PureBasic Forums - English

As I progress with my current project, (a new, BASIC, languages written in PB) I can't help but think I've got a problem comming up. What should I do when it reaches 1.0 status. That is to say when it becomes a fully-fledged useable language?

I want to share the project with people, as otherwise all of my hard work will have been pretty much for nothing but this will create one of three problems.

1) If I give it away for free then it undermimes PB.
2) If I try to sell it (not that I'm even sure any one will buy it) then it still undermimes PB.
3) If I distribute it as source code then only PB users can use it, and they don't really need to!

I'm not trying to say that my language will be anywhere near as good as PB, it probally never will be. However I don't really want to do anything to damage PB, even if it is to pull away one current or future user.

So what do you think I should do?

Killswitch wrote:As I progress with my current project, (a new, BASIC, languages written in PB) I can't help but think I've got a problem comming up. What should I do when it reaches 1.0 status. That is to say when it becomes a fully-fledged useable language?

I want to share the project with people, as otherwise all of my hard work will have been pretty much for nothing but this will create one of three problems.

1) If I give it away for free then it undermimes PB.
2) If I try to sell it (not that I'm even sure no one will buy it) then it still undermimes PB.
3) If I distribute it as source code then only PB users can use it, and they don't really need to!

I'm not trying to say that my language will be anywhere near as good as PB, it probally never will be. However I don't really want to do anything to damage PB, even if it is to pull away one current or future user.

So what do you think I should do?

Well i doubt that it would undermine pb.
However; what about making it a scripting language?
You could sell it as a DLL and make a pblibrary too. I guess some people would like scripting functionality in their apps..!

That's a possibility. I'm sure my language could never compete with PureBasic on a level playing field, but I wouldn't feel comfortable if even just one user didn't buy PB because they could use my language for free.

You could try to focus on things PB doesn't do well while making it easy to use it with üPB e.g. when it is compiled to a dll...

Well, I dont think it would undermine PB. Because if that was the case, then PB would undermine VB, and it clearly doesnt

Just go on creating it, and sell copies.

Give PB users the source code and make a dll for other people...
Everybody will then love you!

If it's similar to PB but better:
Sell it. Are you holding back your product because it's better than competitor's?

If it's similar to PB but not as good:
Don't make it. We've got PB already.

If does things different than PB:
If it's good, you can sell it, it won't undermine PB.
If it's bad, you can probably still sell it, but better give it away for free. Of course, feel free to give it away for free no matter if it's good, too.

You should concentrate to make your software reach the famous 1.0 state, and then release something (demo, feature list etc.) so everyone can take a look and comment it. There is already a bunch of other PB-like BASIC all around the world and it doesn't stop the PB development, don't worry;). That said, we apprieciate your feelings. Of course, you don't use the PB commandset when your BASIC creates its own executables, right ?

Well my this langauge is more basic-like than PB, but it does overlap in many areas (i.e. naming variables). I think there's some cool stuff that people might like, such as 'meta expressions':
There'll also be built in infix to postfix conversion and expression solving.

don't do wrappers (use winapi) for fred's stuff, feel free to make a better basic, if yours is the best in the world people will use it, if it's not we'll stay with purebasic if you don't mind

Each tool for its own purpose.

..You could possibly drive a screw with a knife.. but, woudlnt be the best way.. thats why you have scredrivers...

Nope, there's not a single wrapper in the code. Except perhaps the 'debug' command (as now I think I'll head in the scripting language direction) as using PB's debugger will be quicker.

If this is an interpreter if won't affect PB.