PureBasic Forums - English

TI-994A wrote:Try reading it in context:

I did. Taking snippets out of context to give a false impression of someone else's view is your modus operandi not mine.

TI-994A wrote:

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

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

And given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.

Ti-994A, man you are good! I am enjoying your posts

Other:

just know what you're talking about ...

Concerning: "Open Source"

I'm 100% with TI-994A.

For decades the term 'open source' has been synonym with 'Free usable code/software'.
Here's the term 'open source' used as an antonym.

A more appropriate term would be: *Proprietary modifiable source code*.

The space engineers source code is available to view and/or change, but all changes are the property of the copyright holder.
To me, this is another scheme to strengthen the company's software and accumulate profit from 'pro bono' work.

Like so many other profit related things in life, this isn't cool at all.

Furthermore - this annual oop debate is 100% futile!

The team might add some kind of "oop look-alike features" or they wont.

Learn to live with the language, adapt to it and rejoice on every new update/enhancement.
If you can't...Then find another language to work with. It's as simple as that.

And lastly:
To those who are willing and have the ability to pay more than their initial payment:
DONATE instead of continously telling us about how much you're willing to pay.
Put your money where your mouth is and support the team and PureBasic!

End of story.

the.weavster wrote:

TI-994A wrote:Of course it is, but not multiple horses for the same course. Intemperance breeds chaos.

And given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.

I'd really love to respond (you know me); but your incoherence makes it impossible.

said wrote:Ti-994A, man you are good! I am enjoying your posts

Just trying to clear up some misconceptions; nothing more. I'm glad you're enjoying them.

DK_PETER wrote:A more appropriate term would be: *Proprietary modifiable source code*.

Sounds good. Or simply copyrighted source code; perfectly self-explanatory.

DK_PETER wrote:...this is another scheme to strengthen the company's software and accumulate profit from 'pro bono' work.

And many others are already following in these footsteps, exploiting community goodwill and support for personal gain.

It's a pity you never want to stop, TI-994A. Only moderators can stop you.

TI-994A wrote:Simply charming. When exposed as a hypocrite, you cower behind opinion.

I don't see a contradiction here, sorry.

See "BlitzMax ... abandoned." - I still think it's true. Not everybody shares that opinion, but
the product isn't developed any further by BRL. Althought it's still working.

When I bought Monkey, I also bought BlitzMax. Didn't see a need for it, but it was a way to throw
some more money at BRL to support them.

Only few month later: "Monkey X ... halted."
Quite shocking for the community. Somebody said something like "he is always doing this, don't worry too much".
I begun to understand that later. After a break and vacation, development continues. Doing the next version,
again adding more nice features.

Installed BlitzMax few month later, just for fun. I was actually surprised to find many things working
in (old) BMX, that are feature requests here - some for many years. Type safety, polymorphism, empty arguments,
and (not surprisingly) OOP.
It was the thing that changed my opinion about the language, and I begun to see how the language itself
gets enhanced and new features added with every new product/project.
Seeing that progress in the language itself over the years, convinced me.
Generics like other OOP languages, and being able to Import "file.cpp" / Import "file.js".
Reminds me of User_Russian trying to use C++ from PB, asking to support more calling conventions.

The next thing I begun to like is, that the products opened more and more over the years.
Having the sources available is helpful. Users are taking open sources and bring it to
new platforms, like Raspberry Pi. Again, reminded me of feature requests here.
With sources available, you can just do it yourself, if you like to. Just add new features yourself.

PB still has the better and more complete library system, in my opinion. At least currently.

It's many things that are different. Languages, libraries, IDE/tools, target platforms, closed source vs. open source.
Different things have different benefits/advantages. I guess all that may depend on personal preferences, and sometimes
preferences and opinions change over time.

TI-994A wrote:

the.weavster wrote:

TI-994A wrote:Of course it is, but not multiple horses for the same course. Intemperance breeds chaos.

And given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.

I'd really love to respond (you know me); but your incoherence makes it impossible.

At what point did I lose you? Did you understand each individual word?

the.weavster wrote:

TI-994A wrote:

the.weavster wrote:And given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.

I'd really love to respond (you know me); but your incoherence makes it impossible.

At what point did I lose you? Did you understand each individual word?

What key decision? What judgement? Try being a little more contextually intelligible (if that's even possible for you).

Danilo wrote:Only few month later: "Monkey X ... halted."After a break and vacation, development continues. Doing the next version, again adding more nice features.

