Future of powerbasic

[Patrice Terrier]

It's always seemed to have been positioned as a BASIC compiler targeted towards the business/professional developer

Not anymore, because business/professional developer are very pragmatic.
And a compiler should be just a tool, not a religion. 

...

[Theo Gottwald]

Patrice, if we get philosophical,
that opens the question if "a religion should be a religion (in your sense)".
I always say that religions are good and needed to organize a working society.


Is anybody here, who believes that we will see a PB 11 or PB x64 soon?

[Marc Pons]

 

Who cares about PB 11 , what is important for the business is PB for x64 and/or PB for linux

even a free tool like freebasic is going in that direction ...

[Patrice Terrier]

Is anybody here, who believes that we will see a PB 11 or PB x64 soon?

Just consider the facts, objectively, and you will have the answer.

...

[Frederick J. Harris]

What have you been using for your x64 work Theo?

[Theo Gottwald]

See here:
http://www.jose.it-berater.org/smfforum/index.php?board=381.0

[Patrice Terrier]

PureBasic uses another proprietary syntax that is not portable from one language to another, kind of super DDT full of Gadgets

...

[José Roca]

Cross-platform compilers need to do that, because the Windows API only works in Windows. Applications that call the Windows API directly aren't portable to other platforms.

[Mike Stefanik]

PureBasic uses another proprietary syntax that is not portable from one language to another, kind of super DDT full of Gadgets

...

Not to mention that it's not a particularly BASIC-like implementation of the language. Of course, the same thing could be said about Visual Basic as well.

[Tom Perkins]

Of course, the same thing could be said about Visual Basic as well.

But PureBasic is still universally used and still close to the original standard instruction set. Look what has all changed in the meantime, the hardware, the operating systems, the computing power, the Internet and the entire software environment. Requirements and target groups are constantly changing, old structures break up and regroup. Under these circumstances, it is normal if the compiler is developed in line with new challenges. The root is still BASIC!

[Frederick J. Harris]

PureBasic uses another proprietary syntax that is not portable from one language to another, kind of super DDT full of Gadgets

I imagine it can be used like PowerBASIC though, making direct Api calls, while ignoring the 'super DDT full of gadgets'?

[Brice Manuel]

I think the biggest problem is the "radio silence" from the PowerBASIC staff and their marketing efforts seem to be non-existent lately. It's always seemed to have been positioned as a BASIC compiler targeted towards the business/professional developer, but they seem to be falling behind the curve there and I'm not sure they have the resources to change things.

Most alarming is that people are still having trouble trying to actually order PB.  And even worse than that is the PB staff are happy with that and there is no shortage of users who will defend the actions of PB. 

But PureBasic is still universally used and still close to the original standard instruction set.

It is much closer to traditional BASIC than what PowerB is.

Look what has all changed in the meantime, the hardware, the operating systems, the computing power, the Internet and the entire software environment. Requirements and target groups are constantly changing, old structures break up and regroup. Under these circumstances, it is normal if the compiler is developed in line with new challenges. The root is still BASIC!

Unlike other languages, PureB keeps up with those changes.

I imagine it can be used like PowerBASIC though, making direct Api calls, while ignoring the 'super DDT full of gadgets'?

Correct and many do use it in just this way.  Very highly skilled SDK programmers in the PureB community.  However, it is very detrimental for many folks since the Windows API is not cross-platform.

[Theo Gottwald]

PureBasic is more a Macro-Assembler then a "real compiler".
Hard to say that, but you will see the limits if you take a closer look.
PureBasic is not PowerBasic

It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN
At least Purebasic 4.40 does not have the ability to make FOR ... NEXT LOOP with non Integer values.
It does not yet have a full set of datatypes.
What it has is a large set of libraries and a active community.

Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support.
PureBasic 5.30

[Brice Manuel]

... It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN... Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support...

A language that is not stuck in the early 70s and supports modern technology and methodology?  How insane.    It is well into the 21st Century, unless you are targeting DOS, PureBasic is the only legitimate BASIC compiler for Windows that is actively developed and actively supported.

And given your incorrect assumptions in that thread of yours (which I have pointed out before and you have deleted), you really should not link to it and think it has any credibility (unless your goal is to intentionally spread misinformation).  To make a claim that "PureBasic is still  a "Single-Pass Compiler" shows your complete ignorance in the understanding of how modern compilers work.  PureBasic uses FASM which is an industry standard assembler.  FASM is a multi-pass assembler which is the stage where multiple passes are needed, they are NOT needed pre-assembly stage. 

What it has is a large set of libraries and a active community.

PowerBASIC has neither, unless you count the crickets as community members. 

[Bob Houle]

Theo,
I have read most of your posts and Brice is correct.
You say you want a 64-bit compiler, you get it... then you say everything negative that you can!   

- PureBasic is more a Macro-Assembler then a "real compiler".
PureBasic is a "real compiler" and produces EXE's as small as any compiler.

- Hard to say that, but you will see the limits if you take a closer look.
A blanket statement that does nothing to help the reader who might be interested in testing out PureBasic.

- It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN
It has, and it has been part of PureBasic since the beginning. You just have to follow it's rules and not PowerBASIC's

- At least Purebasic 4.40 does not have the ability to make FOR ... NEXT LOOP with non Integer values.
If you don't like a function the way it exists... create a macro or function that does. Simple.
Besides, when was the last time you ABSOLUTELY needed that requirement. Not often, I'll bet.

- It does not yet have a full set of datatypes.
Another blanket statement. I have never had a problem with PureBasic datatypes. Would I prefer more, like PowerBASIC. Of course, but
you make it sound as if the product is unusable. Horsecrap!

- Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support.
This isn't just "Java stuff". These libraries help you to build programs faster than you could any other way, and have nothing to do with Java.
It's simply a standard method of doing things.

-      JSON - This library understands and produces the JSON format as defined by RFC-7159.

-      XML - The XML library provides set of functions to easily add XML parsing and adding capability to applications. It is based on the expat XML parser, which is licensed under the MIT license. Expat is used in many projects (like Mozilla or Perl). It is very stable and very fast.

Rather than use "Blanket statements that mean nothing", I'm going to include a zip file which shows how to use these new additions to PureBasic.

The JSON sample produces a small database that tracks Players. Notice it has nothing to do with "Java stuff"

The XML sample produces a small dialog from just XML code. Notice it has nothing to do with "Java stuff"

A PowerBASIC / PureBasic user just posted a PowerBASIC to PureBasic Reference Guide.

see:  http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=61153

Now that's much more positive... isn't it? 

--Bob ("blueb"  on the PureBasic forum)