Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is Going On

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Joe Byrne View Post
    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.
    It depend on what they want to accomplish.
    If, as it was said, the Linux compiler would be a porting of PB/CC (so no GUI, no interation with the windowing system involved, etc.), I think there are no serious/show stopping differences among distros, and basically any 'x86 Linux would be suitable.

    A port of PB/Win instead, would be an entirely different thing...

    Bye!
    -- The universe tends toward maximum irony. Don't push it.

    File Extension Seeker - Metasearch engine for file extensions / file types
    Online TrID file identifier | TrIDLib - Identify thousands of file formats

    Comment


    • #22
      Graphic wish

      PBCC4 is a darn good product !

      What is missing most for me is to be able to use graphic screen with mouse and keyboard input without having to start learning Windows programming.

      I have been trying, with a lot of help from this very membership, to make a Graphic Console Program to get rid of the crappy 80x25 console look.

      I dream of a flexible console where you could use as many lines and columns that you needed with keyboard and mouse interaction.

      But I keep running in window timing problems that seems very hard to solve but maybe, with more help, I will be able to do it..

      Since PowerBasic gave us Graphic printing which was a terrific improvement, I think they could give us that kind of control on the console side.

      I trust M. Zale is able to do something about that need !
      Old QB45 Programmer

      Comment


      • #23
        Guy I agree with you, and I raised the issue with PB some time ago about adding few basic GUI elements to the graphis window such as buttons and message boxes (nothing fancy) which makes the control of the graphic window from the window itself and not from the console (if the user chooses to do so) but as I remember the response was that what I suggested would blur the distinction between the two compilers (CC and Win).

        Regarding the Linux version of the compiler, I agree with Marco. I posted in the past on this forum that as a first step into the multi distribution universe of Linux, a console compiler would be the logical choice, all Linux and indeed UNIX OSs have a console interface. The GUI on Linux is now mainly in two flavours which is not bad to support and they are converging as far as I know.

        So I will put my money on a new debugger for PB/CC 5.0, where will you put your money?
        Regards
        Haitham

        Comment


        • #24
          Buttons not needed

          Haitham,

          In order to keep the difference between PBCC and PBWin I would settle for simply having Mouse and Keyboard control
          when the focus is on the Graphic Window.

          Then we would be able to make web-like screens and menus instead of the traditionnal pull down setup.
          We have already all the graphic tools necessary in PBCC for that.
          Old QB45 Programmer

          Comment


          • #25
            My personal opinion is that PBCC and PBWIN should be merged into one compiler and incrementally priced higher to compensate for the additional benefits. (before throwing stones at me take note that is my opinion only)
            Paul Squires
            FireFly Visual Designer (for PowerBASIC Windows 10+)
            Version 3 now available.
            http://www.planetsquires.com

            Comment


            • #26
              Assuming that a PB Linux compiler is still a possibility at some point, I sure would hope that provisions for some sort of GUI package for it such as DDT or something like that isn't what is holding it up. I'd be very happy with just a console compiler type product. I'm willing to bet that within days if not hours of the release of such a product GUI programs would show up here as the result of us enterprising fellows translating the various header files for such Linux toolkits as X, Motif, Gtk+, etc.
              Fred
              "fharris"+Chr$(64)+"evenlink"+Chr$(46)+"com"

              Comment


              • #27
                Paul,

                I put that suggestion to PB years ago and their view was that the two products were distinct in terms of the applications they produce and that combining them would not be a straight forward process as I put it to them at the time.

                I think what Bob is trying to achieve is to offer world-class feature-rich compilers that produce very tight code at reasonable prices, i.e. a big challenge. Tell me how many indiviuals bought their own copies of, for example, Intel's Digital Fortran using their own money? Very few. Why? because it is bl**** expensive.

