PureBasic Forums - English

Crap, Dare, you beat me to it! I was copy/pasting.

mp303 wrote: I have a background of 10+ years with Pascal/Delphi, PHP, VBScript, JavaScript and a few other languages

mp303 wrote:I've been programming for 20 years - about 10 years professionally / for a living. I've used all manner of programming languages

mp303 wrote:Did I mention I have 20 years of programming experience? 10 years professionally

You come on this forum tooting your horn like you're superior to everyone else because you can "do oop" and PB can't and in the same breath admit that you can't write a simple game in a procedural language. If you're such hot sh*t in these other languages and PB is so beneath your needs, why aren't you busy making the game in one of those instead of coming on here moaning about how inferior PB is? I bet the answer is you can't program anything serious unless a tool built for the logically challenged holds your hand all the way. My experience is that those who are quick to trumpet how many years they've got in a discipline and keep repeating it usually can't do anything much at all. Three years and a couple of effects is all you've got to show? I suggest you give Gamemaker a try. It's quite powerful and fully object-oriented, as well as sporting the drag-and-drop interface you seem to need.

my right hand has about 25 years of experience...

... with hitting the enter key! seriously!

Woot! I've been programming since 1982... that makes it 24 years. Of course, only 8 of that is professionally, but still.... I guess my opinion means even more than mp303!

And I like procedural based languages, so there.

Anyhow, I don't get why people try to change PureBasic into something that it isn't.... why not just use the other languages that meet your needs more closely? Why can't Purebasic just be more like Purebasic instead of being like C++, Java or whatever the flavour of the month is?

mp303 wrote:

but basic is a choice language for beginners

BASIC is just a language. There's nothing that PB can't do that other languages can, when comparing apples to apples. Saying that BASIC is for beginners is like saying that English is inferrior to Spanish. Just 'cause it's harder for me to learn Spanish than my native language doesn't make Spanish any better. Saying what you did, is like me going to a C++ forum and saying that it sucks 'cause It take me 6 lines just to write a "hello world", or that I can't get it to do what I want (cause I don't know the language very well, and there for suck at it, but I won't let them know that).

I"ve only been programming for 14 years, yea you have me beat in that respect, but even I know that just because a program is made a certain way doesn't mean that the compiled project is lacking something that it could have in another language.

I admit that I once turned my back on BASIC, only to realize that I was more productive with it. I could get it to do what I wanted in very little time. With that said, If it's gonna take you 'till you're 50 to finish your game then I wonder how long it'll take you to do the same in another language (with the same results).

You prefer OOP over Procedural language? That's fine. Pick up your mouse, drag and drop your sprites and click the "animate explosion" option under the "when hit:" section, and call it a night.

netmaestro wrote:You come on this forum tooting your horn like you're superior to everyone else because you can "do oop" and PB can't and in the same breath admit that you can't write a simple game in a procedural language. If you're such hot sh*t in these other languages and PB is so beneath your needs, why aren't you busy making the game in one of those instead of coming on here moaning about how inferior PB is? I bet the answer is you can't program anything serious unless a tool built for the logically challenged holds your hand all the way. My experience is that those who are quick to trumpet how many years they've got in a discipline and keep repeating it usually can't do anything much at all. Three years and a couple of effects is all you've got to show? I suggest you give Gamemaker a try. It's quite powerful and fully object-oriented, as well as sporting the drag-and-drop interface you seem to need.

Exactly, Netmaestro, i couldn't of said it better myself!

mp303 wrote:Here's the game: download.

Shameful that it gets 100% CPU use

People, please. If you have any clue about OOP at all, you know it has nothing to do with drag and drop, whatsoever.

You're all hell-bent on keeping things the way they are. I don't know why, but your argument that "basic is not OOP" has got to be a joke? As you must know, most modern basic languages do support OOP.

And no, it wouldn't take me 50 years to write this game - that's not what I said. I said, at the current rate of development, it'll take 50 years before PB can do what I'd like it to do. Which is probably a wild exaggeration, but hey.

