PureBasic Forums - English

the.weavster wrote:Perhaps this quote from GNU will help clarify the situation for you...

If by clarify, you mean affirm and corroborate my position on the open source model, then yes; it surely does.

Love it how much people can interpret into two words.
Open means it's open. Source means it's the source. It's the most easy wording but people interprete the world into it.

From the eula of Space Engineers:

The source code and art assets must not to be mistaken for free software, an open source in a free-software activist understanding, copy-left or public domain software.

open source in a free-software activist understanding
Not in the meaning of the words. ^^

Thorium wrote:Love it how much people can interpret into two words.
Open means it's open. Source means it's the source. It's the most easy wording but people interprete the world into it.

Next you'll be telling us that zero-day means no day! It doesn't quite work that way with valid and established terminologies. And the term open source is one of them.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:Open-source software is free to use, and the original program can be changed by anyone.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution.

Random House Dictionary wrote:pertaining to or denoting software whose source code is available free of charge to the public to use, copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute.

Longman Dictionary wrote:open source software is provided free, and includes the language the program is written in, so that the people who use it can make changes to the software.

Webopedia wrote:open source refers to a program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design free of charge, i.e., open.

Wiktionary wrote:Of, or relating to a product which is licensed to permit modifications and redistribution of its source code, as per The Open Source Definition.

Moreover, I don't see why there's even a debate anymore when Marek Rosa himself had clearly and unambiguously stated that the release model of Space Engineers is not to be confused with open source. (link to his blog article)

He should know.

You forgot this one:

Urban Dictionary wrote:The stuff that makes Bill Gates' life sad.

the.weavster wrote:You forgot this one:

Urban Dictionary wrote:The stuff that makes Bill Gates' life sad.

That's a funny one. And here's a disheartening one:

Urban Dictionary wrote:A synonym for "abandoned". It is commonly known that open-source projects all become abandoned at some stage, and thus abandoned is just a progressive state of open-source.

Danilo, take note.

TI-994A wrote:And here's a disheartening one:

Urban Dictionary wrote:A synonym for "abandoned". It is commonly known that open-source projects all become abandoned at some stage, and thus abandoned is just a progressive state of open-source.

Danilo, take note.

Sometimes it just makes sense to start a new project instead just updating the old one.
For example, if the changes in a programming language system are too big, to consider it still the same,
or if greater incompatibilities/changes are required (see PB -> SB; VB6 -> VB.net; BlitzBasic -> Blitz3D -> BlitzMax -> MonkeyX -> MonkeyX2; etc).
Or there are other, better projects/libs, and some others become obsolete (because nobody uses it anymore).

Anyway, I don't want to discuss this forever. I just use what I want and like, and 15 years later,
this may be different stuff again. I can't use the same for 50 years because there is so many interesting stuff.
The world is always changing, there is always new stuff coming, and I learn new things all the time.
So one's own thinking and requirements/needs/want-to-haves also change over the years. Nothing special.

I'm also aware that almost all people come to an age where they don't want many changes anymore and don't want/need
the latest stuff - but at the age of 20/30/40 this shouldn't be the case. I imagine that things possibly may slow down
a little bit after 50/60/70/80, and I think it may just be stages/episodes/phases of development and life.

Danilo wrote:Sometimes it just makes sense to start a new project instead just updating the old one. For example, if the changes in a programming language system are too big, to consider it still the same, or if greater incompatibilities/changes are required (see PB -> SB; VB6 -> VB.net; BlitzBasic -> Blitz3D -> BlitzMax -> MonkeyX -> MonkeyX2; etc). Or there are other, better projects/libs, and some others become obsolete (because nobody uses it anymore).

Why so serious, Danilo? Just having some fun, yanking your chain. It's only Urban Dictionary, and their definitions shouldn't be taken seriously.

But still, when have you known me to leave a good argument alone.

While VB6 to VB.Net may be an apt example of a progressive product upgrade, shifting from the conventional API model to the .Net framework, the same does not hold true for the others.

SpiderBasic is an entirely different product, compiling to a whole new platform, and its command set is only a subset of PureBasic's. If anything, it is a fork of an actively developed, bigger project. Nothing abandoned here.

In the case of BRL, there was absolutely no reason for the release of each progressive product, beside$ the obviou$ commercial factor. IMHO, the original BlitzBasic could have simply been upgraded to accommodate more features and platforms, instead of introducing new products every few years. Of course, these upgrades required a whole new purchase, and this model eventually resulted in the total abandonment of the earlier products (or as BRL likes to call it, open source!). The trend continues today with the announcement of the upcoming MX2, which would effectively displace MX1. Buyer beware!

