Brand new user, eh? Are you sure you're not mp303 manufacturing support for your (pretty much lone) opinion? Betcha are. Genuine brand-new users for the most part have no idea what PureBasic is or is not, and they sure don't harbor any agendas for seeing it changed. They also don't carry around the pent-up anger to post shots like your asinine quote. If you actually are new, you're off to a real positive start, aren't you?These "Luddites" wouldn't know a good think if it bit them in the as.
small 2D shooter with some impressive effects
-
netmaestro
- PureBasic Bullfrog
- Posts: 8451
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada
BERESHEIT
-
mp303
Nope. Just tried it on my 1.6 GHz DELL Laptop at work - it runs smoothly, and gets about 15% CPU use.Psychophanta wrote:Yes it runs smoothly but with a heavy top duty for my dear CPU.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...
The matter is that i am really almost sure you lie when say there is 5%-10% cpu use.
You people sure are quick to scream "liar"...
-
mp303
Dare/netmaestro: no, I'm not "u9". For all I know, one of you people created him and posted this to make ME look bad.
Nice though (not surprising) to see I'm not the only one who would like to have OOP in PB.
Furthermore, just to set the record straight, I never said I couldn't write this game without OOP features - all I said was, I don't feel like it. I prefer OOP. It works for me.
And you can scream "liar", "troll" and "bastard" as much as you please - but at this point, your posts really say more about you than they do about me.
Nice though (not surprising) to see I'm not the only one who would like to have OOP in PB.
Furthermore, just to set the record straight, I never said I couldn't write this game without OOP features - all I said was, I don't feel like it. I prefer OOP. It works for me.
And you can scream "liar", "troll" and "bastard" as much as you please - but at this point, your posts really say more about you than they do about me.
u9 is full of it! His very long winded post about beating down mp303 is a bit of a rant, but essentially quite true, at least from my point of view.
I attacked mp303 because by his own admission he couldn't program a full game without OOP and then blamed it on PB being too 'monolithic', 'procedure orientated', 'unstructured' etc..
Now if your coming out with this crap on the official PB forum then expect PB's corner to be fought. I see absolutely no short comings of the language at all and it's perfectly usable for games of any size. Blaming the language is a sure sign of incompetence. Also remember i have the source to Bonk so i can see how it's coded.
Also this is mp303 third post about this subject and in every post he has been told that PB is not going to support OOP. So why does he continue to post these threads? Obviously to start a new flame war.
If PB doesnt fit your needs then don't use it. But please don't whine constantly to people who don't want to hear it.
Also for the record (and for the fifth time, im sure nobody reads what i write) I am NOT anti OOP! I just don't think Purebasic needs it. Maybe in the future PB will go that way? so we'll see. but at the minute, its not going to happen, which me and many people are fine with.
Can someone please lock or delete this thread...
I attacked mp303 because by his own admission he couldn't program a full game without OOP and then blamed it on PB being too 'monolithic', 'procedure orientated', 'unstructured' etc..
Now if your coming out with this crap on the official PB forum then expect PB's corner to be fought. I see absolutely no short comings of the language at all and it's perfectly usable for games of any size. Blaming the language is a sure sign of incompetence. Also remember i have the source to Bonk so i can see how it's coded.
Also this is mp303 third post about this subject and in every post he has been told that PB is not going to support OOP. So why does he continue to post these threads? Obviously to start a new flame war.
If PB doesnt fit your needs then don't use it. But please don't whine constantly to people who don't want to hear it.
Also for the record (and for the fifth time, im sure nobody reads what i write) I am NOT anti OOP! I just don't think Purebasic needs it. Maybe in the future PB will go that way? so we'll see. but at the minute, its not going to happen, which me and many people are fine with.
Can someone please lock or delete this thread...
--Kale
Fair point.mp303 wrote:Dare/netmaestro: no, I'm not "u9". For all I know, one of you people created him and posted this to make ME look bad.
And, to set the record straight the other way, my posts don't challenge you on that.mp303 wrote:Furthermore, just to set the record straight, I never said I couldn't write this game without OOP features - all I said was, I don't feel like it. I prefer OOP. It works for me.
They take you up on your implications that people using PureBasic are dills, unable to handle OOP (aside from yourself of course).
I hope you are not suggesting I called you any of those things, mp303.mp303 wrote:And you can scream "liar", "troll" and "bastard" as much as you please - but at this point, your posts really say more about you than they do about me.
You can truthfully say I mocked your repeated references to your own high level of coding expertise and experience. In fact it was really funny to see what you considered solid, and compare it with what others using PureBasic have in their portfolios. Regardless, you cannot say I bad-mouthed you.
IMO it is bad form for people to slag a language or the users of same on their own board. A request for new features is one thing, belittling the users of the language because it does not support those features is another altogether. Your posts are condescending and arrogant.
@Kale. Why ask to lock the thread? You took the first pot-shot on another thread, so live with it.
