PureBasic Forums - English

aaron wrote:http://www.purearea.net/pb/english/interview.htm

This was an interview with him from last October.

Owned! Nice one Aaron.

From Aaron's link:

29. Will the support of OOP in PureBasic be further extended/improved? Or will PureBasic be orientated rather at the procedural BASIC also in the future?

No. It will stay a procedural BASIC, I don't plan to add class and such I think it will split the PB world in 2 classes (!): the one which have understood fully how OOP work and other which don't. Which means than you couldn't share source codes easily anymore at one place. 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...)

Thanks, Aaron. Okay, so now I know.

PureBasic still remains a nice language, though, so, although I'll peacefully abandon any hopes of OOP in PureBasic but I'll continue to use it as a great hobby language.


On a slightly different note, if anyone posts something like "Well, your first mistake is assuming it's a BASIC language..." in another topic again (as I've seen before) I'll just post a link to this interview so they can see it most definately is.

Kale wrote:

aaron wrote:http://www.purearea.net/pb/english/interview.htm

This was an interview with him from last October.

Owned! Nice one Aaron.

Hardly. I was honestly asking that question. My thoughts were that if Fred himself has fairly recently stated he has no intention of ever adding OOP support then I'd just leave it be. The reason I wanted something relatively recent was because his intentions could have changed over the years (which they haven't).

I also do appreciate Aaron's link since it answered my question.

Also, my desire to see simple OOP (in the form as classes) has nothing to do with a condencending view of PureBasic. I just like classes.

@netmaestro / Dare:
Do you think that because my profile is so recently created and I don't post much, I must be new to PureBasic too? No I am not mp303... that should be obvious seeing my profile was created 1½ months before mp303 posted the program. I do however seem to share some of his views on OOP. I have also noticed that "the industry" requires it to a great extent.

@Dare: Thank you very much for the welcome. It makes me feel very welcome after such a heated discussion, and shows that it's not all bad I appreciate it!

theNerd wrote: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.

Thalius wrote:...
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...
...

Here here...

I would like to clarify my intentions. I like PB very much, its ease-of-use, fast compilation, multiple platforms etc. So I'd prefer not have to use another language. I think we can all agree that it is a great total package (otherwise we probably wouldn't be on this forum). I would like to help make a good thing better that's why I'm writing here. I believe OOP support would make PB much better, and instead of leaving and finding another language, I try to influence the development of PB so that it appeals to more users. I don't know, but I guess theNerd and mp303 feel somewhat in the same way. mp303 has said he's been watching the development for the past 4-5 years. So I guess he has hopes, as I do, that PB will move a bit closer to his needs. I think it is a shame that it is not possible to create classes when this will help so many (or some) people.

Fred's interview also has a point. OOP might let users create code that is difficult to share between the two groups (OOP/Procedural). But not implementing some basic classes is turning your back on some potential customers, who need it. I ask you, would the current user-base be damaged by OOP? Would the procedural "followers" decrease because of it, or would the community double (with the addition of OOP programmers)? Surely even if users were split, they would still be able to help each other in programming issues etc.? What do you all think about this?

P.s. Maybe I shouldn't write so long posts

u9 wrote:Fred's interview also has a point. OOP might let users create code that is difficult to share between the two groups (OOP/Procedural). But not implementing some basic classes is turning your back on some potential customers, who need it. I ask you, would the current user-base be damaged by OOP? Would the procedural "followers" decrease because of it, or would the community double (with the addition of OOP programmers)? Surely even if users were split, they would still be able to help each other in programming issues etc.? What do you all think about this?

That makes sense.

And basic OOP is something anybody can learn - even those who write their own programs in procedural style, can figure out how to write:

myEngine = new 3dEngine()
myEngine\Init()
...

etc.

You don't really have to know or understand OOP to do that. Even simple BASICs like VBScript had object support in that fashion, long before they had actual OOP language constructs in the language itself. (for instancing ActiveX controls, etc.)

The argument that the community would "branch" into two, is rather surprising to me - because PB already supports OOP, inheritance and all. All we're asking for, basically, is enhanced syntax to support these features. At least, with a readable syntax, more people would stand a chance at grasping it - as it is now, even programmers who are experienced with OOP will be able to make semantic mistakes, and almost certainly will write code that is permanently off-limits to all beginners.

In my opinion, the addition of OOP keywords would therefore bring the two communities together - not separate them.

