PureBasic Forums - English

This is not only a courious question. I don't know if anyone could know about an answer.
I wonder about the fact there are lots of "cute" things (almost all games and graphics proggy tips) made in BB (BlitzBasic for windows) and not so much in PB.
Is BB easier to use?
Was BB born before PB and is it the reason why there are much graphics and 3D graphics source code?
Is it due to 3D and physics engines delay in PB?

Does anyone knows what is now the best physics simulator programming tool for masses (for usual people, not only N.A.S.A., etc.) in the world?

NOTE:
I am not only a physician, but a physics restlessness mind; I need the easiest programming language compiler in the world to simulate in 3D or 2D (it is indifferent) physics phenomens (facts) for my (well, "our"; I am not alone in this restlessness) experiments to be catalysed (acelerated).
Thanks to support me

I think PureBasic would probably fine for 2D physics simulations if you're willing to put in the effort to set them up well. I can only see a couple of things that might stop you. There are currently a few problems with floats in PB that might be a bit of a problem when you're trying to do accurate physics simulations e.g code like this crashes the compiler. Hopefully things like that will soon be fixed. Also, a language with double floats might be better for really accurate calculations. But I think there are maybe userlibraries that allow you to use them? The native graphics commands should let you whip up the graphical side quickly enough though, provided you're not wanting every brand spanking new effect. Overall, I do think that PureBasic would be fine for a 2D simulation.
If on the other hand you want to do a 3D simulation I'd say probably go with Blitz or something like it. 3D is certainly possible in Pure, but you would probably want to learn either OpenGL or DirectX and access it directly, I think the native OGRE commands are currently a bit sparse. While this might be fun, and quite rewarding, if you actually want to make the simulations my guess would be that something like Blitz would let you set up the graphics quickly, giving you more time to spend on the actual physics side of things.
As for there being less 'cute' PureBasic projects, my guess is thats because a lot (probably most) users make apps rather than games/fun with it. I guess all the ones doing it professionally are probably more worried about their programs functionality than how cute it is.
Anyway, just a few thoughts.

I must admit my patience is beginning to strain a little waiting for an update to the 3D side. *sigh* i can't wait to begin properly with it.

I prefer doing 3d in PB via 3d API's much more rewarding as a programmer than Blitz/Dark - Having everything done for you and not being able to see whats going on underneath the bonnet is something I dont really like...

That said, I'd like to play with Tokamak/Newton/ODE eventually to put physics in a game or simulation.

Doubles are something d really love to see in the next PB release - OGL relies on them, but I found the F64 lib (hopefully this will help get by the problem) for now.

I've heard good things about Apocalyx, a 3D engine with LUA scripting

http://apocalyx.sourceforge.net/modules ... page&pid=2

My 2c worth (all opinion and heresay):

BB has been going longer, I hear Fred/PB started as supporting utils for BB.

PB wants to be like Blitz but is much better suited to business/office/util apps. The graphics is not there yet. (*Ducks*).

As you said, floats need work. When PB provides reliable and 64 bit floats (for financial as well as tech stuff) and unsigned integers it will be there with the rest and best.

Because 4 byte floats limit range (and this reflects precision more rapidly than 8 byte floats), if you want some serious accuracy you are better off using something like VB or Delphi.

Or even QuickBasic if you don't mind the interface and are just into number crunching. QB is Free and quite fast.

You can (or could) get a free Delphi from Borland.

There is also Free Pascal.

BCX Basic is free, and converts code to Pelles (or LCC) C.

As soon as Fred gives us Double Precision floats and Unsigned Integers (which he has promised "soon" - and which I am hanging in for before converting an old DOS software app for finance houses) you can throw away the rest and run with PB, so go for a freebie rather than VB or pay-for stuff.

As to physics engines, I would have to dig around a bit to come up with links but there are a lot of libraries out there.


BTW, Psychophanta, you're a bit of a genius with ASM and physics (eg your bouncing ball demo) so why not make a 64 bit lib with all the maths and etc and then give it to the rest of us. (j/k on the last bit)

Kale wrote:I must admit my patience is beginning to strain a little waiting for an update to the 3D side

i talked to fred, and he said in the beginning of august, that the 3d side updating would begin in start of september(wich we are in now.)

I think another thing is that PB interfaces so well with C.

I'm not sure about BB, but in some languages the only way that something can be achieved is by including the functionality in the core language or by having a library written.

With PB you can use the C apis almost as easily as a native C coder.

Take the SQL-Lite libraries. El Choni has produced an excellent library for it, but I am in no way restricted to that library. If I want to use the latest version I just use the C API direct.

This means that there is no compulsion for advanced programmers to adapt and extend libraries so that they become more complete and polished.

None of the advanced GUI applications rely upon PB functions or extensions alone. Instead the Win32 api is called direct.

The same with 3D. The 3D gurus tend to leave the built in commands behind and start using Direct X directly.

For me personally this is what I love about PB, but I can see that it creates problems.

Cross platform development suffers for a start. While Windows has several excellent editors none of them have been ported to Linux.

