PureBasic Forums - English

This post was answered because it was referenced in a new thread here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=48748

As for cheap trolling it wasn't, it was mean as a light hearted nudge and wink that OOP would not even let that problem occur.

Reading your latest responses over the last few years you have got more and more vitriolic and come across as almost hating the user base of your product!

I personally think the PB team are the ones trolling for not answering valid feature requests for years on end!!! I could post a list of ignored feature requests but what's the point it would be mostly all of them and you'd ignore it as well.

Looking at PB's history there used to be a new release once every few months, now we're lucky if we even get a bug fix each year let alone a request implemented!!!

Blood wrote:it was mean as a light hearted nudge and wink that OOP would not even let that problem occur.

OOP would not solve the problem, just "ease it up" a bit. Instead of having thousands of procedures you'd still have hundreds of classes.
Modules on the otherhand would solve this...hold on, wasn't that a feature request Fred said they'd think about a way to implement it?
Wait, this was more than six years ago.

Blood wrote:Looking at PB's history there used to be a new release once every few months, now we're lucky if we even get a bug fix each year let alone a request implemented!!!

True, PB's development has been slowed down drastically but that's not an issue for me. We get free updates for a life time (never saw this in any other software).
So the updates come when they come, nothing is going to change that.

On the other hand I also have to say that I moved away from using PB on a daily basis long time ago,
so I don't really care when new updates are coming out, or if they are coming out at all. Although I like checking them out every once in a while.

I don't know how much you use or depend on PB, but the time might have come for you too to move on...

Blood wrote:This post was answered because it was referenced in a new thread here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=48748

As for cheap trolling it wasn't, it was mean as a light hearted nudge and wink that OOP would not even let that problem occur.

You repeatedly post OOP remarks (which you know very well is a controversial topic) into threads that have no connection to OOP whatsoever. These kind of remarks add nothing to the discussion at hand and only provoke flame wars. You can call it "light hearted" all you want, but this is trolling. Plain and simple.

Blood wrote:I personally think the PB team are the ones trolling for not answering valid feature requests for years on end!!! I could post a list of ignored feature requests but what's the point it would be mostly all of them and you'd ignore it as well.

It is called the feature request forum. Requesting something does not mean it will happen.

In the future, if you have a problem with a moderating decision, contact me or another moderator privately. The public forum is not the place for this.

An organisation that treats its programmers as morons will soon have programmers that are willing and able to act like morons only. -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Blood wrote:Reading your latest responses over the last few years you have got more and more vitriolic and come across as almost hating the user base of your product!

Put him on ignore, there are plenty of third-party browser scripts that will allow you to block any phpBB user, including moderators and admins.

Actually, the problem would be worse with OOP, because if you have a syntax like this, you can't split the procedures across multiple files. But without OOP, you can, even if the procedures are "related".

Partial Classes would be a solution to this but nobody ever uses them except for tools that generate class code
because they kind of destroy the principle of classes. However if you've got too many methods in one class you probably should first think
about some flaws in your implementation.
Also with module support the procedure viewer would not be linear (one huge list) but a tree list instead that clearly shows the relations
of procedures to eachother in your application.

Maybe take a look in the mirror before recommending others do.

Your comment was meaningless to that post and this topic is useless.

Got your feelings hurt and now whining about it.

mods - please lock this useless thread.

Blood, you appear to be the perfect example of an ego-centric commenter. You want OOP (a VERY involved change), so rather than accept there are several reasonable work around, you continually ask for it. I made a request for a VERY simple Repeat While (instead of Repeat Until--although Do While would be the better choice), and this is your response:

This request makes no sense whatsoever. You already have all the types of loop you need.

This implementation would take about five minutes, maybe ten if Freak had a beer first. But since YOU don't want it, you make useless comments. It seems to be your pattern.

Regarding OOP, like I said, it will take a LOT to be implemented. Fred and Freak are so busy they barely have time to make 4.x updates; you may as well be asking them to change pb into PureC++. Consider how much of a joke you appear to be with such a total rewrite request.

Tenaja:
The only problem is that the expression in real while loop now can't start with an opening parenthesis.

Trond wrote: etc...

I know, I'm past that...my comment was more towards Blood's ego-centrism--it is not necessarily Freak who needs to take a look at himself.

I have other problems with involved Macro's...not the simpler 1 liners or name changers...

I can't jump to them with [Ctrl]+[LeftMouseDblClk].
I can't step through them in the debugger.

Would it be a crazy request to have the 'Macro expanded' code available to the debugger?
Or does the desire to maintain the original source code line numbers overrule this?

Oh, and in the spirit of the post...OOP wouldn't help me

Tenaja wrote:Regarding OOP, like I said, it will take a LOT to be implemented. Fred and Freak are so busy they barely have time to make 4.x updates; you may as well be asking them to change pb into PureC++. Consider how much of a joke you appear to be with such a total rewrite request.

A crappy kind of OOP is already implemented with the interface keyword. they are no need to do a total rewrite.

Tenaja wrote:

Trond wrote: etc...

I know, I'm past that...my comment was more towards Blood's ego-centrism--it is not necessarily Freak who needs to take a look at himself.

I know that, I just felt a need to play with macros.

Tenaja wrote:Blood, you appear to be the perfect example of an ego-centric commenter. You want OOP (a VERY involved change), so rather than accept there are several reasonable work around, you continually ask for it.

Ego-centric? Where? And where do i ask for OOP?