PureBasic Forums - English

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

...and lacking in libraries, compared to C(x).

Don't forget GO, though... it seems to me they took all of the worst parts of C/C++ (brackets), and added it to some of the worst parts of VB (Variable types at END of declaration--super frustrating to read the types when they are not left justified). Oh, yeah, then they added a bit of Pascal safety, just for fun.

Let's see if we can make a formula for that...

GO = C mod GoodStuff + VB mod GoodStuff + Pascal / safety

c4s wrote:Yeah, I know what you're feeling. "Blood" really knows how to write

Don't spread unconfirmed rumors.

D is a total mess with tango/phobos and alexandrescu said dat x64 on windows is not anytime soon. for a language which pretend to be the c++ successor it doesn't look good.

Blood wrote:

xorc1zt wrote:@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!

Please allow an old programmer to live out his dotage in the belief that all those classes written in PB actually do something.

And remember, in the fullness of time, you too will learn the mysteries of the "ComeFrom" statement.

Tenaja wrote:

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

...and lacking in libraries, compared to C(x).

Which libraries? If you're referring to C do you know that d has access to all the standard c library built in to Phobos. Phobos is extremely well rounded and other libraries exist on dsource.org

Blood wrote: Which libraries? If you're referring to C do you know that d has access to all the standard c library built in to Phobos. Phobos is extremely well rounded and other libraries exist on dsource.org

I am referring to the fact that just about every source library in existence is available in C. If code exists, it exists in C. Sure, that is not a guarantee, but probably 99% true. D is in its infancy compared to C. That is the biggest problem with C...it is so heavily used, documented, and coded, it is a hard habit to break.

Tenaja wrote:

Blood wrote: Which libraries? If you're referring to C do you know that d has access to all the standard c library built in to Phobos. Phobos is extremely well rounded and other libraries exist on dsource.org

I am referring to the fact that just about every source library in existence is available in C. If code exists, it exists in C. Sure, that is not a guarantee, but probably 99% true. D is in its infancy compared to C. That is the biggest problem with C...it is so heavily used, documented, and coded, it is a hard habit to break.

D can use any C library.

Then blood, go "D", if thats what you want, but stop, please stop tryin to convince us all we need to program just like you do. We like Purebasic, or we would not be here. I for one loath C#, Java, C++, or any language that tells me I need to wrap classes around methods to be a good little programmer.

Its the biggest myth of all that Purebasic cant survive unless it turns into C++. thats bullsh*t.

You dont wanna program in Purebasic, Fine!, no one is twisting your arm. Leave, don't look back, don't cry for us, we'll all be fine in good Ol' procedural basic.

And when you are wrapped 15 layers deep in some sub classes , cant figure out why your codes not working because you used the wrong brackets or data types or put a " . " in the wrong place and the compiler or debugger doesnt catch it, i'll be laughin my fool head off,

good luck blood, I'll be proceeding in Pure

Oh and to Fred and crew, thanks to one of the most fun programming languages I have ever used.

Purebasic or bust!!!

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

That's interesting, I've recently stopped using D.

BTW: D is not really cross platform, there is no Win64 DMD.
And GDC is too buggy for me. (stuff compiles with DMD but not with GDC)

For now it seems to me that Go suites me more than D.
Go is really fun to use and simple.

D to me is like a Swiss army knife that can be used for anything, but because of that it's getting more complicated by the minute.

Interestingly the Go frontend is already in GCC since 4.7.1 and D still didn't make it in; maybe in GCC 4.8.

Tenaja wrote:

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

...and lacking in libraries, compared to C(x).

Don't forget GO, though... it seems to me they took all of the worst parts of C/C++ (brackets), and added it to some of the worst parts of VB (Variable types at END of declaration--super frustrating to read the types when they are not left justified). Oh, yeah, then they added a bit of Pascal safety, just for fun.

Let's see if we can make a formula for that...

GO = C mod GoodStuff + VB mod GoodStuff + Pascal / safety

My experience with Go is just the opposite of what you are saying.

To me Go is a modern C with interfaces, coroutines, channels, maps and more. They did not include some stuff of C that I didn't use anyway like pointer arithmetic or real-time stuff etc..

Just for the record:

At this point in time I use PureBasic and Go.
Interestingly enough both don't have full fledged OOP build-in but can be used in an OOP'ish fashion if needed.

Maybe both languages found the Optimal Sweet Spot.

At least for me

1. Years and years ago I probably posted something about PB not being picked up by the Big Boys unless it did this or that. In the end, I think I was right, and wrong. Its true PB will not be picked up by the Big Boys, but that primarily due to a variety of factors which include the fact that PB is something of a niche product, but also because there are Standards universally accepted in industry, an education system that produces programmers for a limited number of languages, and little interest in industry to take a risk/invest time/$$ in a product that doesn't have some sort of industry track record and Support!
I was wrong however in that PB is surviving in its niche, and while perhaps not raking in the meg-$$ like VB, would easily be considered a success by most people.

2. Being somewhat more seasoned than some here, I find it rather belly-achingly funny that someone who seems not to be a professional developer feels compelled to warn us of the dangers of PB not having OOP. And the reason I may have to visit a Gastro-Enterologist in the ER shortly is that this same person is evangelizing what is basically an attempt to retread C++, ie. "It originated as a re-engineering of C++, but even though it is mainly influenced by that language, it is not a variant of C++. D has redesigned some C++ features and has been influenced by concepts used in other programming languages, such as Java, Python, Ruby, C#, and Eiffel.

So since 1999 D has been re-engineering C++, and adding bits and pieces from every language under the sun.
And in the past 13 years, its gotten as much traction as CoffeeeScript, Racket and ADA.
http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2011/09/06/d ... -rankings/

I think the question could easily be asked of these doom-seers, where PB to add OOP, just exactly would that accomplish. Would business (Large) suddenly find it more attractive? Would it suddenly get its own tag on slashdot?
Would college girls start lusting after PB Nerds?

No, No, and No.

Really, if you find the need for OOP to be so compelling, consider moving to D or some other language full-time.
Further complaining and whining here is not going to yield anything, and doing so comes across as simply having a tantrum.

the ranking tell us dat all tier 1 languages are oop except C and sh.

your analyze on D is misleading. java had sun, c# has microsoft, objc has apple but d has digital mars. D could be the best language by far dat you will never see visual studio or xcode support it because ms or apple want to support their own commercial products. the truth is no matter how good the language is, if there are no tools and no support the language is not viable.

It's been another year since the last Doomsday Quote, so I just added it to the first post. With PureBasic 5.00 just around the corner, it makes such quotes very laughable. We actually had 6 quotes in the last year, with people wondering if PureBasic was dying. Hope they can rest easy now.

Hmmmm.... in your urge to collect some you put there even simple expressions of concern or questions anyone can have from time to time.

Those are not "doomsday quotes" IMHO.


Things like these are more like it, especially when they are telling how the things should be done or else:

"[Without OOP] PB will die and go away in a few years." - March 16, 2011.
"PureBasic needs a redesign and rethink in its marketing across the board." - July 26, 2008.
"Shareware software companies with one product and no upgrade fee's have no future" - July 12, 2006.
"PB's days are numbered if some MAJOR changes aren't made in a very short time!" - February 28, 2004.

If you want to see bad predictions, look at when the iPhone came out. Those were real bad.