is the core of the Nintendo DS for example, and the ARM v6 (uP ARM11) is multiprocessing capable and it is from 2001. The new console Nintendo 3DS seems to work with 2 ARM11 uPs and another independent uP called PICA200 for 3D issues.

[MachineCode]

In an amazing coincidence, PureBasic 4.61 beta 2 has just been released, and it's also been just over a year since 3 more doomsday quotes became valid (from July 2011). Therefore, I've edited the first post in this thread to include them.

[Primoz128]

Being a long-term PureBasic user, it really irks me when people start sprouting rubbish about how PureBasic is doomed if it doesn't add OOP support, or charge for updates, or do this, or do that; or whatever it is they want it to have at that moment. So, I did some digging in these forums to show just how old some of these doomsday predictions are. Time has PROVEN that PureBasic has a future!

All quotes below are purposely more than 1 year old, and I've chosen that timeframe because it proves that if a product survives for more than 1 year since a doomsday post, then it's pretty much doing quite well for itself. As such, I won't post anything less than 1 year old here. The oldest I found was 8 years old!

Some quotes have been paraphrased and/or edited for clarity, but otherwise they are all real actual quotes from these forums that can be found with a search. Names have been suppressed to prevent embarrassment to the authors. As time crawls on, and other people start posting their own doomsday predictions, I will edit them into this post, to highlight their lunacy. I hope you enjoy them.

And now, for your entertainment, I present, the "Doomsday Quotes":

"Is Fantaisie Software still alive? Is PureBasic dead?" - July 24, 2011.
"is Purebasic still developed?" - July 4, 2011.
"I hope development has not stopped." - July 4, 2011.
"[Without OOP] PB will die and go away in a few years." - March 16, 2011.
"I am concerned that I am coming to the party after last call." - October 26, 2010.
"Is the community going to be dead soon?" - September 24, 2010.
"I need PB to stay actual and supported for years." - July 14, 2008.
"PureBasic needs a redesign and rethink in its marketing across the board." - July 26, 2008.
"PB isn't made for profesionality and future. That's the truth." - February 8, 2007.
"Shareware software companies with one product and no upgrade fee's have no future" - July 12, 2006.
"i can see approaching a day in which Fantaisie soft will sell PB to another bigger company." - July 12, 2006.
"I would like to see updates charged for, simply to better secure PB's future" - May 15, 2006.
"How can [...] Pure Basic [...] ensure its long term success?" - May 12, 2006.
"PB's days are numbered if some MAJOR changes aren't made in a very short time!" - February 28, 2004.
"is it likely that fantasy software goes bust and suddenly stops releasing new versions of PB?" - April 16, 2003.

It ain't dead cause Fred posted on my thread, while i never expected him to even be looking on forums.

I don't believe someone would just abandon such an amazing product just like that, if they been doing it for more than a decade, and by what i read about Fred, they are definitely never gona quit.

[Primoz128]

I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

OOP losers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! though i do use OOP in game maker since im puting code to each object ... oh well.

[c4s]

I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

OOP losers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! though i do use OOP in game maker since im puting code to each object ... oh well.

Yeah, I know what you're feeling. "Blood" really knows how to write some enraging posts...

[BorisTheOld]

I agree PB has a future but lets get real, its lack of OOP support means it will never be more than a small hobby language that never gets used for big projects.

Mmmmm! I never thought of 1,000,000++ lines of code as small. Maybe I'd better rethink my decision to convert all our systems to PB.

But it does produce native apps on the three main operating systems. And an old mainframe ASM programmer like me really appreciates all that low-level stuff. Our customers, too, appreciate not having to keep upgrading hardware just to do the same work, especially as many of them are switching to Linux to cut costs.

I've convinced myself - I'll stick with PB.

By the way, PB already contains all the OOP features that you need to produce slick applications. It's all there - you just have to make the effort to learn how to use it.

We've set up PB classes to do all our GUI and database processing. We love it!

[Blood]

Mmmmm! I never thought of 1,000,000++ lines of code as small. Maybe I'd better rethink my decision to convert all our systems to PB.

And I bet it's a mess with loooong obfusticated function names, etc...

Confirms my saying that only old men and hobbiests use pb!

Recently Ive started to use D which is much more modern and shock, horror, cross platform.

[xorc1zt]

@BorisTheOld

pb has no oop

[Blood]

@BorisTheOld

pb has no oop

Lol, I didn't have the heart to tell him seeing as he is an old uber asm coder lol!