ostapas wrote:when I mention PB, they start to grin from ear to ear at me with sarcastic smile
You can make money from your PureBasic apps; here's my current Inbox for inspiration. Show them this post and see how they come up more ways to rubbish PureBasic, despite the fact that it's making me good money at a fraction of the coding time and cost than they're doing with C++. So grin away, boys. You don't bother me one bit.
I dont no when make for Pb are considerate like best language. I know that is very easy from C,C++ and Java and of times faster. But the problem Pb is not be used by more enterprise. For resolve this problem i'm make with my lean know, a RAD http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 12&t=63546. Before I developed with windev, now i try to make the same thing with PureBasic.
Who knows, with perhaps this will give urge to use PureBasic
Use Pb 5.73 lst and Windows 10
my mother-language isn't english, in advance excuse my mistakes.
ElementE wrote:I would not mind programming in PureBasic all day if I could get paid for it.
Truth is, if the solution fits a need, you'd get paid regardless of the development platform. I did, even with uncompiled GW-Basic.
PureBasic just makes it easier; especially as a twofer for Windows and Mac!
Texas Instruments TI-99/4A Home Computer: the first home computer with a 16bit processor, crammed into an 8bit architecture. Great hardware - Poor design - Wonderful BASIC engine. And it could talk too!Please visit my YouTube Channel
I use abstract languages and finish things.. I'll leave boasting about low-level code management to unemployed CS grads who can do bubble sort in visual studio like nobodies business..
I know TASM, MASM, FASM, C11, WDDM, GCC, J2ME, JSDK''''' but I also know what it's like to make big projects in them without a team.. I still deal with MASM for x86 for debugging and RE though.. I could go do stuff with C11 if I had to.. I'm getting old and would rather be economical and pay for stuff..
Sorry but why are you wasting your time by arguing with fanatic fanboys? Serious programmers would never bash a language like that. Arguments like "No OOP --> crap" should be ignored and can never reflect the opinion of a serious programmer. C also does not support OOP natively. Does this make it a crappy language...?
Advanced programmers always use a lot of languages depending on the tasks to perform. Someone who just uses C++ for any kind of application will waste a lot of time and remain unproductive.
At th end of the day there is more more than one way to skin a cat. the problem we all face, is that only the cat knows which way was best but cannot answer.
Last edited by collectordave on Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
I also have a friend who is a died in the wool C\C++ programmer. I also get the grin.
I started with Pure Basic just a few months ago and was told in no uncertain terms that PB does not do it this way and that way, mainly centered around the message loop stuff.
Well after just a few months I have proved them wrong on that point, PB is flexible enough to do the same along with all the advantages listed here.
I have also asked them for a challenge as mentioned earlier in this topic.
After a few beers and some argument we have settled on programming a snakes and ladders game that is in a single executable with no dependencies at all. The executable must be located on a USB memory stick, require no installation and just simply run on any machine into which the USB stick is plugged. At first I thought I had had too many beers but after the last few months of using PB I think it is quite possible. I have got one thing in my favour. After we prove it working on Windows we do the same on the MAC.
I am rubbish at graphic design, so if anyone can help by designing a 600X600 pixel snakes and ladders board i would be gratefull. I allready have most of the code planned and written just need the graphic really.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
collectordave wrote:I also have a friend who is a died in the wool C\C++ programmer. I also get the grin.
I started with Pure Basic just a few months ago and was told in no uncertain terms that PB does not do it this way and that way, mainly centered around the message loop stuff.
Well after just a few months I have proved them wrong on that point, PB is flexible enough to do the same along with all the advantages listed here.
I have also asked them for a challenge as mentioned earlier in this topic.
After a few beers and some argument we have settled on programming a snakes and ladders game that is in a single executable with no dependencies at all. The executable must be located on a USB memory stick, require no installation and just simply run on any machine into which the USB stick is plugged. At first I thought I had had too many beers but after the last few months of using PB I think it is quite possible. I have got one thing in my favour. After we prove it working on Windows we do the same on the MAC.
I am rubbish at graphic design, so if anyone can help by designing a 600X600 pixel snakes and ladders board i would be gratefull. I allready have most of the code planned and written just need the graphic really.
I realize that you've probably already finished this.
Excellent.
You should have won.
And after it is all said and done, perhaps you'll have a new PB coding buddy.
The sad and annoying thing is that this is a easy to win debate. Just get the stats for projects finished and successful from 50-200 finished indy projects. Hint: They're almost entirely managed code.
People who have never finished a project and tested it against a market can write GTA V in pure NASM.
Anyone sane of mind would prefer the latter, and if you can't have both then you would expect at least the correct code to be generated.
Anyway it's not a problem to have both, as long the compiler offers options incrementally more aggressive (and more effective in certain scenarios) and the programmer knows how the options works and what they do and he doesn't activate them blindly.
If he doesn't know then he just have to keep away from those options and stay with the safer code.
So optimizations are not a problem and a nice feature to have.
Hoping for the compiler to overcome your bad choices of algorithms by optimizing crappy code, then THAT'S bad.
And by the way, optimized does not mean necessarily optimized for speed.
P.S. relaxing blog with some interesting points of view, thank you for the link.
