PureBasic 5.11 is out !

[Danilo]

@SFSxOI:
Seriously, why do you use PureBasic with THIS requirements? I think I understand what you want, but you
just can't find it here. PureBasic is so cheap and updates are free, [...]

[SFSxOI]

Danillo;

Its because we originally needed something for prototyping or small utilities on demand and my C# and C++ programmers are usually tied up with projects that are larger scale focused and are situated and set up in an environment that's geared for their project so they can remain focused on the project. However, now, unfortunately, the need grew larger than what we initially expected so as a result we have a lot of unique targeted application specific PB code in the field for various purposes or in use profiling bot nets or other things for agencies or companies. I was a little worried about the malware signatures previously sent out with PB code, it ended up in many anti-virus/malware packages both public and private and could have affected many, but we have checked those and they are ok and working as designed and intended. The boss is stomping around complaining this morning, she is pissed right now at PureBasic. The two OS reps are laughing their butts off, it is kinda funny 'cause she has this curious blend of Spanish and English accent with a high pitched voice and when she says certain curse words it sounds like something from a cartoon. She's pissed because of the pending, possible, recall of all the other code for retesting and recertification and the possibly $300,000.00 we might need to spend overall on doing that. If we knew what bugs were fixed we would not need to do that, we could just target that affected instead of a broad spectrum recall.

Yes, you are correct, it is far from a professional package but it satisfied the need. Its just that every time something changes with it I have to jump thru these hoops to get information for whats changed or been fixed, where I can simply ask the people for the other comparable package we use and get the information. Asking in the forum here is a nightmare most times, trying Pm is also just as nightmarish, both result in obfuscation when it comes to fixes or specific answers. When legal reads the help and documentation they just about have a heart attack. Our document writers can't believe some of the wording used, one of them framed a post from a VB named person in a previous post regarding the English help and put the caption below it "How not to use English in document writing". Certification is a pain, and twice as long with PureBasic, however, it still satisfied the need but is probably going to decrease in need soon.

I've been advised that we now have information available from which to compile a bug list. I won't go into details but I just terminated the employment of one of our people due to the manner in which they procured the information. We are disposing of the information.

[luis]

Seriously, why do you use PureBasic with THIS requirements?

A nice honest post. I totally agree on all the "BUGs" part and the compiler itself.
It's symptomatic the fact we still have, each and every version, compilers bugs.
I mean, it's ok to have bugs in the libraries, it's ok to have bugs in someway caused by the environment (different OSes, different configurations), but it's really worrying to have still bugs when you use a var type instead of another, or you build and expression a certain way.
That's scary if you think the compiler is not born last year.

My vision of pb is this: a super high lever assembler (not really Basic) for x86/x64, with a nice set of libraries, a non-bloated programming environment with a good enough debugger and the beautiful purifier, and an ever changing set of little bugs. And mainly for Windows.

That was what I was looking for when I found PB (minus the bugs). After staying about one year on the forum I started using it with a clear idea of what I could realistically expect from its future. Problem is other people seems to rush in and want PB to become something radically different, not just "better". Wake up if it's not what you hoped because it will not be.

It's what it is, I like it because there is no better alternative to PB in my view. Only very different alternatives aimed to different goals.

Last but not least, every programmer can use at least TWO different languages, come on. Use another one from the "different" alternatives pool when appropriate and you are ready to go. Use PB for what it's unique with it. It's simple, it's very self-contained (compared to everything else), it's old fashioned (a plus if you like that or if you simply can't understand other languages), it's fun to program with, has many useful aid to programming built in (the purifier is invaluable).

If you want extensive documentation, a language strictly and well defined, only exotic bugs you probably will never encounter in your programming life, OOP, exceptions, support for the latest technologies, look elsewhere and go mainstream.

To each his own, just try to understand the reality of PB before you devote time to it. Read the help file from start to finish, all of it, not just the part you need today, read the bug section/wish list in the forum. Add the twos and reach your conclusions.

[Danilo]

@SFSxOI and luis:
I think I understand your requirements and I share some of it, but I can't do something about it.

[...]

