OOP Support (it is time)

[ColeopterusMaximus]

Ohhh! So adding OOP "will make PB better". I see you clearly know what you are talking about.

My advice kid, let it rest to avoid further humiliation ....

No my dear friend, the ball is in your court, you have to explain to us why do you think OOP capabilities in PB will make it worse, specially when all we're talking about is having a simple syntax like for example freebasic has.

Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBASIC#Example_code, and just explain to this "kid" why having the means to declare and use OOP in PB makes it a worse language.

I'm not asking for inheritance, or abstract classes, nor a complicated C++ syntax, I'm asking for a simple object oriented approach. We're not asking for Java or .Net OOP complexity, nor C++ madness, and more importantly I'm not asking for an event-driven PB nor I'm asking for OOP to be forced on anybody. I do not understand why both methods could not exist and cherry pick the one you considers most appropriate for a given situation.

I put my money where my mouth is, I'm willing to pay again for a PB++

[ColeopterusMaximus]

What the hell?!

I'm not speaking about pre compilers or some attempts to emulate it ....

I think i gonna give try to SimpleOOP with heavy object operations.

Dude, make up your mind or let it go already ....

This elitist attitude of yours...

[Yogi Yang]

I'm not asking for inheritance, or abstract classes, nor a complicated C++ syntax, I'm asking for a simple object oriented approach. We're not asking for Java or .Net OOP complexity, nor C++ madness, and more importantly I'm not asking for an event-driven PB nor I'm asking for OOP to be forced on anybody. I do not understand why both methods could not exist and cherry pick the one you considers most appropriate for a given situation.

I agree with you here. It should be like it is in PHP. If a developer is comfortable with procedural so be it and use it. If a developer is comfortable with OOP do be it and use it.

[MachineCode]

So over this OOP discussion every few months. Can the team PLEASE put a stop to it once and for all, with an official word on yes/no, and then BAN all future discussions? Thank you.

[rsts]

In 2005/10 Fred said in one interview:“Procedural and Object Oriented Programming are two opposite concepts and it's not a good idea to mix them in a BASIC language (which is intended for beginners...)”

Is this opinion still valid?

Yes, it's still valid. It's exactly what i wrote above

How often must they answer?

[Shield]

All those topics about PB and OOP just show how much interest there actually is
in such language features. You can't ignore that.

The PB team needs to make a clear and explanatory statement to tell all (new) users
why they won't implement those features and what's the benefit of not adding them.

At least they should post that in the FAQ section and probably on their blog,
but I'm sure that these threads will keep coming over and over again.

[MachineCode]

All those topics about PB and OOP just show how much interest there actually is
in such language features. You can't ignore that.

No, the reality of it is this: PureBasic is a Basic language, not OOP. Basic is nothing like OOP at all. But all the OOP fans who use PureBasic, start realising just how GOOD this language is, and wish they could have an OOP language that was of the same high quality and calibre. So they start trying to convince the team that it's needed, wanted, and MUST be added to keep PureBasic alive. That's where this "interest" comes from. But it's misguided interest simply because they're forgetting why they came here in the first place: for Basic.

[Shield]

PureBasic is a Basic language, not OOP. Basic is nothing like OOP at all.

Then why is there a possibility to use high level API calls like DirectX?
Why does PureBasic have pointers?

You can't just draw a line between "Basic" and "Advanced" programming languages, there is none.
OOP is not easier or harder to learn, it's not faster or slower and it's not more advanced than procedural programming,
it's just another way of solving problems and that's what programming is all about.

Saying "OOP isn't made for a basic language" is just wrong.
Look at how many Basic languages actually support OOP. And PureBasic is way
more advanced in terms of possibilities than a whole lot of those other Basic dialects that do support OOP.

[TomS]

And over and over again I'll tell you to use SimpleOOP.

People here don't seem to be afraid to pay 30$ for a closed source lib to enhance their GUI features, but an opensource OOP-Precompiler, that one thing that allows them to do what they've been whining about for years now, is not taken into consideration.

