Compilers 
Author Message
 Compilers

   Actually,  if anyone is interested,  PureBasic seems to make a pretty
good compiler,  they are I guess new to the windows scene but look
promising.  I have downloaded their demo version and they optimize
everything in assembler, and they are a third of the price of powerbasic.

They treat their customers with respect,  and actually want your business.
How refeshing!

    Thank You,  PowerBasic, for being rude and arrogant enough to send me
looking for other options.  You aren't the be-all end-all of Basic compilers
after all.

Dan



Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:06:57 GMT  
 Compilers

Quote:
>    Actually,  if anyone is interested,  PureBasic seems to make a pretty
> good compiler,  they are I guess new to the windows scene but look
> promising.  I have downloaded their demo version and they optimize
> everything in assembler, and they are a third of the price of PowerBasic.

Aww, c'mon now!  Don't mention this PureBasic without giving a URL!

Tom Lake



Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:40:01 GMT  
 Compilers

Quote:
>    Actually,  if anyone is interested,  PureBasic seems to make a pretty
> good compiler,  they are I guess new to the windows scene but look
> promising.  I have downloaded their demo version and they optimize
> everything in assembler, and they are a third of the price of PowerBasic.

> They treat their customers with respect,  and actually want your business.
> How refeshing!

OK here's the URL:

http://www.purebasic.com

It's only $60.00 (40 GPB or 400 French Francs) and has free updates for
life.  One thing I like about it is that the same software can be recompiled
to run under AmigaOS (!) Linux and Windows.  The main plus for me, though is
the following quote from their Website:

"For all assembler optimizer freaks (like us ? :-): You can compile programs
into a 'commented asm output file', containing all code in a comprehensive
asm format; all directly recompilable with NAsm. It has never been so easy
to optimize small program parts. You keep control of all your source code."

That means it generates pure machine code rather than just a bunch of calls
to a runtime library.

Tom Lake



Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:10:51 GMT  
 Compilers
I took a look at the PureBasic compiler. While it looks pretty good at first
glance, there are a number of issues that make it unsuitable compared to PB.

First is uses some very strange syntax for a number of things, such as a
letter for the data type rather than the standard Basic data type characters
(%&!). This is very confusing for long time basic programmers.

Also the commands for creating windows use a syntax which is quite confusing
(calling controls gadgets for example). Calling Common Dialogs , Requesters,
is down right confusing.

It does not support the stand Function or Sub syntax, but uses a syntax
using Procedure (again not the standard for Basic).

There are a number of features missing, such as some data types (ie. DWords,
Doubles) and it doesn't support pointers, varptr, strptr , codeptr or
callback functions.

The structure for processing events is quite different than SDK or DDT style
coding and is very different than how windows really works under the hood.

While I applaud the PureBasic compiler for its effort, it isn't in the same
league as PowerBasic (not IMO).

The low price doesn't necessarily make it better than Powerbasic. Powerbasic
is very compatible with long time DOS Basics (as far as the basic language
syntax), Visual Basic, etc. PureBasic is not !

Chris Boss
Computer Workshop


Quote:
>    Actually,  if anyone is interested,  PureBasic seems to make a pretty
> good compiler,  they are I guess new to the windows scene but look
> promising.  I have downloaded their demo version and they optimize
> everything in assembler, and they are a third of the price of PowerBasic.

> They treat their customers with respect,  and actually want your business.
> How refeshing!

>     Thank You,  PowerBasic, for being rude and arrogant enough to send me
> looking for other options.  You aren't the be-all end-all of Basic
compilers
> after all.

> Dan



Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:31:03 GMT  
 Compilers
Chris,

In checking their website I see PureBasic was only released officially for
windows last December.  Comparing them to PowerBasic at this time is hardly
fair.  I would give them a chance as far as getting all of the features
going.  They seem to listen to what people are asking for.  They have
already had 3 updates in the 7 months or so that it has been released, an
amazing amount considering everything is in optimized assembler.    And as
for the syntax,  well I think if you have programmed in Basic before the
little differences won't matter.

