3 ms·
I've owned PureBasic for many years and sometimes use it for personal tools. Lack of object-oriented features make it a bit old-fashioned and not a good replace
by 13415 6y ago
I've owned PureBasic for many years and sometimes use it for personal tools. Lack of object-oriented features make it a bit old-fashioned and not a good replacement for Realbasic (which I really found useful when it was still affordable).
However, the biggest drawback that holds this Basic dialect consistently back is that the cross-platform functionality is always only 85% there. It's cross platform, just not enough cross-platform. There are hacks to get functionality on Windows that won't work on Mac and Linux, and vice versa, and some essential functionality has never been implemented. Most importantly, a working cross-platform rich text editor widget with image support is missing. Other smaller things are also missing or not fully featured enough. All of the missing cross-platform functionality could have been implemented years ago, but the very nice main developer seems to have other priorities. There are just too many hacks and tricks that only work on Windows.
It's fine for small tools and quick hacks, though, and has a lot of supporting libraries. Among the existing cross-platform Basic dialects, it's probably the most complete.
- 7thaccount 6y agoHow is it so fast and with tiny executables. My assumption is that even though this is BASIC, there is no REPL/SHELL like you would get with BASIC on a C64 right?
- 13415 6y agoSorry, late reply - I'm only in this account once a day. Purebasic compiles to assembly code in flat assembler format using yasm.[1] Some of its support libraries were even directly written in assembler. That accounts for speed and compact executables. Unfortunately, it also prevents retargeting and sophisticated compiler optimizations. [1] http://yasm.tortall.net/ http://yasm.tortall.net/