Dare2 cut down to size
-
mp303
-
Fangbeast
- PureBasic Protozoa
- Posts: 4789
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:08 pm
- Location: Not Sydney!!! (Bad water, no goats)
@mp303, I liked the game. Can see a future in me playing it:):):) My wife tends to say "Simple things for my husbands' simple brain".
@At all other fokazoids, i've been into building computers/programming for 28 years.
Still don't know bugger all.
But, I can crochet quite well.
@At all other fokazoids, i've been into building computers/programming for 28 years.
Still don't know bugger all.
But, I can crochet quite well.
Amateur Radio/VK3HAF, (D-STAR/DMR and more), Arduino, ESP32, Coding, Crochet
hehe. We must have met in RL.mp303 wrote:When interpreted with your aggressive, negative, superior attitude - yes.Dare wrote:Your posts are condescending and arrogant.
Just "yes" is accurate enough though, with or without my filters.
lol Fangs,
Can't crochet - but I've recently learned how to use the TV remote!
Dare2 cut down to size
-
Fangbeast
- PureBasic Protozoa
- Posts: 4789
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:08 pm
- Location: Not Sydney!!! (Bad water, no goats)
@Dare You should see some of the nice stuff I have made. 2 7 foot long blankets just from last winter (because it was so damn cold!!)
As for the remote, I don't bother with that as wife always steals it (control freak).
What I used to do was program the palm pilots, hide them under a pillow and change channels with them whenever she took my stations away. I had to confess because of the look on her face. I was laughing too hard!! Now I am looking for a similar program for my mobile phone and I think I have found one (very evil, twisted grin)
As for the remote, I don't bother with that as wife always steals it (control freak).
What I used to do was program the palm pilots, hide them under a pillow and change channels with them whenever she took my stations away. I had to confess because of the look on her face. I was laughing too hard!! Now I am looking for a similar program for my mobile phone and I think I have found one (very evil, twisted grin)
Amateur Radio/VK3HAF, (D-STAR/DMR and more), Arduino, ESP32, Coding, Crochet
I have stated that, although PureBasic is a great language, I would like to see OOP support, as well.
Without a doubt, I have noticed certain PB user's who are so defensive that if anyone mentions something that they see as a short coming in PureBasic they actually begin attacking the person who posted their opinion.
Without a doubt, I have noticed certain PB user's who are so defensive that if anyone mentions something that they see as a short coming in PureBasic they actually begin attacking the person who posted their opinion.
*phew what a discussion!*
Hmm why cant we keep this productive ? Why bash people that would like to see some OOP'ness ? Just start something ( eg Fsw's wrapper attempt etc. ) - and i think it spretty clear which direction Fred is going about so why even bitch or whine about ( kale =P .. ) - if you don't like it well that's your opinion but bashing users because of their wishes wont help anyone. Maybe who knows one day a great tool will be born out of some OOp code somone made which wouldnt have come to PB in the first place.
I realize not everyone is a Pro and PB is ideal for that with now a very wide learning curve ( up to ASm <3 - ) However making some OOP precompiler ( or whatever ) .. you never know what's gonna become out of it. And to the question about why dont you use C++ then ? ... Alot Poeple here started to love PB ( me included ) - however if i am 10h a day sitting in front of some awful VC++ .NET and in teh evening want to code something nice relaxing i sit behind PB and it doesent feel like *work* anymore...
In the end its a matter of taste.. however id like to see less bitching and more productive posts ...
Opinions are Opinions... what you make out of ideas is what counts...
my 2cp .
Cheers,
Thalius
Hmm why cant we keep this productive ? Why bash people that would like to see some OOP'ness ? Just start something ( eg Fsw's wrapper attempt etc. ) - and i think it spretty clear which direction Fred is going about so why even bitch or whine about ( kale =P .. ) - if you don't like it well that's your opinion but bashing users because of their wishes wont help anyone. Maybe who knows one day a great tool will be born out of some OOp code somone made which wouldnt have come to PB in the first place.
I realize not everyone is a Pro and PB is ideal for that with now a very wide learning curve ( up to ASm <3 - ) However making some OOP precompiler ( or whatever ) .. you never know what's gonna become out of it. And to the question about why dont you use C++ then ? ... Alot Poeple here started to love PB ( me included ) - however if i am 10h a day sitting in front of some awful VC++ .NET and in teh evening want to code something nice relaxing i sit behind PB and it doesent feel like *work* anymore...
In the end its a matter of taste.. however id like to see less bitching and more productive posts ...
Opinions are Opinions... what you make out of ideas is what counts...
my 2cp .
Cheers,
Thalius
"In 3D there is never enough Time to do Things right,
but there's always enough Time to make them *look* right."
"psssst! i steal signatures... don't tell anyone!
"
but there's always enough Time to make them *look* right."
"psssst! i steal signatures... don't tell anyone!
"Can you please give me a link where Fred has stated that PureBasic will never support OOP? And please don't give me a link 3 years old, hopefully you have something relatively recent.Kale wrote:Also this is mp303 third post about this subject and in every post he has been told that PB is not going to support OOP.