PureBasic Forums - English

I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.
That will lead to nothing.

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.
That will lead to nothing.

I thoroughly disagree with such closed minded thinking and appreciate the discussions.

heartbone wrote:

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.
That will lead to nothing.

I thoroughly disagree with such closed minded thinking and appreciate the discussions.

I thoroughly disagree with such offensive stupidity and ignorant mindset: calling something "closed minded thinking" just because you don't understand it or don't like it.

Little John wrote:

heartbone wrote:

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.
That will lead to nothing.

I thoroughly disagree with such closed minded thinking and appreciate the discussions.

I thoroughly disagree with such offensive stupidity and ignorant mindset: calling something "closed minded thinking" just because you don't understand it or don't like it.

Now, this is an ideological discussion.

Talk about your convoluted ironies, Little John.

Some light reading for the Object-Happy folks... you know who you are:

Edsger W. Dijkstra wrote:Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea...

Paul Graham wrote:Object-oriented programming offers a sustainable way to write spaghetti code.

Paul Graham wrote:...it is a good tool if you want to convince yourself, or someone else, that you are doing a lot of work.

Joe Armstrong wrote:The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.

Eric Lippert wrote:OOP is a style of programming which ... help in the design and implementation of large scale software. Object Happy people feel the need to apply principles of OO design to small, trivial, throwaway projects. They invest lots of unnecessary time making pure virtual abstract base classes...

Sounds a lot like somebody we know.

TI-994A wrote:Now, this is an ideological discussion.

ANDY ANDERSON wrote:It is difficult to compare PureBasic right now because I have just started using it.

It appears to me that it is a cross between classical Basic and C both syntactically and conceptually.

I find that similarity too. Thank you.

TI-994A wrote:

coder14 wrote:...do you have something against LUA?

Not at all; although someone seems to have it in for PureBasic.

Against Danilo?

@Danilo, why are you badmouthing PureBasic? Why do you use it?

@LittleJohn, because you called the discussion ideologic and then started one with heartbone. That's funny.

coder14 wrote:@LittleJohn, because you called the discussion ideologic and then started one with heartbone. That's funny.

I did not start anything with heartbone, I just wrote an adequate reply to his offense.
And that was neither ideologic, nor was it a discussion at all.

And yes, unfortunately this discussion is mainly ideologic, because it is dominated by certain people, who only accept things that are in agreement with their prefabricated opinion, and who obviously don't want to learn from each other.

And this is the umpteenth thread with such a "discussion".
It will lead to nothing, because all the other similar threads obviously also didn't lead to anything ...

coder14 wrote:Against Danilo?

Not against anyone, but always in favour of PureBasic. And the facts.

Little John wrote:I did not start anything with heartbone, I just wrote an adequate reply to his offense.
And that was neither ideologic, nor was it a discussion at all.

Time to get a good English dictionary.

Little John wrote:...unfortunately this discussion is mainly ideologic, because it is dominated by certain people, who only accept things that are in agreement with their prefabricated opinion, and who obviously don't want to learn from each other.

You need to look up the word opinion in your new dictionary. Quote one single statement from any of the posts I've made in this thread that is not a fact, please.

Let's learn from each other. Teach me, LJ.

TI-994A wrote:Embedded or not, a snail's a snail, no matter how you want to spin it. And boy, are you spinning it.

Perhaps you should treat yourself to some 21st century hardware.

TI-994A wrote:Professional expert programmers are scarce and expensive. So, the affordable few are hired to develop the real speed and performance-critical low-level code, wrap them up nicely and neatly with a bow on top, and present them to these dime-a-dozen "enthusiasts of high level languages".

Professional expert programmers have already got the gig. That's why Qt has QtQuick, EFL has Elua, etc...

TI-994A wrote:Furthermore, although it may be well-suited as an embedded language, you don't seem to realise that Lua is also a full-blown development tool. There've been many native builds for it on as many platforms, which include Windows, OSX, Linux, and even Android.

No shit! Linux developers, Apple and Microsoft have all seen the value of embedding Lua? Wow, who would have thought that was a good idea? Oh yeah... me.

TI-994A wrote:

Little John wrote:I did not start anything with heartbone, I just wrote an adequate reply to his offense.
And that was neither ideologic, nor was it a discussion at all.

Time to get a good English dictionary.

More probably time for you to look into a good encyclopedia.

TI-994A wrote: Quote one single statement from any of the posts I've made in this thread that is not a fact, please.

You are only posting facts that are in agreement with your prefabricated opinion, while your are ignoring facts that don't.
I already mentioned this fact, and you ignored it. Q.E.D.

TI-994A wrote: Let's learn from each other. Teach me, LJ.

I don't want to participate in this ideologic programming language discussion.
I just wanted to say that it will lead to nothing.

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

fsw wrote:

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

You have calmly spoken a true word.
(I hope the meaning of our German saying hasn't been distorted by my translation.)

Little John wrote:

fsw wrote:

Little John wrote:I wonder why on this forum there are repeatedly such mainly ideologic discussions about programming languages.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

...(I hope the meaning of our German saying hasn't been distorted by my translation.)

[german]
In Deutsch muesste es heissen:
Des einen Abfall ist des anderen Schatz.
Oder so aehnlich...
[/german]

It's prevelant at garage sales where people want to sale stuff they don't need anymore (or think it's trash) and others buy it because they think they need it desperately (it's a treasure).

Little John wrote:That will lead to nothing.

If you're looking for big changes then you might be right. However I learn lots about PB and the other languages in these discussion threads. When the pro and con camps clash, there is lots of good info coming out about a language that I may not have otherwise known.
I agree with Heartbone, and also appreciate the discussions.