PureBasic Forums - English

Just a quick comment about the problems with 3.90. I've got a commercial program (in PureBasic) that runs close to 13,000 lines - it gets updated every month or so and there are quite a few users. I downloaded 3.90 as soon as it came out and wound up spending several days patching and fixing (mostly problems with the new method of allocating memory and with gadget IDs).

I spent a good deal of that time mumbling curses about updates that screw up existing software, etc. etc. BUT -- the bottom line is I like coding in PureBasic AND I didn't have to change over to 3.90 immediately AND I know that all the major problems with 3.90 will get fixed in the near future. I know that Fred (and his development team) do their best to make clean releases - sometimes bugs crop up (they certainly do in mine from time to time). I'd rather have a vigorous, growing language with some temporary problems rather than a bloated, monolithic one that rarely gets a new feature at all.

I agree. One of the neat things about Fred and his programming team is that when they find a more efficient assembly code or method, they actually go back over old commands and optimize/replace them which is nice.

Many programming languages, in the name of compatibility with older software, leave old commands in place and only concentrate on adding new commands for the sake of backwards compatibility.

In essence one approach is static (only develop new commands, never touching older ones, viewpoint of individual libraries only) and one is holistic (all encompassing, viewpoint of programming as a system, how individual libraries function with each other and as a whole).

The downside is that software created on an older version may "break", which is stressful trying to fix, but so worth it in the bigger picture.