How good is PureBasic?

[michaeled314]

I sort of know the answer to this question, and the WinAPI gives PureBasic the real "Pure Power", but how good is it compared to VB.... From what I have seen, it can do almost anything possible.... But is it better than VB or even C++..?

[netmaestro]

They are all "good" products in that they are well made and very effective in performing the tasks they were designed for. But each has strengths and weaknesses that make them a good choice or a poor choice for a given job. For example, if RAD is important, VB is a better choice than Purebasic or C++, if bare-metal granularity is necessary, C++ is a better choice than the other two. Purebasic has libraries that make common tasks much easier and this is one of its strengths. But those libraries have limitations and if your target solution needs to be really comprehensive then a PB library would be inferior to something written in C or C++ that covers all the bases. Really, it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. No tradesman chooses between a hammer and a saw and says, "this is what I will use to the exclusion of all else."

[IdeasVacuum]

Very well put Netmaestro. I think in many cases, especially thanks to the libs, PB is effectively more RAD than VB.Net, plus of course PB is not tied to a specific IDE.

[netmaestro]

I suppose a good example would be the SHA libraries I wrote recently. Purebasic is the host language but it's only used for the skeleton and for those tasks that don't require many many repetitions of processor-intensive manipulations of data. Those that do are all written in inline assembler. Don't get me wrong, they could be (and were originally) written in all PB code, but the change made a speed increase of about 10x overall. I'm as loyal to Purebasic as anyone here but not to the point where I'll sacrifice execution time by a factor of ten.

[Paul]

PureBasic, like any programming language, is only as good as the person who is using it.

[michaeled314]

And how does PowerBasic and all the other Purebasic competitors fare in comparison to PureBasic

[MachineCode]

There's different brands of hammers, though. Some have metal handles, others have wood; so you need to ask yourself whether a metal or wood handle is of any importance, or if it has no importance at all.

Programming languages have the same concept. You just need to ask yourself what you require in the language's overall package (NOT just the language itself!). For example, ask yourself:

(1) Are there regular updates?
(2) Are the updates free, or is a cost involved?
(3) Is there good support, and an active community?
(4) Are my exes compiled (fast) or interpreted (slow)?
(5) Are my exes standalone, or do they require a runtime file?
(6) Is the language convenient (inline API calls vs declaring APIs)?
(7) Is the language cross-platform (Windows/Linux/MacOS)?

PureBasic meets all the first parts of the points above. The same can't be said for all other languages.

[xorc1zt]

imo freebasic is better : free, better perfs, oop, open source, already a lot more stuffs (you can even make a windows kernel driver with fbasic) but the syntax suck a little and there are no x64 versions.

[Rings]

you all know this, it ends in a flame war.
ha,

mine is better then yours !!


topic closed