Just my Opinion,

Dan



Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:10 GMT  
 Compilers

Quote:
> Chris,

> In checking their website I see PureBasic was only released officially for
> windows last December.  Comparing them to PowerBasic at this time is
hardly
> fair.

Sure it is. Both products are marketed as BASIC-language development
systems. Apples is apples. Dogs eat dogs, and like that.

I checked out their website over the weekend, then wrote them about some
features I think I needed but could not find listed in the on-line product
description. I got an answer back, and no, they do not support the features
I was interested in, but politely thanked me and indicated  that some of the
things I wanted were already "in production" and some others I suggested
sounded pretty good.

Maybe in six months or so PureBASIC will be worth the $60 to take it for a
test drive. However, feature-content-wise, it will take a while to gain
parity with a more than thir{*filter*}-year old product (counting the time PB
spent as Turbo BASIC).

MCM



Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:08:37 GMT  
 Compilers



Quote:
> I took a look at the PureBasic compiler. While it looks pretty good at
first
> glance, there are a number of issues that make it unsuitable compared to
PB.

> First is uses some very strange syntax for a number of things, such as a
> letter for the data type rather than the standard Basic data type
characters
> (%&!). This is very confusing for long time basic programmers.

> Also the commands for creating windows use a syntax which is quite
confusing
> (calling controls gadgets for example). Calling Common Dialogs ,
Requesters,
> is down right confusing.

> It does not support the stand Function or Sub syntax, but uses a syntax
> using Procedure (again not the standard for Basic).

> There are a number of features missing, such as some data types (ie.
DWords,
> Doubles) and it doesn't support pointers, varptr, strptr , codeptr or
> callback functions.

> The structure for processing events is quite different than SDK or DDT
style
> coding and is very different than how windows really works under the hood.

> While I applaud the PureBasic compiler for its effort, it isn't in the
same
> league as PowerBasic (not IMO).

> The low price doesn't necessarily make it better than Powerbasic.
Powerbasic
> is very compatible with long time DOS Basics (as far as the basic language
> syntax), Visual Basic, etc. PureBasic is not !

    First I must say I've never seen an OLD fashioned BASIC using the
objects facilities as Visual Basic or even
PowerBasic do. So why not break the rules a bit to have stronger and more
intuitive syntaxe ? Using %&! at the
end of each number variable is really ugly (visually speaking :-D). BTW,
PureBasic supports pointers (using the *
character before a variable) and I don't see what are 'strptr' and
'codeptr'. A pointer in PureBasic can be used for anything.
For the event processing, you're totally right, it's not like the SDK. It's
because we need to be compatiable with other
OSes, so this methods is fine too (and easier to understand than a
'CallBack' called a bit like the system want).

  Anyway thanks for your comments, I will try to take some in count.

            Regards,

                Fred 'AlphaSND' - PureBasic main programmer.



Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:36:41 GMT  
 Compilers
Greetings, etc.

Quote:

> I took a look at the PureBasic compiler. While it looks pretty good at first
> glance, there are a number of issues that make it unsuitable compared to PB.

That's subjective and relative. Unsuitable for what and for who?
Quote:

> First is uses some very strange syntax for a number of things, such as a
> letter for the data type rather than the standard Basic data type characters
> (%&!). This is very confusing for long time basic programmers.

Not if these programmers have also used any other language with
different customs, such as C++, Java, C. data type character system is
peculiar to BASIC (or nearly so). Microsoft recommends prepending
"int", "dbl", etc., to variable names in VB! PB could be equally
criticized for sticking with the old-fashioned BASICA style.
Quote:

> Also the commands for creating windows use a syntax which is quite confusing
> (calling controls gadgets for example). Calling Common Dialogs , Requesters,
> is down right confusing.

True, it isn't what M$ would call them. That would take some getting
used to, but we are intelligent mammals, after all. We can adjust.
Quote:

> It does not support the stand Function or Sub syntax, but uses a syntax
> using Procedure (again not the standard for Basic).

