PureBasic Forums - English

Thorium wrote:

milan1612 wrote:then that
it's not bloated

I mean the source code gets bloated not the resulting executable. For example every API introduces it's own datatypes which are just the basic c datatypes with other names. That does not make any sense to me and just makes the source look more complicated than it is. For example on OpenGL you use "GLFloat" for floats but it's just the same as "float" you can just write "float" instead of "GLFloat". Maybe that should improve readability but it just don't. And there are tons of such things.

Sorry, then I missunderstood you.

This "create another type name alias" thingy is the price to pay if you want true portability

Kaeru Gaman wrote:it's ok, he just should use the singular "stigma" if he doesn't mean the clerical term...

Yep! good catch, guys. I was a little distracted, kid running around being wild, didn't catch that mistake.


@Thorium -- I feel your pain! I don't use C primarily, but maybe once a month or so doing updates and expanding an existing project. The more I dig into it the less I like it. And I definitely see what you mean about the (non-executable) bloating!

That Lua sounds interesting...

Lots of people will see the word "Basic" and think it's a toy language, or slow, or interpreted; when we all know it's not. But I wanted a Basic language and that's how Google found PureBasic for me. Renaming it to exclude the word "Basic" doesn't stop it being Basic, and any coders trialling it will see that it's Basic in an instant.

IMO, the best solution is to rename it to to remove the word "Basic" BUT market it as using a Basic syntax. So, something like this: "XYZ: The super-fast compiled language of the future using the Basic command set that you know and love."

well since you can drop in ASM... we could call it PURE

What do you use?

PURE man...

(Though I am at a loss as to how to pronounce it in all capital letters!)

well excel is built on basic, has a basic keyword in it, what has java given us except google?

alokdube wrote:what has java given us except google?

Bad coffee?

well excel is built on basic...

Are you saying that Excel has been coded in Basic... or have I missed something?

Foz wrote:

alokdube wrote:what has java given us except google?

Bad coffee?

Tobacco.

srod wrote:

well excel is built on basic...

Are you saying that Excel has been coded in Basic... or have I missed something?

I thought the complete XP, Vista & Win7 was coded in VB...

This is bullshit. The word 'Basic' attracts a lot of potential customers who love Basic and has worked with it before, and
probably a lot of people who like MS Visual Basic too.

I'm not embarassed in saying that I love the Basic language, and If your potential employers needs som other skills, then
I asume you program in other languages too, like I do.

Do you want them to name it PureJava, PureC++, PureWTF? No, Mistrel. Your post is 'idle hands' and PureBullshit.

Well - this is rather an old post that has *re-surfaced*...

I'm guessing that the majority of PB Users arrived here because they were looking for a BASIC language. PB has turned out to be rather an advanced language that beginners can use easily and more advanced programmers can use to great effect.

Is there a stigma attached to being a ****BASIC programmer? Well yes - probably there is.

But if Fred had called it something more obscure like perhaps "PureBRIAN" and described it in more generic terms, then I'm guessing nobody who reads this post would have bothered with it.

So the name BASIC is a bit of a double edged sword. There's good and bad. But it is what it is and I'm guessing Team PB aren't going to be changing it any time soon.

naw wrote:So the name BASIC is a bit of a double edged sword.

indeed!

... and actully, I came across PureBasic when searching for good offers for VB packages...
so if it wasn't "BASIC", I maybe would never have found it.

Kaeru Gaman wrote: ... and actully, I came across PureBasic when searching for good offers for VB packages...
so if it wasn't "BASIC", I maybe would never have found it.

+1

I was specifically searching for a "Basic" language. Had it been anything else, I would not have evaluated and purchased it.

cheers

rsts wrote:I was specifically searching for a "Basic" language.

Me too - I still do from time to time to see if anything new has come along. I've seen exactly this same suggestion / discussion in the REALbasic forum too.

Maybe we should have a BASIC pride march

the.weavster wrote: Maybe we should have a BASIC pride march

Kaeru Gaman wrote: ... and actully, I came across PureBasic when searching for good offers for VB packages...
so if it wasn't "BASIC", I maybe would never have found it.

Same story for me. I explicitly searched a replacement for VB6 which could offer me low level access. Well and thats PB.