Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is Going On

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

  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Haitham Yousef
    replied


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Haitham Yousef
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Harris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erich Schulman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bud Durland
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Haitham Yousef
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Harris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Squires
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guy Dombrowski
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Haitham Yousef
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guy Dombrowski
    replied
    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 !

    Leave a comment:


  • Marco Pontello
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • John Spikowski
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Byrne
    replied
    Originally posted by Dale Yarker View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Harris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Boss
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodney Hicks
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X