I am sorry for sounding so mean in my other posts, but after hearing the "OOP question" asked numerous times in numerous indie BASIC communities, it does get to be irritating after a while. Like I said, I would love to see it, but Fred has made it clear it won't happen and continually asking only stirs up the community.

mp303 since you are used to OOP, there are some really good "2D in 3D" game engines out there that work very well with VC++/VB/Delphi, etc. They give you the ability to use the language of your choice, but the benefit of a game oriented language by using the game engine to handle the game aspects. I know a lot of people who use Haaf's Game Engine http://hge.relishgames.com Personally, I really like DXGame Engine http://dxgame.com

If you want a 2D language you might give Brutus2D http://brutus.pewtersoftware.com a try. You can use VBScript or JavaScript to program it. It is still rough around the edges, but is a very promising language.

I am working on a couple of large games that would be a hell of a lot easier to manage if I had OOP. More than once I have thought about porting them to Jamagic just for the OOP features. But the speed and size of PB exes keeps me here.

White Eagle wrote:Haaf's Game Engine http://hge.relishgames.com

Interesting.. Some nice & inspiring demos on that page.. Thanks for the link.

Thanks for the links, but I'm really not looking for another language. I must have looked at pretty much everything else that exists to date, and I haven't found anything that compares to PB in terms of performance. Most BASICs hook on a bulky run-time of some sort, or require DLLs to be installed, or just produce slow, bulky executables - or just don't have the features that I want...

Brutus looks interesting - but does 2D only... not that I've done any real 3D at this point, but I'd like the possibility to do it later on. (Not that PB really does any useful 3D at this point, come to think of it...)

As for BlitzMax ... it only does 2D as well, or not? or are there any worthwhile open-source 3D engine wrappers for it yet?

mp303 wrote:Thanks for the links, but I'm really not looking for another language.

Uh, yes you are. You are spending an amazing amount of time on the forums recently proclaiming that purebasic needs to be a different language.

Ever stop to consider that what makes it great (fast, etc....) comes from what it IS, not what it isn't?

aaron wrote:

mp303 wrote:Thanks for the links, but I'm really not looking for another language.

Uh, yes you are. You are spending an amazing amount of time on the forums recently proclaiming that purebasic needs to be a different language.

Ever stop to consider that what makes it great (fast, etc....) comes from what it IS, not what it isn't?

omg :roll:

aaron wrote:

mp303 wrote:Thanks for the links, but I'm really not looking for another language.

Uh, yes you are. You are spending an amazing amount of time on the forums recently proclaiming that purebasic needs to be a different language.

Ever stop to consider that what makes it great (fast, etc....) comes from what it IS, not what it isn't?

yeah, of course - but that doesn't mean it couldn't be even better, does it?

and no, I don't want it to be a different language - I just wish (repeating myself for the umpteenth time here) that the OOP features, which are already present, had a different syntax.

aaron wrote:...
Uh, yes you are. You are spending an amazing amount of time on the forums recently proclaiming that purebasic needs to be a different language.

Ever stop to consider that what makes it great (fast, etc....) comes from what it IS, not what it isn't?

You said forums in plurals. Do you mean forums for other languages or just around here?

I mean forums is the sense of there being several areas (ie- game programming, etc...) I have no knowledge of anywhere else that this discussion might also held.... well, perhaps the irc chat.

mp303 wrote: and no, I don't want it to be a different language - I just wish (repeating myself for the umpteenth time here) that the OOP features, which are already present, had a different syntax.

Really? I must have missed that part of the conversation. I haven't been following the OOP thread, so perhaps that is where it came up?

Regardless, as I said previously on these forums (probably over a year ago now), I really don't have an issue with OOP as long as it doesn't affect the way that I use Purebasic. ie- no loss of speed, no stupid syntax changes, etc... On the other hand, if any of that junk ended up crippling Purebasic, I'd be mighty p*ssed.

aaron wrote:Regardless, as I said previously on these forums (probably over a year ago now), I really don't have an issue with OOP as long as it doesn't affect the way that I use Purebasic. ie- no loss of speed, no stupid syntax changes, etc... On the other hand, if any of that junk ended up crippling Purebasic, I'd be mighty p*ssed.

Then we agree - as I've been saying all along, OOP features must not be forced on anyone, existing syntax should not change. Programs that do not use OOP features should not be affected in terms of speed or executable size.