PureBasic Forums - English

mp303 wrote: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...

Yes it runs smoothly but with a heavy top duty for my dear CPU.
The matter is that i am really almost sure you lie when say there is 5%-10% cpu use.

It runs around 50% on my laptop (AMD 2400+, some crappy type of mobile Radeon).

I wouldn't be suprised to see it running 10 to 20% on a reasonably powerful desktop.

SMALL 2D shooter.... And no OOP to help you turn it into a real game ?? WTF if you ask me.

Try and get some help from a real programmer, or ask in the newbie forums if youre stuck.

/me throws kale a beer...

I so wanted to say that myself, but I thought I'd stay quiet for a change

LuCiFeR[SD] wrote:/me throws kale a beer...

Ta, *glug*...*glug*......hic....

@mp303

Very nice demo as it's a pity to put it off...

I and my friends are pretty interested in such a project as our college show project, the result will be free, non commercial, would you mind sharing the framework (or simple tip will do)? Thanks in advance.

Did I mention I have 20 years of programming experience? 10 years professionally. Not all OOP of course - it didn't even exist in the first many years of my programming experience, and I've written large applications with no OOP too.

So I'm fairly confident that I know how to program

Then why are you having so much trouble with PureBasic?

I have been programming since '79 and made a living at it since the mid 80s. In '86 at the age of 17, I had a full-time job sitting behind a computer all day crunching FORTRAN code for what was then one of the largest telecom companies in the USA. I left there to work for HP as a programmer and then went to work at Microprose, with half a dozen other gaming related companies on the side, technical writing for Interact, and lots of solo contract programming work. Am I a great programmer? No. I am a very mediocre programmer. There is no such thing as an expert anyway, technology changes way too fast. I am continually impressed with the skills and knowledge of other users in this community, there is a LOT of extremely talented people here.

I am retired, now I can do what I want to do programming wise and I do it purely for fun. I like OOP, but the industry standard OOP languages like VC++ & Delphi have become bloated beyond belief. VB (which I used to love) has died and is now nothing more than a VC++ clone, or more accurately a front-end for the VC++ compiler.

Most of the indie languages suck Rosie O'Donnell size ass. They are buggy, slow, not supported or not a usable product. PureBasic is affordable, blistering fast, bugs are quickly fixed, official support is good, and we have some extremely knowledgable users who are a tremendous help with support and Fred is the ONLY developer of an indie language that has a proven track record of actually KEEPING HIS PROMISES to his users. PB is fun to use, I have not found a language I liked and had so much fun messing with since the 70's-80s.

Do I wish PB has OOP support? Yes! Do I expect PB to have OOP support? No! And I can accept the fact that it will likely never support OOP. Do I struggle with aspects of PB? Yes, but mainly API related stuff as I am mostly a game programmer, not an app programmer and I really haven't delved into Windows at the API level since the 16bit days.

So you can presume about me what you want,

Nobody has to presume anything. Your words speak for you. You have 20 years of programming experience, but yet you are having a hard time using PureBasic which is one of the simplest BASIC variants out there.

you know it has nothing to do with drag and drop, whatsoever.

Sorry, but you mentioned VisualBASIC. He was just replying to you. Unless anything has changed in the last version of VB, if you want to write a "hello world" program, other than typing in the words "hello world", you will not program anything else as everything is done via the drag and drop editor. VB's point and click interface is why I suck at anything API related, since most of what I needed API wise was available via point and click.

But facts is, the industry uses it, requires it, demands it.

The "industry" would not start using PB even if it supported OOP. So this is a silly and futile argument. PB is not trying to compete with C++ nor replace it as the industry standard.

Do you think Photoshop, Flash, CuBase, Word, Firefox, Outlook or most other major desktop applications were written in linear C?

Depends on the app, doesn't it? Most apps today are a hodgepodge of languages and are not a single EXE. Major portions of the app will be written in VC++, with some parts in VB. Its not uncommon to see older features of an app still using C code and we don't even want to discuss the different concoctions of languages used to write the DLLs that will fill an apps directory.