What standard? Basic is the most fragmented collection of languages
out there and it gets worse every day (compare PowerBasic and
VisualBasic, for example). Using "procedure" may make it somewhat
Pascal-like, but that's OK. In the beginning, BASIC (not Basic) had
line numbers and variable names with 2 character max lengths...and NO
Functions or Subs! The existence of languages out of the C mold shows
that both aren't needed.
Quote:

> There are a number of features missing, such as some data types (ie. DWords,
> Doubles) and it doesn't support pointers, varptr, strptr , codeptr or
> callback functions.

What other Basic has pointers? Talk about deviating from the norm.
Pointers are the main reason people hate C/C++.
Quote:

> The structure for processing events is quite different than SDK or DDT style
> coding and is very different than how windows really works under the hood.

> While I applaud the PureBasic compiler for its effort, it isn't in the same
> league as PowerBasic (not IMO).

Doing things in a different way doesn't put it in a lower "league."
Quote:

> The low price doesn't necessarily make it better than Powerbasic.
...or worse!
> Powerbasic is very compatible with long time DOS Basics (as far as the
> basic language syntax), Visual Basic, etc. PureBasic is not!

They are all different enough to require some learning time.
Quote:

> Chris Boss
> Computer Workshop

Not trying to argue, just giving a different viewpoint. PureBasic
could be very useful where backward compatibility is not an issue,
such as any new project.

Doug



Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:11:14 GMT  
 Compilers

Quote:
> In checking their website I see PureBasic was only released officially for
> windows last December.  Comparing them to PowerBasic at this time is hardly
> fair.  

But that's precisely what you did in your post.  You compared them to
PowerBASIC and said it was better.

Now that someone else has actually posted facts (which you neglected to
post), you cry foul.

Quote:
> And as for the syntax,  well I think if you have programmed in Basic
> before the little differences won't matter.

Having been on the "support side" of a compiler company, I could hardly
disagree more.  BASIC programmers, more than any other programming group I
know, want *BETTER* compatibility with products they use, not worse.  I've
personally written *MILLIONS* of lines of PowerBASIC source code.  Why would
I want to spend years porting it to something incompatible?

---

Dan, I sympathize with your sense of "injury" in your dealing with the folks
at PowerBASIC.  And I'm sure that you are a really wonderful guy...  But
with existing PowerBASIC customers you are dealing with an *EXTREMELY*
dedicated group, most of which have been loyal for many years.

As a former tech support person (among other jobs there) for PowerBASIC, I
can tell you that the overwhelming majority of PowerBASIC customers are
highly skilled programmers who require, nope wrong word, *DEMAND* a product
capable of supporting advanced features previously only found in C and
Delphi.

Even when I worked for Bob, we had disagreements where I felt he was in the
wrong, but that's life.  If I ever did something that made him so upset that
he "stopped selling to me", I'd buy PowerBASIC under an assumed name or from
a third-party dealer.  I rely on it *THAT* much.

No offense, but I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd if you're
attempting to make us all stop using PowerBASIC.  Almost every single one of
us has had a "run-in" with somebody in a bad mood at PowerBASIC (heck, I let
my mood get the better of me a few times when I worked there).  As long as
they don't say something bad about my mother or my bald spot, I'm willing to
let it slide as a disagreement and move on.  That's what {*filter*}s do.

Of course, I live in the U.S. where we have freedom of speech and I
certainly encourage dissenting opinion as part of the process which makes
this country a great place to live.  Besides, it's your dime.  So please
feel free to continue your postings.  I just wanted to let you know the type
of people you're dealing with in this particular newsgroup.  Just in case
you had better things to do.

--Dave



Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:31:04 GMT  
 Compilers


Quote:
> > There are a number of features missing, such as some data types (ie. DWords,
> > Doubles) and it doesn't support pointers, varptr, strptr , codeptr or
> > callback functions.

