What is Going On

[Haitham Yousef]

I know that PB is not into vapourware and I respect that BUT we as users can speculate about what is going on behind closed doors. It has been a long time since version 4 of PB/CC was released and would like to ask you to speculate about what PB/CC 5 would look like.

Is there going to be a linux offering?
Is there going to be a 64-bit edition?
A new debugger?
ActiveX support?
New variable types?


So what do you think?

[Joe Byrne]

I definitely think that there is a possibility of some or none of the above

[Fred Harris]

I definitely think that there is a possibility of some or none of the above

I usually find myself in some measure at odds with many of Joe's ideas, but I'm completely with him on this one!

[mark pruitt]

((Pent up Anticipation) + ((Wild Speculation - Credible Facts))) * Non Micro$oft OS = Vaporware

Vaporware * PowerBASIC = 0.

[Walter Henn]

I know that PB is not into vapourware and I respect that BUT we as users can speculate about what is going on behind closed doors. It has been a long time since version 4 of PB/CC was released and would like to ask you to speculate about what PB/CC 5 would look like...

Finally, someone who has the courage to even mention PB/CC 5. While I understand that PowerBasic doesn't wish to engage in vaporware, one can hardly be blamed for wondering -- after such a long time -- what the next version of PB/CC will look like and when it will be out. At times, I find myself wishing that PowerBasic would produce vaporware. At least it would reassure me, somewhat, that the next version is not years away.

[John Spikowski]

I know that PB is not into vapourware and I respect that BUT we as users can speculate about what is going on behind closed doors. It has been a long time since version 4 of PB/CC was released and would like to ask you to speculate about what PB/CC 5 would look like.

Is there going to be a linux offering?
Is there going to be a 64-bit edition?
A new debugger?
ActiveX support?
New variable types?


So what do you think?

After a 20 year run with PowerBASIC, maybe Bob's getting tired.


John

[Bob Zale]

John,

PowerBASIC is my life's work, but at some point, PowerBASIC will continue without my personal guidance. Fortunately, we don't expect that to occur any time soon. Thousands of very good friends and very good customers rely on PowerBASIC every day. We take our obligation most seriously. Your suggestion that boredom would allow us to forsake our friends and associates is disappointing. I do not understand the motivation for such a comment, but it has no merit.

Best regards,

Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.

[John Spikowski]

Sorry Bob, you took it the wrong way.

Don't always assume the worse in people.


John

[Edwin Knoppert]

Already forgotten the free update from 16 to 32 bits compiler?
I really appreciated that update, also due the fact there was no difference for me as result, i find it well done.

There are request which are valid imo though.
An ActiveX control with events and without atl would be one of the better implementations.

The current com browser.. clicking 'through' would be nice.
The VB objectbrowser has it, click a member's variable, which is an object and jump to that interface part.

[Bob Zale]

Sorry Bob, you took it the wrong way. Don't always assume the worse in people.

I'm afraid it has nothing to do with how "I took it"... and it has nothing to do with my personal "assumptions". It has everything to do with our perception in the eyes of our friends and customers. Some people will read your message and take you seriously.

You came to the home of PowerBASIC and made a very public statement about us. You suggested that boredom might allow us to forsake our obligations to our customers. I countered that with truth.

You're entitled to your opinion of us. You're entitled to speak it. But we will correct statements which may misinform.

Best regards,

Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.

[Kev Peel]

If you look at the facts there has never been a gap of more than 2-3 years for PB/WIN and PB/CC major updates. Let's have a look:

PB/DLL 5 - 1997
PB/DLL 6 - 1999
PB/DLL 7 - 2002
PB/DLL 8 - 2005

In fact, the main compilers had a minor update with new features just last September, I believe. So not exactly "many years" between updates is it?

After all, PB is just one tool in your arsenal. Do people use IMGEDIT to design all their graphics? The PB editor to write HTML? You should use the right tool for the job, so if you need a LINUX compiler, use an actual LINUX compiler

[Michael Mattias]

>so if you need a LINUX compiler, use an actual LINUX compiler

Wow, what a concept!

[Fred Harris]

In my mind the release of the 32 bit compiler 'engine' was very close to a 'major release'. The thing about that as everyone knows is that it was something in the 'must do' catagory. Unfortunately, no new shiny new gizmos were associated with it. Nonetheless, it was better for PowerBASIC to concentrate on that as oppossed to shiny new gizmos. I don't know squat about writting compilers, but I can't help feeling that the conversion from 16 to 32 bit asm wasn't entirely a search and replace operation.

[Michael Mattias]

but I can't help feeling that the conversion from 16 to 32 bit asm wasn't entirely a search and replace operation.

Oh, I'd agree with that... and then some.

