OOP in PB?

SkyManager · Post by **SkyManager** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:44 pm

Is there anybody trying to port PB to OOP?

PB is very hard to code

Konne · Post by **Konne** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:50 pm

I think they are trying to port it to .net

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:05 pm

PB is very hard to code

ermn... lol?

well, in my opinion it's a very easy-and-quick-get-to-goal-language...

Is there anybody trying to port PB to OOP?

you can code OOP in PB... if you can.
http://www.purebasic-lounge.de/viewforum.php?f=96
the forum is german, pick the codes to see what OOP in PB looks like...

I think they are trying to port it to .net

iirc Deeem is coding PB.NET ... it's a wrapper-lib or such...

Hroudtwolf · Post by **Hroudtwolf** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 am

Our classes.
http://www.purebasic-lounge.de/viewforum.php?f=95

Chrono Syndrome · Post by **Chrono Syndrome** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:19 pm

Is there anybody trying to port PB to OOP?

Yeah. Maxus & MixailV trying: http://blitz.pp.ru/forum/showthread.php ... genumber=1

DarkDragon · Post by **DarkDragon** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:26 pm

Kaeru Gaman wrote:well, in my opinion it's a very easy-and-quick-get-to-goal-language...

Just because of the command set...

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:45 am

OOP would be nice, but wouldn't the effort be better spent on .Net?

bembulak · Post by **bembulak** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:28 am

effort be better spent on .Net

No, 'cause Mono on Linux is at .NET 1.0 and .NET goes V3! I think the Idea of PB.net is not that bad.
But native OOP support pleae only in PB, no extra Framework!

Good OOP/Procedural Example: python!

Code the way you want to!

johnfinch · Post by **johnfinch** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:50 pm

I'll second that! Python would be an excellent form to follow if Fred ever bites the OOP bullet. Often I miss the reusability of Classes and inheritance for instance. One day maybe, then PB would clearly outshine the 'others'.

And as for .NET.... no thanks.... as much as I love .NET for what it does, it is NOT PB. Lets keep PureBasic 100% cross platform and have it make these amazingly fast and compact exectables. That's one of the best things about it. If I want to program .NET (or MONO) I'll use C#.

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:34 pm

Thankfully Fred has said NO to OOP.

PB going to .NET is a f'ing joke and would destroy everything that PB stands for. Heck, even MS had the sense to remove much of the expected .NET integration into Vista.

Lets keep PureBasic 100% cross platform and have it make these amazingly fast and compact exectables.

The man speaks great words of wisdom

Hroudtwolf · Post by **Hroudtwolf** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:15 pm

Code: Select all

Thankfully Fred has said NO to OOP. Very Happy

No OOP -> No professional usefulness.

Missing native OOP support is the most named reasons from programmers to use not PB.
Should PB have a future ?
Then OOP must be native supported.
Else soon, just beginners will use PB.

I know a lot of very good programmers in the PB community. And more and more of this users decided to learn C++, 'cause PB isn't made for profesionality and future.
Sorry. That's the truth.

I don't want to scold about PureBasic. That's my and many other peoples visibility manner.

WishMaster · Post by **WishMaster** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:22 pm

I personally think that after having released stable and working Linux and Mac OS X PureBasic versions, further development of PB should be in an endeavour to well-integrate OOP functionality.

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:40 pm

PB is very hard to code

If you are struggling with PB, you should buy one of the BASIC for Dummies books. It should help you get a better grasp on BASIC. Once you understand that, you should get Kale's book.

Missing native OOP support is the most named reasons from programmers to use not PB.

Any proof and stats to back that nonsense up?

There are PLENTY of OOP languages out there. Why do you want all programming languages to be the same? Its Fred's language and he has made it clear that OOP isn't going to happen. Learn to deal with it or move on.

Should PB have a future ?
Then OOP must be native supported.
Else soon, just beginners will use PB.

Unfortunately this is the arrogant attitude by people who think only newbies use non-OOP languages.

If you want to use OOP, find another language. It is silly to expect a language conform to your needs, only a beginner would expect that. If a language doesn't meet your needs, you need to choose another language that does. That is what a programmer does and more importantly that is what a professional and experienced coder does.

Hroudtwolf · Post by **Hroudtwolf** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:09 am

Any proof and stats to back that nonsense up?

Yes. I there is proof enough.
But please don't be impudent with your statements

If you want to use OOP, find another language. It is silly to expect a language conform to your needs, only a beginner would expect that. If a language doesn't meet your needs, you need to choose another language that does. That is what a programmer does and more importantly that is what a professional and experienced coder does.

Yes, that would be a way.
But this language was grown with its community. And many people of the communtiy are interested for OOP in PB.

Unfortunately this is the arrogant attitude by people who think only newbies use non-OOP languages.

No. Thats fact.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:17 am

Hroudtwolf wrote:
Unfortunately this is the arrogant attitude by people who think only newbies use non-OOP languages.
No. Thats fact.

What? everyone who uses C is a noob?