It also creates a wide gap between the beginner and advanced programmer that can be hard to cross.

I agree, but think the major problem is learning the different apis. For app programming you can just ask on here and normally there's someone who knows enough about the api to help and you learn from it. Also, you can mix the PB gadget commands with the api commands rather than completely using the api. I think (could be wrong) that there would be no mix and matching between PB's 3D commands and the api they use (through OGRE). So if you want to use OpenGL directly, you have to do everything with it directly. So as you say, there is no transition between beginner and expert in the same way that there is with apps. I think the only way to solve this would be with very extensive tutorials and good help files for the apis. However, in my experience sample code in help files and so on are all in C/C++ so you need some knowledge of that to salvage anything from them. Don't get me wrong, I think the access to the api's is excellent, and I think the potential is there, but I think its a very big thing to jump straight into. Writing tutorials would also of course be a gigantic task, especially as PB has users using so many different languages. So I think that improved native commands (when I say native, I still mean OGRE) would be the best way for not-so-professional coders like me to get into 3D with Pure.

Never used BB but I'm a long time Pure user (but not only...) and what I can tell you so far is this:

I know a lot of people bought Pure in anticipation of the coming 3D stuff.
But as time told you there is nothing BIG to see on the horizon.
This is also because Fred choosed ogre and now he has to adapt to the ogre development pace.
But not only this... Fred is not a 3D guru (he is an excellent asm, c, c++ and more... coder ).
He has to learn this 3D stuff like anybody else. And this takes time...

That's why in the german forum are talks about making a separate 3D engine...

Also Fred is working on Amiga/Windows/Linux/OSX, this are 4 operating systems.
And this for one guy!

Because of this, bug fixing and implementing of new features already slows down and stuff that should be implemented last year is still not implemented.

Users are playing with the Linux and OSX version of PB but only because they still patiently wait for the long avaited functions (and they need something to play with...).
The Linux version has the same version number as the Windows one, but lacks of functions found in the Windows one.

Also the OSX version is not the real deal. It uses GTK instead of the native OSX gui api.

IMHO Fred is working on too many things at the same time, and that's why some things look like they have been done half hearted.



This works the best for me:
When I use Pure, I use it as it would be a plain c compiler, most of the commands are Win API and I use build-in Pure functions only if I have to. This restricts me to Windows, but this way I know: what I coded with 3.7 works also with 3.9.
I like to think about the programming work that needs to be done and not about how to make a workaround for something that should work properly and consistent...

IMHO it would have been better if Fred would have chosen to create a neat basic to asm compiler and let the community do the other missing parts, somehow like the makers of Euphoria.
Do one thing and do it right.

On a side note:
Yesterday I took a closer look at the IBasic PRO demo version.
Compiles to asm and uses nasm as assembler. Has max 40 digits precision for math and is not too bad at all.

Also, unlike Pure, there is no restriction how you use the library functions that come with. You can make DLL's and use these functions as you wish.
Like every other compiler...

Also for people that are interested in learning asm:
take a look at RosASM - the assembler for ReactOS.
Quite impressive IMO.
The 'hello world' example with a message box goes: Neat isn't it?

fsw wrote:That's why in the german forum are talks about making a separate 3D engine...

That sounds interesting....care to elaborate? Dont know what goes on in the German forum...

In the beginning of this month, Danilo asked in the german forum, if PureBasic users would be interested in buying a separate 3D engine (because of... well everybody knows why).
If so, he would be inclined to code one.
If you look at the responses, a lot of german PureBasic users would like to purchase an additional 3D engine.

Danilo is a brilliant long time PureBasic user and his ability to code in Pure, C/C++, ASM are excellent.
Also he has, as far as I understand, a good 3D background. Something that is needed to pull off such an endevor.

Here is the link:
http://robsite.de/php/pureboard-archiv/ ... php?t=5452

Thanks for that

The answer is pretty simple...

Blitz is just a game language, PureBasic is an all-purpose language that you can write (2d) games in. You have many more people interested in writing games (and failing, probably) than your standard applications.

I don't know why everyone flips out over the 3D stuff. Go buy a 3D engine or something like Blitz3D - something *designed* to do 3D, that is the only way you're going to get something decent. PureBasic is absolutely perfect for what it does and if I had my druthers I'd like to see the whole "3D engine" in PB disappear. IMHO there is no place for it, especially in it's current state, except to make people piss and moan because Blitz3D can do more stuff.

Bottom line - Blitz and Pure are two totally different beasts meant for two totally different purposes. Use the right tool for the job!

Wow. Where did my soapbox go?

Karbon wrote:

Blitz is just a game language, PureBasic is an all-purpose language that you can write (2d) games in. You have many more people interested in writing games (and failing, probably) than your standard applications.

I think so. And I am totally in accordance with all that you say.
Anyway, I am totally in accordance with Kale too when saying:

I must admit my patience is beginning to strain a little waiting for an update to the 3D side. *sigh* i can't wait to begin properly with it.

I mean; why to choose PB or BB, or whatever, if one of them could have (be) ALL-IN-ONE?