This bevaviour is like going to McDonalds and asking them over an over again to put ketchup on your french fries.
You keep whining and complaining to the management although they have ketchup for FREE and you just need to take this small package, open it and put the ketchup on your fries, yourself.
That's what SimpleOOP is: The Addon you want, coming in a free extra package, that is easy to install. (Even easier then ketchup, because the installer doesn't spill )
It's as easy as it gets. Use it or stop complaining.

The PB Teams needs nothing. It's their decision.
The FAQ would be 100 pages if every feature request was answered in the manner of: No, will not be implemented, because:

• Reason1
• Reason2
• Reason3

[MachineCode]

why is there a possibility to use high level API calls like DirectX?

Because they're implemented as single-word commands, just like Basic commands. No "Class/EndClass" wrapping of code in blocks like OOP. Same for pointers.

[It's] like going to McDonalds and asking them over an over again to put ketchup on your french fries. You keep whining and complaining to the management although they have ketchup for FREE and you just need to take this small package, open it and put the ketchup on your fries, yourself.

THANK YOU! I made a similar hamburger analogy in a previous post but was laughed at, so I removed it. But I was just trying to make the same point as yourself. Your version says it perfectly!

[TomS]

@Shield: Uhm. I don't know about DirectX, but you do realise what API means, don't you?
It's an interface provided by whatever system you're using (in this case Microsoft's Graphik-Engine) for you to interact with in your code.

An OOP-"Api" would look like this: OOP_Exec("Class myClass : Public scalar.i : EndClass")
Even if there was such a system.. Would you use it?
Didn't think so.

OOP can't be realized with an API if you want PB-like code.
Therefore you need a compiler or a precompiler, like SimpleOOP.

@MachineCode: The people who are complaining should be laughed at. They're the real fools. They have the opportunities but don't use them, because it's not generic, or whatever the reason might be...

[Shield]

why is there a possibility to use high level API calls like DirectX?

Because they're implemented as single-word commands, just like Basic commands. No "Class/EndClass" wrapping of code in blocks like OOP. Same for pointers.

Oh please, what does "wrapping of code in blocks" have to do with OOP?
If that's an OOP aspect for you, then you consider Structure / EndStructure and Interface / EndInterface etc. as OOP features, so they should be removed as well?
I think you should spend a little more time on learning what OOP actually is and how it works before you make such statements.


Anyway, to state my point:
I'm not for or against the implementation of OOP in PureBasic. I moved to other programming languages
a couple of years ago and I'm rarely using PB anymore. So what happens with PB in the future
doesn't really affect me, but it's still nice to check new features out every once in a while.

The only reason I'm posting in this thread is to clear up the whole situation
and probably to make a couple of people thinking outside of the box as I think some of you
do have a false view on what OOP is and what you can do with it.

[MachineCode]

OMG. Structure/EndStructure is NOT wrapping code in blocks.

[TomS]

The only people who don't understand are those who keep posting these requests.
PB is more or less a one man project. There are a lot of bugs to fix and some features that have already been requested seem kinda vital and are easier to implement.
With OOP in addition to "normal" Basic like we have now, Fred has to work on two branches at the same time.
Right now it's already hard to keep up with the 3 OS's (that's one reason (the main one?) why Amiga-support was dropped).

Although it must be said, that OOP is already possible with interfaces. That's the only reason precompilers like SimpleOOP can exist.
Now people don't like the "restrictions" (they're only optical) with interfaces.
And they refuse to let the precompilers do the work of creating PB-code out of pseudo oop-like code.
They just keep whining.
I'm repeating myself several times here, but it just doesn't seem to get through to the whiners.

OOP is possbible with PB. Use it or stop complaining.

Just because it's not generic and not completely written by Fred, doesn't mean it's not good.

[Shield]

Member definitions are nothing else than...bingo...code.
And the actual syntax of how classes are programmed doesn't have anything to do with OOP itself.

Edit:

OOP is possbible with PB. Use it or stop complaining.

That's why a clear statement would be useful.
New users don't know that, so they are asking about it.