For the record, I don't go on about my qualifications to impress you. Why would I care what you think? I don't even know you. But you assume that I'm some sort of clueless newbie, so I was just trying to clarify what my background is - not that I'm better than you; this was your assumption.

I gotta say, you people know how to gang up on someone who doesn't happen to share your views.

You may all be the greatest programmers alive - I don't know anything about you, and I don't really care. I'd like to get back to a civilized discussion about facts. I didn't come in here for a bar brawl.

...

So my question, still, to those willing to debate: why should PB not have OOP features? If it is implemented in such a way, that you can use as little or as much of these features as you want, how would the addition of OOP features affect you at all?

So my question, still, to those willing to debate: why should PB not have OOP features?

Because you already have your answer given to you in many many posts, yet you still keep bringing up this issue time and time again, when you know full well that Purebasic is, and always will be (at least for the foreseeable future) a procedural language with no true OOP features!!!!!!

Clear enough? :roll:

OOP or not OOP, the important thing is the final result of a game or program, and it shameful gets 100% cpu time, which is inadmisible for that small piece of game.

Kale wrote:Because you already have your answer given to you in many many posts, yet you still keep bringing up this issue time and time again, when you know full well that Purebasic is, and always will be (at least for the foreseeable future) a procedural language with no true OOP features!!!!!!

Clear enough? :roll:

No.

You only keep re-stating again and again, that "that's the way it is" - what I'm asking for, is the "why".

The features are basically there already - they were apparently necessary to connect with the rest of the world, e.g. with COM objects. Come to think of it, that addition must have really brought your blood to a boiling fury, or not? You can even do basic "inheritance" at this point, by extending an existing structure. How come you don't think that's "evil"?

Since the features are already there, all I'm really asking for, is the addition of more convenient keywords to support them, isn't it?

Psychophanta wrote:OOP or not OOP, the important thing is the final result of a game or program, and it shameful gets 100% cpu time, which is inadmisible for that small piece of game.

It gets more like 5-10% on my machine, with about 350 total active particles. Which may not be mad impressive, but I still have some things left to optimize

I don't know why it would run that slow on your system. What's your configuration? Mine is P4, 3 GHz, 1 GB, FX 5900 XT...

mp303 wrote:

Psychophanta wrote:OOP or not OOP, the important thing is the final result of a game or program, and it shameful gets 100% cpu time, which is inadmisible for that small piece of game.

It gets more like 5-10% on my machine, with about 350 total active particles. Which may not be mad impressive, but I still have some things left to optimize

I don't know why it would run that slow on your system. What's your configuration? Mine is P4, 3 GHz, 1 GB, FX 5900 XT...

sure?
here 100% even don't move the ship and no shots.
AMD 64 3000+ with ATI radeon 9600

Psychophanta wrote:sure?
here 100% even don't move the ship and no shots.
AMD 64 3000+ with ATI radeon 9600

How does the game perform? Is it running smoothly?

If it's running smoothly, and continues to run smoothly when you hold SPACE and shoot like mad, then maybe it's the CPU usage somehow being not measured correctly? Since, if it was really using precisely 100% CPU and running smoothly, performance should degrade as the CPU load increases...

mp303 wrote:You only keep re-stating again and again, that "that's the way it is" - what I'm asking for, is the "why"

FFS, Because the Purebasic team has told you! Clear enough? If they say no then you don't need to know why! Get it now, thicky??? huh, do you???

If not you may re-read their replies again and maybe you will remember it this time:

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... c&start=30
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... c&start=45

Also you keep saying that everyone who doesn't want OOP in Purebasic must think OOP is evil! Can you quote any posts that me or others have said that? I don't think so. I personally have no objection to OOP or the languages that support it, (i will say again!!!) I agree with the Purebasic team and i also think Purebasic doesn't need to support it! It is based on BASIC after all.

This might change in future if the PB team change direction for PB and head towards OOP, but whatever may come, as a decicated user i will still support their decision.

but for now, PB DOES NOT SUPPORT OOP AND AS FAR AS USERS KNOW, NEVER WILL IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE!!!

*lays down*