Most major 3D engines?

Depends on what engine and for what platform. Some are C some are C++. However most 3D games are actually written using scripting languages built into the engine and can vary from "C like" to "BASIC like" to "JAVA like" syntaxes.

Most programmers with any real, practical, professional programming experience, have not been able to avoid OOP

The "industry" would not start using PB even if it supported OOP. So this is a silly and futile argument. PB is not trying to compete with C++ nor replace it as the industry standard.

If you don't like PB, don't use it. It really is that simple.

When i see the Polux's Lethal Judgement 3 or PureBreaker 2 which are actually written in PB 3, there is no comparison possible against this very small demo, so obviously it's not a programming langage problem.. Check them out here: http://www.bgames.org/ENgames.html

White Eagle Said:

Do I wish PB has OOP support? Yes! Do I expect PB to have OOP support? No! And I can accept the fact that it will likely never support OOP.

I think this sums up my position. I would love to see simple OOP support but I won't demand it and I'll continue to enjoy PB as it is. PB 4 was such an awesome update that filled in some gaps that I thought were missing.

I think too, like many here, we may like to see something added to PureBasic but this doesn't lesson our love for it.

@LuCiFeR[SD] -> *Buffer.l

Kale said:

Purebasic doesn't need to support it! It is based on BASIC after all. Everyone who thinks it SHOULD support it like THEFOOL, are idiots

Why do you call me stupid


Anyway; of course i don't expect PB to be OOP. I just say that I wouldn't mind a few oop things like Classes etc

I suppose I shouldn't get involved in this one. Nice demo. I wouldn't mind if PB had OOP but, if I really need it I can load up VisualStudio and use one of the languages there.

I must weigh in though to say that it's silly to think that you can't make a large, complex application (like a game) without OOP. Just a few years ago game developers absolutely REFUSED to use OOP and they were turning out games that were a damn sight more complex than your demo.

I realize if you were weaned on OOP coding then it might be difficult. I came from procedural languages, learned OOP, and now use both from time to time - though I am no professional coder I've been hacking around since the early 80s.
M

[edit]Download the Doom code sometime and take a look at it. All straight C...and you can convert it pretty much straight to PB if you want. It certaintly isn't the last or most complex game made without full-on C++ classes, operator overloading, inheritance, yadda yadda but it's one you can actually take a look at the source for. I think Quake source might also be available? I believe that's mostly (or completely) C as well.[/edit]

Vancouver, WA. I guess we can make you an honorary Canadian!

netmaestro,
You wouldn't believe how often I have to explain to people that I'm on the south side of WA and not the north We were originally wanting to move to Portland but our real estate agent was like, "You guys might want to check out Vancouver, WA" and we expected it was across the river from BC not Portland. Hey, if the US continues sliding in its current direction you guys might have to make me an ACTUAL Canadian, eh!
M

Kale wrote:

mp303 wrote:it's very hard for me to go back to monolithic / function-oriented programming at this point, it's just too unstructured, despite my best attempts to write "neat" code.

Thats your programming and organisational skill thats lacking, not the language.

This is the first "attack". It is subtle, but never the less an insult. All mp303 said was he found procedural programming unstructured.

Kale wrote:...
If you think that any language is gimped purely because it lacks OOP support, you dont know what your on about. period. I think you are too used to using RAD crap (drag and drop objects, etc...) to see any other way. :roll:

When the language lacks OOP it is gimped to some people. This has absolutely nothing to do with RAD. I have never used RAD, and I too find it "gimped" (to use your own words). I find it inadequate to my needs.

Fleath// wrote:I know I don't post much and mostly lurk, but is anyone else slightly bugged by how people get jumped on when they say they dont like part of PB?...