> What other Basic has pointers? Talk about deviating from the norm.
> Pointers are the main reason people hate C/C++.

Oh man, what {*filter*} have you been taking?  Where can I get some?  <smile>

People who don't like C/C++ do so because of how "strict" it is, not because
of pointers.  I dislike it because it's case sensitive and you have to type

Of course, C/C++ programmers LOVE it pretty much for the same reason.  They
love the structure because it makes code immensely readable and easy to
maintain.

Anyone who has ever done any *real* Windows programming knows that it
requires the use of pointers.  Microsoft is pretty fanatical about that.

And anyone who has ever tried to optimize their code to reduce loops times
and such KNOWS how wonderful pointers can be.  Particularly when it comes to
string buffer processing and munging arrays.

--Dave



Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:40:12 GMT  
 Compilers


Quote:
> Not trying to argue, just giving a different viewpoint. PureBasic
> could be very useful where backward compatibility is not an issue,
> such as any new project.

I've never tried it, in fact I haven't even looked at it (yet).  So I don't
have an opinion on it.  However, I can say that I have never personally
written a program (even from scratch) where "backward compatibility" was not
an issue.

After many, many years I have finally gotten to the point where I don't have
to look up the syntax for more of the PowerBASIC keywords when I use them
(I'm dense that way <grin>).  I can't say the same about when I am forced to
program in Visual Basic.  It slows me down.

If I attempted to use something like PureBasic where it's been reported that
the syntax is markedly different, I'd lose lots of productivity because it
would take me 3 to 4 times the amount of time to write code.

Now, the fact that PureBasic also does Linux is *VERY* intriguing.  THAT
would make it worth investigating.

--Dave



Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:45:44 GMT  
 Compilers
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 06:40:12 GMT, David Navarro

Quote:



>> > There are a number of features missing, such as some data types (ie. DWords,
>> > Doubles) and it doesn't support pointers, varptr, strptr , codeptr or
>> > callback functions.

>> What other Basic has pointers? Talk about deviating from the norm.
>> Pointers are the main reason people hate C/C++.

>Oh man, what {*filter*} have you been taking?  Where can I get some?  <smile>

I gave that up years ago. Now I'm in computers. Which is worse??

Quote:

>People who don't like C/C++ do so because of how "strict" it is, not because
>of pointers.  I dislike it because it's case sensitive and you have to type


That is a BASIC programmer talking! I must disagree with you on what
C/C++ programmers like and dislike about their languages. You have it
backwards. C is anything BUT strict. It enforces nothing - not array
bounds checking, not the number of parameters in a function, and
certainly not style or structure. C++ is somewhat safer (if you
*choose* to use the features that make it safer), but still assumes
the programmer knows what he's doing (a real safe assumption, right?).
Both are called "free form" langauges. Those {} braces allow you
freedom to place code anywhere you like. In terms of safety and form,
BASIC is one of the most strict languages out there (in most of it's
many flavors).

Pointers are a real cause of hell in C/C++, and really are THE main
problem most programmers have with both languages. They love what
pointers can do for them, but also hate what pointers can do TO them.
They are the cause of most subtle bugs that are hard to catch.  Also,
the lack of array bounds checking invites buffer overrun attacks on
server programs, and most security experts call this the #1 security
concern today. Problems like this are what makes Java about 2 times
more productive for the programmer (Bruce Eckel, "Thinking in Java"
2nd Edition).

C++ is like a sharp knife. C is like a chainsaw. You can do great
things with them, but you can cut your arm off if you aren't really
careful.

That being said, I really can't stand either one of them. They were
both created for systems programming, not applications. I much prefer
Java (because it plugs so many C/C++ security holes) and BASIC (some
of it's many forms, anyway). Too bad Java is still such a RAM hog.

Quote:

>Of course, C/C++ programmers LOVE it pretty much for the same reason.  They
>love the structure because it makes code immensely readable and easy to
>maintain.