                So Paul what do you expect to see in PB/CC 5.0?
                Regards
                Haitham

                Comment


                • #28
                  I think one of the major issues with *any* app or system tool making its way from Windows (or DOS, or OS/2, for that matter) to Linux is that many Linux user live by the following equasion:

                  Linux == OpenSourceSoftware == Free

                  Just my 2 cents
                  Real programmers use a magnetized needle and a steady hand

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    What is missing most for me is to be able to use graphic screen with mouse and keyboard input without having to start learning Windows programming[italics mine. MCM]....
                    ???

                    Seems to me using a graphic screen with mouse and keyboard input is the very definition of Windows' programming.
                    Michael Mattias
                    Tal Systems (retired)
                    Port Washington WI USA
                    [email protected]
                    http://www.talsystems.com

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Going back to the thought of the first post, I would like there to be at least a "roadmap" plan for PBCC 4.1 and/or 5. What is actively being worked on with the lowest possibility of being dropped later? Perhaps even more important, what will not be there? If there is no intention of supporting x64, ActiveX controls, a new and improved IDE, or whatever in 4.1 (or 5), then say so now so that someone wanting such features will know they need not wait anymore.
                      Erich Schulman (KT4VOL/KTN4CA)
                      Go Big Orange

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        I'm pretty sure we all struggled to some extent with this issue in the migration from DOS to Windows. The console compiler had promise in two areas, namely porting existing DOS BASIC code to Windows, and secondly, the possibility of DOS with no memory limitations. In my case I never really had any specific DOS programs I wanted to port, but the possibility of escape from that 80X25 screen and unlimited memory held real appeal to me. Ignoring Windows and continuing with a character based interface was something to which I gave considerable thought.

                        However, the fact of the matter is that there was enough of a new 'twist' to learning the Win32 environment in which console windows existed and had their being that it soon dimmed my enthusiasm for continuing with text based programming. The old DOS keyboard, mouse, and bios interrupts with which we were so familiar were off limits, and one had to come to terms with the Win32 Api in any case. To this day I don't personally believe that it would be a great deal easier to produce professional grade console programs than it would be to just accept and learn the GUI and go that route. This, coupled with the fact that most folks don't want to use text mode interfaces, pretty much seals the deal.

                        I love the console compiler and urge all newcommers here to buy it. The major use I have found for it is testing, database programming and just exploring none GUI aspects of the Win32 Api. I've heard others here mention that so I know I'm not alone.
                        Last edited by Fred Harris; 8 Apr 2008, 09:35 AM.
                        Fred
                        "fharris"+Chr$(64)+"evenlink"+Chr$(46)+"com"

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Erich, the road map idea is nice but I suspect that it will categorized by PowerBASIC under vapourware since it hold a degree of speculation. However I sincerely hope that we will see a roadmap for PowerBASIC, after all we will be using it for years to come .


                          Fred, when I was at Uni many moons ago, I wished for a 32-bit version of TurboBASIC running on a 386 DOS machine with a DOS extender (do you remember Phar Lap DOS Extender?) to access MBs of RAM. That's why I bought PB/CC, its straightforward to use yet it is sophisticated and powerful and I want it to get better and better.
                          Regards
                          Haitham

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            I wished for a 32-bit version of TurboBASIC running on a 386 DOS machine with a DOS extender (do you remember Phar Lap DOS Extender?) to access MBs of RAM
                            I wished for Cindy Crawford to knock on my front door, leap into my arms and beg me to take her to dinner.

                            Did you get your wish?

                            --------------------
                            Still Waiting in Wisconsin
                            Michael Mattias
                            Tal Systems (retired)
                            Port Washington WI USA
                            [email protected]
                            http://www.talsystems.com

                            Comment


                            • #34


                              Michael, my wish came true years later thanks to Bob and his team, but what about yours?
                              Regards
                              Haitham

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Cindy has not shown up. (YET!)

                                However, I have received visits from a roofing contractor, a paving contractor, a candidate for the village board and some Mormons.
                                Michael Mattias
                                Tal Systems (retired)
                                Port Washington WI USA
                                [email protected]
                                http://www.talsystems.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X