I agree Fleath. Kale gets all defensive as soon as someone mentions a shortcoming (imperfection) about PureBasic. Even Dare agrees with this even though he too is heavily anti-OOP (or so it appears).

Dare wrote:

mp303 wrote:For someone who has done as much OOP as me, a language with no OOP features does feel inferior and seriously crippled. I guess beginners and hobby-level programmers don't feel like that, because they don't know the difference.

lol, You just insulted a whole heap of people...

Dare did you not notice he said feel? I even bolded it for you in case you missed it the first time. How can anyone be insulted by his feelings towards a programming paradigm or lack of same? Is it not a bit ... well I am short on words ... but apparently kale seems to have very strong feelings about OOP.

Dare wrote:...It could be argued that beginners and hobby-level programmers can't program in procedural languages because they need the hand-holding of ultra-high level IDEs...

and @GBeebe:
Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. As you notice on the acronym BASIC was originally intended for beginners, the average Joe if you will. Yes basic IS for beginners. But please note that does not mean that everyone cannot/does not/will not use it. One is a sub-set of the other. You do the math.

netmaestro wrote:Delphi is drag-and-drop...

Delphi is a programming language! Just like PureBasic.

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.

Every action has a reaction. I think we can all agree that kale threw the first punch.

White Eagle wrote:...

But facts is, the industry uses it, requires it, demands it.

The "industry" would not start using PB even if it supported OOP. So this is a silly and futile argument. PB is not trying to compete with C++ nor replace it as the industry standard.
...

Nobody wants PB to replace C++ as an industry standard (well maybe fred, who knows). PB is however competing for users with ALL programming languages, and yes, also C++. But to my point: The fact that there is absolutely no OOP support in PureBasic means newcomers will not be able to use PB while learning OOP concepts. OOP and OOAD (OO analysis and design) is what I was thought in school. When you at your job interview are asked "do you have any OOP experience?" you surely do not want to say "no." You might not care, but some people actually like programming so much that they would like doing it for a living. I too, have not yet found an employer who does not care for OOP.

In my humble opinion mp303 is right in pretty much everything he is saying, and for this he gets attacked repeatedly. All he wanted to do was share his creation with the community. I am utterly disgusted by the tone of some people on this thread and just as disappointed.

Fred wrote:When i see the Polux's Lethal Judgement 3 or PureBreaker 2 which are actually written in PB 3, there is no comparison possible against this very small demo, so obviously it's not a programming langage problem...

This too is an insult. It is not my work, but I think I can safely assume that this little demo was never meant to be compared to a full-fledged game. That the language does not support OOP and this is a shortcoming to people used to such a paradigm. mp303 has admitted he does not want to implement a game without OOP (capable or not). Whether the language is flawed or not can only be compared to your goals for the language. But I don't think you should make an undertone that it is the programmer is flawed. The fact that you are the developer certainly sends a poor message to any potential customer who might, God forbid, like using objects. I personally will not recommend PureBasic to anyone before it implements basic classes, as I feel this will limit potential growth.

Fred, I would like you to know, having said this, I think the entire package is very good. It produces excellent executables, and is very easy to use. The editor has superb features such as code-completion on par with the likes of Microsoft's own Visual studio series. I am basically just as impressed with some of its features as mp303. I think some of the users on the forum are not very polite and they tarnish the rest the community's reputation. The package is far superior to other dialects of basic e.g. FreeBasic, qbasic, glBasic, basic4gl etc. and you should be aware that even though you might not like OOP, some people do, and would appreciate seeing PB have basic classes implemented. I think it is seriously missing for an otherwise exceptional package.

@mp303: This is an excellent idea. I love the feel of it. Controls are great... almost unique Regarding the frame-rate/CPU load, my Pentium M 1.7GHz with Go6600 (laptop) uses about 20% and has a frame-rate of 60, so no problems here. I hope you don't let the few anti-OOP users diminish your "fight" for OOP in PB These "Luddites" wouldn't know a good thing if it bit them in the ass.