These contrast greatly with PureBasic. For over fifteen years, the PureBasic Team has progressively improved its product, adding features and platforms year after year, without missing a single beat, or charging an extra cent.

That's commitment! Thank you, Team PB.

Danilo wrote: I can't use the same for 50 years because there is so many interesting stuff.

BTW, C turns 43 this year, still maintaining its position as one of the most popular languages.

Well, personally I can see progress in BRL products. Procedural, adding OOP and enhancing it with every product, more and more targets
every time, including mobile and web. Opening it more every time: Closed source -> Include all lib sources with the payed product -> Making the
compiler open source, incl. libs for some targets / pay for additional targets, and get the rest of the sources with it -> full open source project,
founded by the community. Progress, how I like it.

See also: MX2 progress report:

Danilo wrote:Many developer's dreams becoming true... Desktop + Mobile + Web development using an advanced object-oriented,
non-brackets, and non-indention-depending, native, super-cross-platform language. Everything in one open-source package -> w0w!

Different company, different developers, different style. More agile/dynamic in my opinion, more responding to new trends, platforms, technologies.
Like me, users there like OOP (it's not even an question there ) and many (incl. the developer) are interested in different programming languages in general.
Direct contact with the developer, who is open-minded to suggestions, and feature requests! (very important, IMO)
Releases often, bugs get fixed as soon as possible.
You don't like anything of that, i got it. Different opinions, world views, generations, whatever...

TI-994A wrote:

Danilo wrote: I can't use the same for 50 years because there is so many interesting stuff.

BTW, C turns 43 this year, still maintaining its position as one of the most popular languages.

A few more interesting languages were developed within the last 43 years, and the younger generation prefers the new stuff, in my world.
I wasn't even born 43 years ago, anyway. Each generation has it's own things, you know. Have a nice weekend!

PS: I have quite some things on the list to get me busy for the next months. Let's come to an end, and let's just agree to disagree.
Of course you have the final word(s), so make it the ultimate answer to everything in life. (your last final word wasn't that great)

Danilo wrote:Well, personally I can see progress in BRL products ... Progress, how I like it.

And is this how you like it?

(monkey-x forum)

Danilo wrote:Blitz2D ... abandoned.
Blitz3D ... abandoned.
Blitz3D SDK ... abandoned.
BlitzPlus ... abandoned.
BlitzMax ... abandoned.
Monkey X ... halted.

Always the same, and one of the main reasons BRL gets fewer customers for every new product.

(monkey-x forum)

Danilo wrote:I am watching BRL products since I bought Blitz+ back in round about 2000. Only few weeks later came Blitz3D, and I decided to not pay again. Instead I got PureBasic ... It is one good example where a product does not get abandoned, instead it is enhanced and updated without an final "it is done" attitude.

Think about an up-to-date cross-platform Blitz3D ... It could still be the top thing for indies to make desktop games. It is not, because it was just stopped, in favor of something different. The new thing, BlitzMax, seems not to be that widespread, compared to Blitz3D back then. Again abandoned, in favor of something entirely new. As we see, the new thing, Monkey X, is even lesser widespread. Some of the problems (like the simple editor/IDE) are the same like 10 years ago.

Clearly, you seem to equate constant abandonment with progress.

Danilo wrote:Many developer's dreams becoming true ... super-cross-platform language ... w0w!

Wow is right, because this product is still an unrealised dream.

Danilo wrote:A few more interesting languages were developed within the last 43 years, and the younger generation prefers the new stuff...

Of course they were, but just being interesting is not a valid reason to switch to them. If your current development platform meets your requirements at par performance with the newer languages, a switch would simply be frivolous, not to mention counter-productive. Switching just to be trendy is silly.

Even the new generation programmers would tend to pick one and stick to it while it works.

Danilo wrote:Of course you have the final word(s), so make it the ultimate answer to everything in life. (your last final word wasn't that great)

I thought it was pretty good. I outed a real troll, shared a picture about it, and even had the last laugh.

Just like I'm doing again here (the last laugh, I mean).

TI-994A wrote:Even the new generation programmers would tend to pick one and stick to it while it works.

No they wouldn't, try reading the thread again. It's horses for courses (and if you were a racehorse you'd have a 'b' after your name).