I just don't want to care about business of Fantaisie Software. If they charge 100,-Euro / Year for business use,
I would still be here. But I would expect something for the money. More quality and less bugs for example.
Fantaisie Software needs to make at least 100,000 Euro every year. It is a company! At least 30% of it is tax,
and selling new licenses is not that much, if we are at 8,000+ customers only after 13+ years.
They need at least 100,000 Euro every year, to run a business here in Europe, to pay tax and have a living.
That's without extra employees.

If 1,000 customers would be ready to pay $ 100.00 for a yearly subscription, Fred could live from it. And if he has
2,000 customers that would pay the annual fee, he could have a new programmer in his company.
Unfortunately, it seem he does not want it to be that way. Fantaisie Software does not want to grow?

[RASHAD]

I wonder what was the study of the first one who made a compiler
@SFSxOI
Can you give us a clue how Fred will categories the bugs
By refer to the bug link or what
Be fair my friend if you in the place of Fred and or Freak how can you do that
Consider the man power and the time consuming
We all know that the team has a list of the bugs since PB was established but
I think it is so difficult to do what is in your mind

[SFSxOI]

What is in my mind is that there would not be something like "....and libraries related bugs" put in the official documentation and then leave us hanging and in the dark as to "what the 'libraries related bugs' were that got fixed. That what I've got in mind.

I don't know how Fred will do anything to do with bugs information.

As far as the "man power" and "time consuming" factor, i'm not concerned about it. Although I empathize and understand, its not my concern because there is a ton of help available in the forum alone, there are people who would love to help out so it should not be too difficult to find someone to put together a fixed bugs list and post it on behalf of PureBasic from information supplied by the team. Instead, when I asked about what bugs were fixed one of the "team" instead of taking time to simply answer the question in a professional manner befitting a purchased product could find the time to provide an insulting answer to make it look like it was somehow my fault or I should be satisfied some way or another with no answer at all like i'm expected to grovel for information simply because its PureBasic. So, overall, no, i'm not concerned about their "man power" or "time consuming" factors.

[HeX0R]

I don't think this has something to do with manpower, more likely with self-discipline.

Idea:
If a bug got fixed, don't just enter a "fixed"-post, maybe write something like "fixed (sprite-lib)"
This wouldn't really be that time consuming.
Than just create a forum-scanner, which is crawling the bug-threads whenever a new release is out and put the links to the threads in a list.
Searching for the changed libs and combine them for a better reading.

Et voilà.

Of course this will not work for the past releases, maybe an idea for the future.

[RASHAD]

@SFSxOI
My friend think about the life cycle of Windows for example
PB problem is that we are the testers and the users at the same time

[IdeasVacuum]

It's what it is, I like it because there is no better alternative to PB in my view. Only very different alternatives aimed to different goals.

Last but not least, every programmer can use at least TWO different languages, come on. Use another one from the "different" alternatives pool when appropriate and you are ready to go. Use PB for what it's unique with it. It's simple, it's very self-contained (compared to everything else), it's old fashioned (a plus if you like that or if you simply can't understand other languages), it's fun to program with, has many useful aid to programming built in (the purifier is invaluable).

If you want extensive documentation, a language strictly and well defined, only exotic bugs you probably will never encounter in your programming life, OOP, exceptions, support for the latest technologies, look elsewhere and go mainstream.

To each his own, just try to understand the reality of PB before you devote time to it. Read the help file from start to finish, all of it, not just the part you need today, read the bug section/wish list in the forum. Add the twos and reach your conclusions.

Exactly! Let's not pretend that the mainstream stuff is perfect either, it's far from perfect, not least because the likes of Microsoft keep changing direction in an unreasonable period of time. Entire languages come and go - first touted as the ultimate solution to the Universe and then poof - gone, unsupported.

[Danilo]

Exactly! Let's not pretend that the mainstream stuff is perfect either, it's far from perfect, not least because the likes of Microsoft keep changing direction in an unreasonable period of time. Entire languages come and go - first touted as the ultimate solution to the Universe and then poof - gone, unsupported.

Sounds like you are one of the Visual Basic haters. Microsoft haters to be exactly.

