Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wish List Item

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

  • Criss French
    replied
    the crux of the issue: native vs. cross develope/compile

    with DOS being such an oldie these days, why not cross compile?
    so much better UI in any GUI. So many more tools. The reasons
    are nearly endless.

    I (mostly) do cross develope (Editpad Pro, Win98). It is a vastly
    best-choice way to do most of my work (just the font & resolution
    of my editing environment justifies that).

    BUT...

    I write hydrographic survey data collection software that runs on
    a DOS only 486. I slave away at home on my real machine to prepare
    the software, but the only real test is in the feild, all the
    instruments set up, SEVERAL people on the job for real. I know that
    more than once I have saved the job (and my a$$) by fixing the
    software on the spot on the 486, where I have PB on the CF card
    along with the data collection stuff. I use the (lame) DOS editor,
    fix the stupid little bug, and voila, we get to work that day.
    Remember, I am usually bobbing up and down in a small open boat
    in the rain with several people waiting when this is going down.
    So don't tell me to just grab my Window$ laptop to fix the
    problem. It ain't gonna happen.

    I dread to think what would happen if I couldn't do a native compile
    on the job. OUCH

    I haven't had to use the debugger in field though, so a cross platform
    IDE wouldn't have hurt me, SO LONG AS THE COMPILE IS NATIVE.

    I think I would balance it this way:

    - NATIVE DOS compile tools, as any fancy host OS can still emulate
    DOS well enough to get this part of the job done.

    - stop significant effort on improving DOS based IDE. It would still
    be handy for it's true native debug abilities, but real coding
    is better in newer OS's with GUI's. If upgrading the IDE is
    really too much a chore, then improve error handling and language
    internal debugging facilities (good effort of it's own merrit anyways)
    to compensate for lack of future native IDE debug.

    - concentrate on a fancy GUI OS based editor (like Jellyfish?) as
    the native primary coding/development platform. Much more
    room to move there, and surely much easier to build nowadays.
    Include MUCH code analysis ability to help filer the common
    problems well before they reach the native platform.

    - if the IDE in DOS is still in the cards, then please make it
    more Window$ friendly. I almost never use the IDE, because
    I can never remember how to even select anything or do a cut/copy/
    paste. Like most everyone else I live in GUI land where
    ctrl-c and ctrl-v work, and the mouse does what it should.
    That's hours-a-day of training contrary to the PB IDE. So I
    vote for making any future DOS IDE efforts conform to what my
    hands know so well. And given that said beast would still
    mostly live in Win$ based emu land, I suggest that it test for
    it's host environment and adapt accordingly with enhanced
    awareness of things like the clipboard, external editors, etc..

    So that's my (several) votes for future direction of PB. Thanks
    for even bothering to keep it going folks (in these so-past-DOS days).


    ------------------
    What can go wrong will go wrong.
    Anything can go wrong.
    What hasn't?!?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Squires
    replied
    ...A Windows-based IDE (akin to VB6) with colour-syntax
    et al for PB-DOS.
    The JellyFish Pro Editor allows you to develop PB/DOS applications
    while in Windows. It also has color-syntax and all of the other
    JellyFish goodies that are available to PB/CC and PB/WIN users.
    JellyFish compiles the MS/DOS executables by shelling to the
    PB/DOS compiler. http://www.planetsquires.com


    ------------------
    Paul Squires
    FireFly Visual Designer, Cheetah Database System, JellyFish Pro Editor
    www.planetsquires.com

    Leave a comment:


  • David Radcliffe
    replied
    I remember posting a 'wish list' item a v.log time ago saying just this...
    A Windows-based IDE (akin to VB6) with colour-syntax et al for PB-DOS.

    I totally agree that just because a program runs on a particular platform (e.g. MS-DOS) doesn't mean that the source code has to be written/edited on the same platform...
    How many PlayStation games were written on a PS2 ??

    My £0.02 worth...

    BTW: Check out VEDIT from Ted Green as an editor with compiler support.

