Last time a PB.NET was announced a couple of years ago nothing really happened...Danilo wrote:PureBasic.net anyone?
At future with PureBasic ?
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
Blog: Why Does It Suck? (http://whydoesitsuck.com/)
"You can disagree with me as much as you want, but during this talk, by definition, anybody who disagrees is stupid and ugly."
- Linus Torvalds
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
I know Deeem started something like this years ago. Don't know if there wasShield wrote:Last time a PB.NET was announced a couple of years ago nothing really happened...Danilo wrote:PureBasic.net anyone?
another project like this, i didn't check here for a long time.
Many PureBasic users really hated .NET some years ago. Don't know for sure how much has changed.
The big question is: Does it make sense? If so, in which way does it make sense?
Just compile pure PureBasic for .NET like it is now, with all its libraries? No API? It would be of very limited use IMO.
On the other side you could add more features to make it more useful and powerful, but it would become
incompatible with real PureBasic... it would be like a new language or "PB++" that includes PB but adds new
things on top of it. In this case you could just start a completely new BASIC/PureBasic-like product...?
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
PureBasic with its current syntax and feature set doesn't really make sense to be ported to
.NET in my opinion. The main advantages of .NET can only truly be used with "advanced" (not really)
features such as OOP and Exception Handling. Maybe even complete type safety and cast abilities.
But all that stuff would change PB completely, making it an entirely new language.
Also, keeping up compatibility to existing PB sources wouldn't make much sense either.
Mainly because of the libraries...I mean..."forcing" the PB command set and blocking
off all the existing .NET libraries would be like if you're only allowed to use
the 'A' key on your keyboard with every other key disabled just for the sake of "simplicity"...
.NET in my opinion. The main advantages of .NET can only truly be used with "advanced" (not really)
features such as OOP and Exception Handling. Maybe even complete type safety and cast abilities.
But all that stuff would change PB completely, making it an entirely new language.
Also, keeping up compatibility to existing PB sources wouldn't make much sense either.
Mainly because of the libraries...I mean..."forcing" the PB command set and blocking
off all the existing .NET libraries would be like if you're only allowed to use
the 'A' key on your keyboard with every other key disabled just for the sake of "simplicity"...
Blog: Why Does It Suck? (http://whydoesitsuck.com/)
"You can disagree with me as much as you want, but during this talk, by definition, anybody who disagrees is stupid and ugly."
- Linus Torvalds
-
Seymour Clufley
- Addict
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:13 am
- Location: London
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
They'd be much wiser to make PB compile mobile phone apps. That market has a huge future.
JACK WEBB: "Coding in C is like sculpting a statue using only sandpaper. You can do it, but the result wouldn't be any better. So why bother? Just use the right tools and get the job done."
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
Thanks Shield! I agree! 
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
Follow Apples lead and target LLVM
Windows 11, Manjaro, Raspberry Pi OS
Re: At future with PureBasic ?
I guess in 2013 sitting on a rock with my notebook powered with solar panels programming in PureBasic the new PureWindows 1.0 
with love from Uruguay