PureBasic Forums - English

Alright,
A discussion was started a bit ago about why Purebasic doesn't suck. If you read my post on there you know I not only think PB doesn't suck but I think it's awesome.

That said, there is an improvement that I think could be relatively easily made over time and not really impact much of anything, certainly not concerning our programming with it or Fred and the PB team's coding of it.

Question: How many ways can you list in which PB is better than most Basic dialects out there to include the mother of all Basics, Visual Basic?

Quite a few right? And not just small things, pretty fricking major things right?

So why carry around the misleading sub title Basic?

I was thinking about this and I thought sure, but what do you name it?

Well, what about simply de-emphasizing the "basic" and emphasizing the "Pure" in the name. Call it "Pure". To me that's a pretty good fit. It's a no-nonsense language that takes the best out there, not the flashy useless crap, but the real meaningful features and puts them in.

Distilled, the essence of programming....Pure

It's got a built in marketing advantage, when ever someone talks about it they'd say "...hey have you looked at the Pure programming language?" Bam! Got their attention!

P.S. There does not seem to be a programming language with that name as far as I've been able to tell on the net...

What do you think?

It's much easier to show up on top of Google's search results for "PureBasic" than for "Pure".

DevilDog wrote:to include the mother of all Basics, Visual Basic?

I dont think VB is 'the mother of all Basics' !!

I dont think VB is 'the mother of all Basics' !!

VB is definitely the Mother F'er of all BASICs.

Brice Manuel wrote:

I dont think VB is 'the mother of all Basics' !!

VB is definitely the Mother F'er of all BASICs.

Not for those of us who have been around a lot longer then VB existed.

Not for those of us who have been around a lot longer then VB existed.

I am one of those, which is why I hate VB and its bloat

Brice Manuel wrote:

I dont think VB is 'the mother of all Basics' !!

VB is definitely the Mother F'er of all BASICs.

Maybe QBasic could be one of 'the mothers' but not VB. (not because was good, but because was one of the first ones)

I know that VB has some nice things, not everything is bad, but not agree to put it as the ONE. Is just one more.

Maybe QBasic could be one of 'the mothers' but not VB.

That's what I said. You and Shanarra need to clean your glasses, or put them on I said VB is the "Mother F'er of all BASICs" not the "Mother of all BASICs".

Dartmouth BASIC was the first.

Dartmouth BASIC is born the same year than me.

As my nick implies, I learned "basic" programming on a PDP 11/45 in 1974, just a bit before VB.

When I wanted to "re-learn" programming, I evaluated several languages including Ruby, Python - even VB. I didn't really care for any of them, so I began a search for "basic" - one of my first languages, and one I liked. I was led to several "basics" (Liberty, Ibasic) and eventually here, where I settled.

My point is that without the "basic" I might not have found it and would thus not be a "happy" as I am now. And, at least to me, the syntax is "basic" like, at least as far as I can remember

By the Mother of all Basics, I meant in sales. There's some 4 million VB developers world-wide last I heard.

For slapping together a quick business app VB is pretty darn good. And I've used it many times that way.

But for apps that I dream of writing, I find that PB is better.

Because of PB's dependence on the underlying OS it's forcing me to learn a lot about things I didn't know before such as structures, pointers, etc. which only opens up the world that C++ developers have been working in all along. Yet I'm able to tap into it in a way that is much simpler to me than through C++.

Anyway, what about the name? I like the idea of a Pure programming langauge!

@DevilDog,

PB is not OS dependent except if you want to code OS oriented.

I personally code OS oriented, but it does not relate to PB, only my needs are so.

Right.

A better way to put it might be that in order to write the kinds of application I want, I have to drop down to the OS quite often through the API.

fweil wrote:@DevilDog,

PB is not OS dependent except if you want to code OS oriented.

I personally code OS oriented, but it does not relate to PB, only my needs are so.

Often PB is OS-dependant due to missing features and incompatibilities