Not true. From the beginning, each product experienced sudden death; and that now includes Monkey-X. The "development continues" that you're speaking of is in fact the introduction of yet another new product, the Monkey-2.

Danilo wrote:Installed BlitzMax few month later ... I begun to see how the language itself gets enhanced and new features added with every new product/project. Seeing that progress in the language itself over the years, convinced me.

It shouldn't, because these enhancements and features that you speak of only gets added to the next new thing, while the poor customers of the old thing are forced to make another purchase. The only thing that you should be convinced of is not to invest time and effort in a developer that has proven to be unreliable.

Danilo wrote:The next thing I begun to like is, that the products opened more and more over the years.

Over the years? Not exactly. BlitzPlus and Blitz3D were dumped to open source only in the last one year or so, when BRL decided to throw in the towel.

The sombre "sales are not good" announcement followed soon after, and then finally the upbeat "I've decided to start work on Monkey2" news.

Danilo wrote:Having the sources available is helpful. Users are taking open sources and bring it to new platforms, like Raspberry Pi.

This is a perfect example to illustrate the "viability" of open source projects. After almost a year, the community fork for the Raspberry Pi platform still remains in unstable alpha, with only fractional functionality, at best. Not exactly inspiring.

Like I've said before, this is nothing personal against BRL, but I couldn't possibly entrust a capital tool to a company with such a track record. Of course, end-of-life is inevitable for any product; even Fred has raised that possibility. But with BRL, the writing's been on the wall for many years now. High expectations would only prove to be wishful thinking.

Just for the record, this entire discussion was sparked by your irrational idealising of the upcoming, non-existent Monkey-2, while vilifying good old, dependable PureBasic for its few shortcomings. My arguments are only meant to deconstruct BRL's track record, to expose your idealising of their products as unfounded, and thus irrational.

In comparison, PureBasic is a godsend!

Danilo wrote:Different things have different benefits/advantages.

A good point to end on. (if you're game)

Guys, thanks for this thread, it's enlightening, inspiring and amusing!

Danilo sometimes is a little bit too enthusiastic and ideological once in a while, but he has a vision of a better tool and he's working for it without being afraid of confrontation. I like that, because it's important if you want to change things and create something new and different.

TI-994A's rational, analytic and precise approach is vital for any serious software project and a joy to read. I like that too, because this approach is important if want to make anything pass the starting phase.

Being skilled and eloquent in both, coding an writing, your posts usally are worth a read, and now I'm talking about the both of you.

We need both of you, The Danilos need the TIs and vice versa!

Hi Karellen, and thank you for that. I had a good cathartic laugh!



Point well taken; I'll be the first to admit to being guilty of that.

Someone is wrong on the Internet.

TI-994A wrote:What key decision? What judgement? Try being a little more contextually intelligible (if that's even possible for you).

Let me remind you of the context in order to help bring clarity:

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

TI-994A wrote:Of course it is, but not multiple horses for the same course. Intemperance breeds chaos.

the.weavster wrote:And given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.

The decision being the right horse for the course (being an analogy for the right tool for the job).

There, now you can go back to being wrong on the internet.

Let me break it down for you, weavster.

I said: ...programmers would tend to pick one and stick to it while it works.
You said: It's horses for courses...
I said: ...but not multiple horses for the same course.
You said: ...given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.
I said: What key decision? What judgement?
You said: The decision being the right horse for the course (being an analogy for the right tool for the job).

The entire exchange was purely based on opinions. There were no judgments or decisions.

It must be so blissfully simple being you.

TI-994A wrote:Let me break it down for you, weavster.

I said: ...programmers would tend to pick one and stick to it while it works.
You said: It's horses for courses...
I said: ...but not multiple horses for the same course.
You said: ...given everything you've written this is one key decision I definitely would not trust your judgement on.
I said: What key decision? What judgement?
You said: The decision being the right horse for the course (being an analogy for the right tool for the job).

The entire exchange was purely based on opinions. There were no judgments or decisions.

Once again, I'm sorry you don't get it.

And just for clarification, last time I said I was sorry you didn't get it in a thread you replied with "no need to apologise" but in fact it wasn't and isn't an apology, it's an expression of pity.

TI-994A wrote:It must be so blissfully simple being you.

Yes it definitely is! I'm healthy, wealthy, potent and happy.

the.weavster wrote:I'm healthy, wealthy, potent and happy.

When all else fails, that's the spirit!

Good for you.