PureBasic Forums - English

I'm not really interested in "cool" functionality.

I have personally found problems in nearly every version of PB that I have used. I don't go looking for these things, I'm talking about bugs (or functional changes) that prevent my existing applications from operating correctly. Many users welcome each new release of the language giving them "lots of new goodies to play with". I dread a new release because of the inevitable hassle it causes me.

The present PB editor crashes with large sources in Win98 or WinMe, I believe it works OK with XP. Why is this not considered important?

To me, PureBasic is a tool to allow me do other things. I am not really interested in the language or it's editor as such. I just want something that works reliably with minimum hassle.

PureBasic is a good language but it cannot be used as a serious tool until correct operation takes precedence over the addition of "nice to have features" and application specific functionality. What is more important, an IDE that doesn't corrupt your code or collision detection as part of the language?

This is a pity. It can be more productive to program in a language such as PureBasic than in a low level language such as C. However, if you use standard C tools then you know they will work properly.

Fred, you need to cater for people that want to use Purebasic as a reliable tool, not just enthusiasts that want to play with the language, play with the IDE and so on.

The present PB editor crashes with large sources in Win98 or WinMe, I believe it works OK with XP. Why is this not considered important?

This obviously has been considered important as a brand new Editor is currently being developed. :roll:

If you don't like the Editor, use JaPBe(my favourite ) or SciTE Editor!

If you don't like the Editor, use JaPBe

I do like it, but it has a bug that needs fixing, PB3.89 works properly, PB3.93 does not.

So far, the advice I have received is:
1) Wait for IDE2 (how long a wait?)
2) Use a different editor (which one will be supported long term?)
3) Continue to use PB3.89 (there are other bugs in PB3.89)

There are advantages in standards.
If we each use different IDEs, different user libraries, different 3rd party DLLs, or make heavy use of OS APIs then it is likely that the problems we encounter will not be experienced by other PB users. Thus we benefit less from the experience and support of each other.

If we write software using the standard core language using the standard development tools then our software will be better supported, less platform dependent and more likely to work with future language releases.

how about instead of complaining about the "bugs" you write them in the bugs forum with some example code of what fails.

geoff wrote:PureBasic is a good language but it cannot be used as a serious tool until correct operation takes precedence over the addition of "nice to have features" and application specific functionality. What is more important, an IDE that doesn't corrupt your code or collision detection as part of the language?

You say, that you would like to rather see a new more stable version without new features, but a few paragraphs later you ask for one yourself, i.e. collision detection?

Apart from that I highly appreciate what you say. Considering what kind of Bugs I've seen so long, I must come to the conclusion that the compiler is a kind of "If ... Else"-Hell. A little bit of refactoring the compilers code would come handy.

freedimension wrote:

geoff wrote:PureBasic is a good language but it cannot be used as a serious tool until correct operation takes precedence over the addition of "nice to have features" and application specific functionality. What is more important, an IDE that doesn't corrupt your code or collision detection as part of the language?

You say, that you would like to rather see a new more stable version without new features, but a few paragraphs later you ask for one yourself, i.e. collision detection?

He didn't ask for collision detection. He was making a point about what is more important.

tinman wrote:He didn't ask for collision detection. He was making a point about what is more important.

Ah, now I see. I totally missinterpreted that sentence

how about instead of complaining about the "bugs" you write them in the bugs forum with some example code of what fails

Been there, done that.

You say, that you would like to rather see a new more stable version without new features, but a few paragraphs later you ask for one yourself, i.e. collision detection?

No, I'm not asking for this feature, but using it as an example of an unnecessary feature that users have asked for. It is unnecessary because this sort of thing is easily programmed in your code. It is a bad idea because the larger and more complex the language becomes the less reliable it becomes and the less time Fred has to fix more important things like the IDE.

Has Microsoft Windows benefited from complexity and feature bloat?
Why do we expect PB to benefit?

geoff wrote:

If you don't like the Editor, use JaPBe

I do like it, but it has a bug that needs fixing, PB3.89 works properly, PB3.93 does not.

Bug Where

The new Version Works PERFECTLY!!!

Okay there is a Fontbug since half a year(at least on my computer), but that doesn't really count! It's just a cosmetical thing.

Bug ? Where ?

Read the above postings Dummy.

It fails with large source codes.

geoff wrote:Read the above postings Dummy.
It fails with large source codes.

i think he was being sarcastic...

Kale wrote:

geoff wrote:Read the above postings Dummy.
It fails with large source codes.

i think he was being sarcastic...

Didn't sound like it to me. I've offered to help fix the bug, but in reproducing it I managed to destroy my Windows 98 computer. So yes, there is definately a bug. Once I get my box sorted I'll get back on it.

Maybe you can avoid the large source problem by using the 'IncludeFile' or 'XIncludefile' directive?

If that doesn't help, pay attention to Tinmans sig down there. I've just themed my behind 'Silver', and
as the man say's, once the gluing is done, you have a functionality problem! Just kidding!

I've tried jaPBe and it is not that stable either. I use the IDE (no problems so far). The Visual Designer is a bit quirky.

I agree in principle. This language could be much more important if functionality is the priority.

I suspect there will always be a conflict of interest here between those of us who us PB in serious commericial applications (as I do every day) and those who like to play games. That's been the case since PCs come into being. Fred has a difficult task here in trying to keep both groups happy.

I think the game players are in the lead right now, however (e.g. Round() does not round to a decimal place AND there is no Using() or Tab() for business formating).

The real strenght and power of PB is that it is wonderfully abstract. But, that means that someone has to make sure that all those tiny bits work in the background like they should.

Thanks