TI-994A wrote:In the case of BRL, there was absolutely no reason for the release of each progressive product, beside$ the obviou$ commercial factor. IMHO, the original BlitzBasic could have simply been upgraded to accommodate more features and platforms, instead of introducing new products every few years. Of course, these upgrades required a whole new purchase, and this model eventually resulted in the total abandonment of the earlier products (or as BRL likes to call it, open source!). The trend continues today with the announcement of the upcoming MX2, which would effectively displace MX1. Buyer beware!

(monkey-x forum)

Danilo wrote:I am watching BRL products since I bought Blitz+ back in round about 2000. Only few weeks later came Blitz3D, and I decided to not pay again. Instead I got PureBasic ... It is one good example where a product does not get abandoned, instead it is enhanced and updated without an final "it is done" attitude.

Think about an up-to-date cross-platform Blitz3D ... It could still be the top thing for indies to make desktop games. It is not, because it was just stopped, in favor of something different. The new thing, BlitzMax, seems not to be that widespread, compared to Blitz3D back then. Again abandoned, in favor of something entirely new. As we see, the new thing, Monkey X, is even lesser widespread. Some of the problems (like the simple editor/IDE) are the same like 10 years ago.

Whoa! Aren't you guys saying the same thing???

the.weavster wrote:It's horses for courses...

Of course it is, but not multiple horses for the same course. Intemperance breeds chaos.

Try reading it in context:

TI-994A wrote:If your current development platform meets your requirements at par performance with the newer languages, a switch would simply be frivolous, not to mention counter-productive. Switching just to be trendy is silly.

Even the new generation programmers would tend to pick one and stick to it while it works.

coder14 wrote:

TI-994A wrote:IMHO, the original BlitzBasic could have simply been upgraded to accommodate more features and platforms, instead of introducing new products every few years.

Danilo wrote:Think about an up-to-date cross-platform Blitz3D ... It could still be the top thing for indies to make desktop games. It is not, because it was just stopped, in favor of something different.

Aren't you guys saying the same thing?

Hard to say with quicksilver; too capricious.

TI-994A wrote:

Thorium wrote:Love it how much people can interpret into two words.
Open means it's open. Source means it's the source. It's the most easy wording but people interprete the world into it.

Next you'll be telling us that zero-day means no day! It doesn't quite work that way with valid and established terminologies. And the term open source is one of them.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:Open-source software is free to use, and the original program can be changed by anyone.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution.

Random House Dictionary wrote:pertaining to or denoting software whose source code is available free of charge to the public to use, copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute.

Longman Dictionary wrote:open source software is provided free, and includes the language the program is written in, so that the people who use it can make changes to the software.

Webopedia wrote:open source refers to a program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design free of charge, i.e., open.

Wiktionary wrote:Of, or relating to a product which is licensed to permit modifications and redistribution of its source code, as per The Open Source Definition.

Moreover, I don't see why there's even a debate anymore when Marek Rosa himself had clearly and unambiguously stated that the release model of Space Engineers is not to be confused with open source. (link to his blog article)

He should know.

So how do you call it then?
Closed Source with opened source?
Makes no sense at all. The Dictionary is wrong about open source always being free. The real world is what forms terms and dictionaries just adopt them, they don't define them. If more projects like Space Engineers go open source, the dictionaries will change.

"open source in a free-software activist understanding" is what Marek meant and it's how it was been written in the EULA, you know that piece of text that is well thought out and not written down in a hurry like a blog post or tweet.

But i am tired to split hairs with you. So keep your definition, i keep mine.

@Thorium:

Thorium wrote:But i am tired to split hairs with you. So keep your definition, i keep mine.

Just ignore him. This guy does not understand the simplest, obvious, things.
For example, that people may change opinion over the years, when looking more deeply at
other programming languages and products. A bonehead remains to be a bonehead -
none of what you/we are saying will ever change that.

Thorium wrote:The Dictionary is wrong about open source always being free. The real world is what forms terms and dictionaries just adopt them, they don't define them.

And you obviously don't live in the real world.

Danilo wrote:...people may change opinion over the years, when looking more deeply at other programming languages and products. A bonehead remains to be a bonehead - none of what you/we are saying will ever change that.

Simply charming. When exposed as a hypocrite, you cower behind opinion.

Thorium wrote:...i am tired to split hairs with you. So keep your definition, i keep mine.

They're not my definitions; they're the official ones. Yours, on the other hand, is simply your poor interpretation of those official terms.

There's no need to split hairs; just know what you're talking about.

Both of you.