Now YOU are suspect of drug use!  :)
Immensely readable and easy to maintain?? Oh, please! Yes, it can be
if they do it right, but many don't. That's why there is the annual
"Obfuscated C Code" competition! Such coding is all too-common. Once
again, C/C++ enforce nothing in the style department. You can do
whatever you want.

Quote:

>Anyone who has ever done any *real* Windows programming knows that it

I dare you to go to a C/C++ group and claim that you do "real Windows
programming" with BASIC!  :)  I believe you, but they won't.

Quote:
>requires the use of pointers.  Microsoft is pretty fanatical about that.

In VC++, yes. (VB programmers do without them just fine, though.)
However, you can accomplish most of the same results with references
in C++, only using pointers when really needed. Also, MS is trying to
do away with them. Managed C++ (.NET) won't let you use pointers
unless you mark the code as "Unsafe," and C# won't even have them
AFAIK. From now on MS wants you to use references, not pointers.

Quote:

>And anyone who has ever tried to optimize their code to reduce loops times
>and such KNOWS how wonderful pointers can be.  Particularly when it comes to
>string buffer processing and munging arrays.

I agree with you. I'm not debating their usefulness, just their
pitfalls.

BTW, have you ever looked at Euphoria (www.rapideuphoria.com)? Very
basic-like, but much smaller, and cross-platform (DOS, WIN, Linux).
Can compile to machine code or translate to C.

Thanks for the input, Dave. I learn things every day here.

Quote:

>--Dave



Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:29:46 GMT  
 Compilers
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 06:45:44 GMT, David Navarro

Quote:



>> Not trying to argue, just giving a different viewpoint. PureBasic
>> could be very useful where backward compatibility is not an issue,
>> such as any new project.

>I've never tried it, in fact I haven't even looked at it (yet).  So I don't
>have an opinion on it.  However, I can say that I have never personally
>written a program (even from scratch) where "backward compatibility" was not
>an issue.

>After many, many years I have finally gotten to the point where I don't have
>to look up the syntax for more of the PowerBASIC keywords when I use them
>(I'm dense that way <grin>).  I can't say the same about when I am forced to
>program in Visual Basic.  It slows me down.

That is a real issue. When you get that familiar with a language, you
can program from your spinal cord. Hope I get there eventually.

Quote:
>If I attempted to use something like PureBasic where it's been reported that
>the syntax is markedly different, I'd lose lots of productivity because it
>would take me 3 to 4 times the amount of time to write code.

A lot of the BASICs are really different languages. Of course, once
you go beyond the C and C++ ANSI standards in Windows, KDE, GTK, etc.,
they are different languages, too.

Quote:

>Now, the fact that PureBasic also does Linux is *VERY* intriguing.  THAT
>would make it worth investigating.

PowerBasic is also cross-platform between Linux and Windows. Has it's
own GUI libraries.

Quote:

>--Dave

Doug


Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:41:48 GMT  
 Compilers

Quote:

>>Now, the fact that PureBasic also does Linux is *VERY* intriguing.  THAT
>>would make it worth investigating.
>PowerBasic is also cross-platform between Linux and Windows. Has it's
>own GUI libraries.

>Doug

Sorry, I meant XBasic!
http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html


Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:17:54 GMT  
 
 [ 14 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Compiler warning suggestion, Smalltalk compiler in 5.0?

2. Compiler error (or maybe compiler problem?!)

3. Marcel's compiler /was Forth compiler technology

4. (none)Compiler-Compiler

5. Compiler Compilers

6. compiler for Sun 4's (compiler.com)

7. Mikro Focus Cobol Compiler 3.0/ Personal Cobol Compiler 2.0

8. wher can i download a cobol compiler (who can post the compiler in the newsgroup

9. Ada compilers and cross-compilers

10. IBM Compiler for VM is in the Dec 92 compiler list

11. MicroFocus OO Compiler (4.0.32) or Any OO COBOL Compiler

12. Ada Compiler-Compiler

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software