I believe the same applies to applications conversions from MS-DOS to Windows, or from "c" to BASIC, or from Microsoft Visual Basic to PowerBASIC, ......

[Dale Yarker]

Q: Why do so many (including me at times) keep asking about a Linux compiler from PB?

A: Maybe it's because they believe that if PB produced a Linux compiler it would be a darned good one!

[Rodney Hicks]

Dale Yarker wrote:

Q: Why do so many (including me at times) keep asking about a Linux compiler from PB?

A: Maybe it's because they believe that if PB produced a Linux compiler it would be a darned good one!

Economies of scale are likely to keep PB from spending too much time on a Linux compiler. If Linux is in need of a 'damned good compiler', then perhaps it is a niche for someone else. It doesn't make economic sense for PB to spread itself too thin and end up using valuable resources to create a marginal use product(compared to their flagship products). They do a very good job of looking after the current products and their customers and perhaps if the customers were to extol the virtues of PBWin/PBCC to the world a little better than we do, PB might find the resources to fill another niche, but that niche might not be Linux.

Rod

[Chris Boss]

There are different ways of looking at this.

It is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, software companies have some kind of long term beta testing of software while it is in development.
Obviously, even if the public is not aware of such efforts, it is still going on.

The real question, is not whether development is occuring or not, or whether Beta testing of some kind if also going on, but it is whether a company chooses one of the following:

(1) Have shorter development cycles between versions

(2) Have longer development cycles between versions.

This is where it gets interesting!

If a company chooses shorter development cycles between versions, at times what really happens is that they release new versions sooner than they should have and the customers end up beta testing the software they thought was a release version and the company spends the next year or two making fix after fix.

If a company like Powerbasic chooses a longer development cycle, sure customers must wait longer for the next version, but what happens is the software is released and is much more solid (less buggy) and few fixes have to be released later.

Personally, I also choose the second route with my software. I have had some criticise my software because there are not many updates released regularly as if that means the software is not being improved. In reality, software developers who have to release regular updates (fixes) after they officially release their software, simply may not be spending enough time testing their software before releasing it.

I have seen some compiler makers (small internet based companies) who have some nice tools, but they release updates far too often. What this means is they add new features and quickly release them, but aren't doing enough testing to make sure it all works right. That produces buggy software.

How can one rely on programming tools which have to be regularly updated, because they keep find bugs in it.

One may complain about the long development cycle between versions of PowerBasic, but I doubt many are complaining about the reliability of the PB compilers.

The choice is there.

Choose software with short development cycles and expect to get buggy software which needs lots of fixes later.

or

Choose software with a longer development cycle and expect it to be "rock solid" when it is released.

I personally choose the latter.

[Fred Harris]

Good points Chris. I for one don't sweat it.

The main program I support where I work is a program that ran on mainframe computers since the 1960s. In 1998 it was entirely re-written for PCs. That was used for about 6 years until I rewrote it in PowerBASIC (the original rewrite didn't work too well). My point is that when you are not talking about 'throw away' software (that is RAD VB type stuff), the long release cycles are more a plus than a minus, IMO.

[Joe Byrne]

Q: Why do so many (including me at times) keep asking about a Linux compiler from PB?

A: Maybe it's because they believe that if PB produced a Linux compiler it would be a darned good one!

I would expect so. One of the more valid issues with a PB Linux compiler is "which distro?" Sure, there are a lot of commonality between them, but there are enough differences to make a 'general compiler' a bit daunting.

However, I read a couple of articles over the past month that points out the fact that many people are beginning to use the words "Linux" and "Ubuntu" interchangeably. Ubuntu seems to be gaining a lot of traction from both Linux Pros and beginners. With the new 'safer' install features coming to version 8, Ubuntu could very well become the 'default' distro. If/when one primary distro takes the market lead, it would make a lot more sense to target a professional compiler (ie not a "free"/open-source product). Most Linux die-hards expect most things to be open-source. If Ubuntu (or something else) gains a decent percentage of mainstream converts (which I can see happening), you'll get a larger segment of people willing to pay for quality software. Having a compiler that covers all/most of the Linux bases out there, would surely be attractive to developers.

Timing the market is not an easy thing to do. I think Bob has done a very good job of that in the past (I remember this discussion over OS/2 and Windows) so I'm confident that if/when Linux offers a viable market, PB will be there "in time" to leverage it.

[John Spikowski]

I have been using CentOS (Red Hat recompile) for some time. I have less problems getting stuff to run on the Red Hat based distro then others I have tried. If you check the dedicated hosting OS options available, CentOS is the preferred choice and I have yet to see Ubuntu offered. I had all kinds of problems getting ScriptBasic compiled under Ubuntu but the CentOS compile worked without any problem. If one of my clients feel they need Red Hat support, it's really easy to backup my apps and reinstall on Red Hat with no changes.

John