Wikipedia -> Visual Basic

Visual Basic 1.0 (May 1991) was released for Windows at the Comdex/Windows World trade show in Atlanta, Georgia.
Visual Basic 1.0 for DOS was released in September 1992.
[...]
Mainstream Support for Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 ended on March 31, 2005. Extended support ended in March 2008.[11] In response, the Visual Basic user community expressed its grave concern and lobbied users to sign a petition to keep the product alive.

Microsoft has provided a new platform for Windows PC, XBox, Windows Phone, and Windows 8 Tablets.
Microsoft was right already, not stopping at Win98 COM Style. They have an up-to-date platform for
developers on many platforms.
If you are one of the man who thinks current development platforms should stay for the next 50+ years,
you are just too old and you should retire. Developer stuff will always move to the future...

[IdeasVacuum]

Sounds like you are one of the Visual Basic haters. Microsoft haters to be exactly.

The opposite is true, I very much liked the original VB, didn't get to use it as much as I wanted though. Microsoft hater? Not at all, if it wasn't for Windows I wouldn't be earning my keep doing the work I enjoy. I think everybody on the MS platform, Developers and Users alike, use Windows and prefer Windows (whatever their reasons may be), but MS do have the ability to make strategic mistakes and those are frustrating. Typical of all larger companies though, the bigger a company gets, the further away it is from common sense.............

[MachineCode]

I just can't count on PureBasic

And by contrast, the late Ralph Dunn could. Remember, Ralph (aka Rook Zimbabwe) was able to purchase his 4-bedroom house in the USA from the money he made from his PureBasic app. Not bad for using a tool that is "for fun only" (as you put it). So it all depends on what you're doing, how you code, and how dedicated you are.

[SFSxOI]

I miss Ralph.

[MachineCode]

Every time I use PB for a big project, I spot a bug, or several bugs.

I think often the problem is that people forget that PureBasic is meant to BASIC. Look at this snippet of a bug report:

Code: Select all

Import "user32.lib"
    CompilerIf #PB_Compiler_Processor = #PB_Processor_x64
        mba(*win=0,text.p-ascii=0, title.p-ascii=0, flags=0) As "MessageBoxA"
    CompilerElse
        mba(*win=0,text.p-ascii=0, title.p-ascii=0, flags=0) As "_MessageBoxA@16"
    CompilerEndIf
EndImport

When I look at that, I don't see ANYTHING like the Basic I know and love. It's alien to me. It's like C. Personally, I don't code like that and just use the standard Basic keywords and functions and I rarely have a problem. That aspect of PureBasic is pretty much bug-free.

Then you have people who go the extra yard and add stuff like the above. And they're not wrong for doing so, because the language "supports" it. Unfortunately, it's no longer Basic but more a mixture of Basic and some other language. That's a fact. You won't see the above code in any other true Basic language. So, it's no wonder that bugs are found for such non-Basic features. Perhaps Fred/Freak should return to the original concept of PureBasic and keep it BASIC, instead of trying to give it more power (and bugs) by making it more than it should be?

Just my thoughts, anyway. I give them while shrugging my shoulders, and I don't mean offense to anyone.

[luis]

When I look at that, I don't see ANYTHING like the Basic I know and love. It's alien to me.

That's what the language offer, if there is a bug there that's means there is a bug in the language that need to be fixed. If you only use a subset of the language without encountering bugs and you are happy with that, good for you. Knowing that it's irrelevant for the rest of us though.

That aspect of PureBasic is pretty much bug-free.

It would be not relevant if if was true, but it's also simply not true. See my post above when I talk about using "a var of a certain type". You found things like that reported every version. That's some very CORE stuff. Nothing fancy at all. In a compiler not born yesterday, I insist.

You won't see the above code in any other true Basic language. So, it's no wonder that bugs are found for such non-Basic features. Perhaps Fred/Freak should return to the original concept of PureBasic and keep it BASIC, instead of trying to give it more power (and bugs) by making it more than it should be?

PB is already a simple language. The compiler it's a LOT simpler than a C compiler, and a C compiler it's simpler than a C++ compiler and so on. Your idea to downgrade an already simple language to CBM BASIC 1.0 does not appeal to me.
I prefer the software to be fixed instead of being dumb down to have less bugs. Especially when my expressiveness when coding is dictated by the limits of the tool I'm using.