@Fred: Should I wait for the first beta of PB 4.0 ... ?

[IceSoft]

@Fred,
Should I waiting to the first beta of PB4.0 before I work again on my actuall PB projects?

Hint:
You said on the interview for question 31:
31. Will there happen more syntax changes, a new linker or similar, which are inevitable for new versions or for better compatibility to the general BASIC standard, however existing codes aren't further usable (without manual changes)? E.g. like as you have made it with AllocateMemory() with the rearrangement of ID numbers to Handles, or like the introducing of the PellesC linker.

Yes. The v4 will not be compatible with the previous sources codes. That means than you will have to continue to use v3.9x for big programs maintenance (it will still be available on download). This has been unavoidable to make all thread safe and more consistent. The commands itself won't dramatically changes, but the programs will have to be adapted.

[Fred]

No, don't wait for it, just start your projects it won't be that hard to adapt them. Also note the: The commands itself won't dramatically changes sentence .

[blueznl]

in fact, if you look at the changes in the past, you will notice that most changes had only minimal impact and could be solved with a little work

none of my programs (albeit few ) suffered any major problems from the syntax changes in pb

[Kale]

with the rearrangement of ID numbers to Handles,

Does that mean that ID's are being dropped???

[Dr. Dri]

It's just that it used to be Result = AllocateMemory(#Memory, Size)

Dri

[Dare2]

Dropping IDs and returning meaningful handles/values would force a lot of changes to existing code
.. but ..
As you could run 3.9x for the old stuff (and may need to anyway) it would be worth it, I reckon. (Long term). For eg: addr = AllocateMemory( size ) is a cleaner approach than before.

[Fred]

Who said we will drop ID ? It's not the case at all. We are adding them in fact .

[DoubleDutch]

Can't wait

Any idea how long till a beta?

[johndehope3]

I'm waiting too. I like PureBasic but I'm hoping that some of the syntax will shorten. I can't stand typing ProcedureReturn! Why not just "return"? Well anyway I am excited to see what 4 has to offer.

[PB]

> I can't stand typing ProcedureReturn

Why not use AutoComplete? Type "Pro" and hit TAB, then 3 cursor downs.

> Why not just "return"?

Because that's another keyword used in conjunction with "Gosub".

[johndehope3]

Why not use AutoComplete? Type "Pro" and hit TAB, then 3 cursor downs.

I didn't know I could do that. But now that you mention it, it sounds okay.

Because that's another keyword used in conjunction with "Gosub".

Is PureBasic for programmers in 2005 or 1985? I think we can safely get rid of GOSUB and re-use the RETURN keyword for a new purpose. Or is a large part of PureBasic's audience people dusting off their 5.25" floppy disks with GWBASIC programs on them?

[traumatic]

Or is a large part of PureBasic's audience people dusting off their 5.25" floppy disks with GWBASIC programs on them?

Definitely not, my disks are 8" !

If you really think it's too much to type "ProcedureReturn"
you may want to wait for macros that come with v4.0 ...

This thread was about worries concerning backwards compatibility btw.

[Kale]

Why not use AutoComplete? Type "Pro" and hit TAB, then 3 cursor downs.

I didn't know I could do that. But now that you mention it, it sounds okay.

Because that's another keyword used in conjunction with "Gosub".

Is PureBasic for programmers in 2005 or 1985? I think we can safely get rid of GOSUB and re-use the RETURN keyword for a new purpose. Or is a large part of PureBasic's audience people dusting off their 5.25" floppy disks with GWBASIC programs on them?

It makes me laugh when new users turn up here and start telling Fred and the community to start to implement big changes in a perfectly usable language, because of some crazy half-baked idea they've had. :roll:
It reminds me of that guy who said ditch the Gadgets and call them Controls!!! err........ NO! :roll:

[Fangbeast]

Why not use AutoComplete? Type "Pro" and hit TAB, then 3 cursor downs.

I didn't know I could do that. But now that you mention it, it sounds okay.

Because that's another keyword used in conjunction with "Gosub".

Is PureBasic for programmers in 2005 or 1985? I think we can safely get rid of GOSUB and re-use the RETURN keyword for a new purpose. Or is a large part of PureBasic's audience people dusting off their 5.25" floppy disks with GWBASIC programs on them?

It makes me laugh when new users turn up here and start telling Fred and the community to start to implement big changes in a perfectly usable language, because of some crazy half-baked idea they've had. :roll:
It reminds me of that guy who said ditch the Gadgets and call them Controls!!! err........ NO! :roll:

I remember some twit who was whining that he sounded like he'd enrolled in kindergarden with the syntax he encountered. There are lots of whiners who want Fred to change things to suit themselves and never, ever think that there are others in the world with them. Oh, and they never contribute anything either.

And there are some fantastic coders who seem to be quite happy with PB, get on with the job and contribute till the rest of us feel embarrassed that we can't do the same. I'm crappy coder and am prdoud of the community here. Will give what I can too without too much whining (lol).

Ad Fred, DON"T CHANGE A THING, it's great!!!!!

[IceSoft]

@Fred,
Don't change things which give PureBasic no improvement.
Shorter keywords are nice but than I write like ASM.