    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Torrie
    replied
    Heck, why people develop Windows apps on windows is beyond me. I actually do all of my windows development on Linux where possible and just use Windows for debugging and testing. Cross-compilers are wonderful things

    ------------------


    [This message has been edited by Michael Torrie (edited December 14, 2004).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephane Fonteyne
    replied
    Tom

    I used PBDOS for creating elektronic applications that run will fast
    and I hope that are there an new upgrade with more functions


    Ps: Where can I find the PDF manual of the PBDOS Compiler?

    Kind regards
    Stephane

    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Davide Vecchi
    replied
    Developing within an MS-DOS environment just because the final product will be used under MS-DOS: totally inexplicable to me.

    ------------------
    Davide Vecchi
    [email protected]

    [This message has been edited by Davide Vecchi (edited December 14, 2004).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hanlin
    replied
    Many people who target DOS these days are running on Windows machines.
    The idea of a Windows-hosted PB/DOS is under consideration, as are other
    Windows-hosted compilers for other target machines.

    ------------------
    Tom Hanlin, PowerBASIC Staff
    Opinions expressed may not be those of my employer or myself

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    My $0.02:

    Putting the help for a compiler which runs on MS-DOS and creates MS-DOS executables, in Windows format: totally dopey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Darden
    replied
    Back to the original question, I sometimes used Start/Run and
    then run PB for DOS from there. But not long ago I created a
    folder on my desktop for PowerBASIC, and drug all my shortcuts
    for PB/Win, PB/CC, PBForms, etc. into it. Then I added a
    shortcut for PB/DOS to it as well. And I finally drug the whole
    folder and dropped it on the Start button, which adds it to the
    list of specific programs or folders that I can open after
    pressing on Start.

    Now when I decide to cut-and-paste code from one of the forums. I
    can Edit the message, do a Select All, do a Cut, click on Start,
    click the PowerBasic folder, click on the PowerBasic editor I
    want, then under "File" I click on "New File" and paste my cut
    right in.

    The big advantage is that I still have the browser open to the
    same forum message and did not have to minimize and restore the
    browser during the process. Of course I still have to comment
    out everything except the actual code in the editor, but
    that is always the case.

    What would be nice in the editor would be a new option to
    automatically comment out anything not set off inside the
    Code:
     and
    delimiters, and to optionally treat two or
    more sets of pairs as separate modules, opening
    up a different window for each. Right now we have some people
    putting one module or program in one message and another in a
    second, or putting both in the same message.


    ------------------
    Old Navy Chief, Systems Engineer, Systems Analyst, now semi-retired

    Leave a comment:


  • Marco Pontello
    replied
    I'm the first for open/free format (I hate seeing public administration site that offer downloadable info/templates in DOC format, for once).
    But WinHelp seems to me to fit perfectly for the job; the help for PBW/Win or PB/CC is a joy to consult for his "quickness".
    The portability issue is only a matter of tools that the producer (PB) or the user can use; many of them cna create a great deal of formats from the same source.

    Bye!

    ------------------
    Try Online TrID file identifier! Recognize over 1.450 filetypes and counting...
    Give a powerfull scriptable Lua interface to your application with PowerBLua
    PBTracer - Tracer / Profiler for PowerBASIC (soon!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Criss French
    replied
    A Win compatible help format is a good idea, but I think that html
    would be both more portable, and easier for the PB crew to produce.

    Besides, I think the normal windows help app is lame, html can be
    better organized and navigated.

    Support the overthrowing of M$ proprietary file formats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marco Pontello
    replied
    Yes, JFish is very handy when working with PB/DOS.
    Speaking of this, one thing I really like to see in the next version of PB/DOS, is the documentation also in the standard Windows Help format (so when developing with a Win IDE it will act as an online help/reference).

    Bye!

    ------------------
    Try Online TrID file identifier! Recognize over 1.450 filetypes and counting...
    Give a powerfull scriptable Lua interface to your application with PowerBLua
    PBTracer - Tracer / Profiler for PowerBASIC (soon!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Byrne
    replied
    I believe Jellyfish works with the DOS compiler too. Its a very nice environment to work in.

    ------------------
    Joe Byrne

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Bouffe
    started a topic Wish List Item

    Wish List Item

    I was wondering how many people use PB Dos in a DOS only box?

    I would think that most people use windows with a command prompt.

    Perhaps in the next release of PB Dos Powerbasic could include a windows based IDE that's similar to PBCC??

    ------------------
Working...
X