Curious (very)

[Joep van Steen]

Hello,

I know, I know ... there's this policy, "we can't tell" ... But ....
PB for Linux ... any progress on that, PB DOS 4.0, oh I can't wait

Joep

------------------
Joep

http://www.diydatarecovery.nl

[Tom Hanlin]

All we can tell you is, they're in development.

------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

[Richard L Bianchi]

Thank you Tom.

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

[Joep van Steen]

Hello,

Okay ... sorry for being impatient

Joep

------------------
Joep

http://www.diydatarecovery.nl

[Omer F (Rick) Hartz]

I'm sorry guys; I just don't believe you anymore.
We've been hearing the same ol' line for YEARS and now my latest
inquiry prompted the following response:

"Don't you have anything better to do"

What a bunch of - - - - Oh well.....

[Lance Edmonds]

Omer, I'm not clear as to what enquiry you are referring -- I've not spoken or knowingly exchanged email with you, and that is not what Tom posted above.

Regardless, your posting here is discourteous and out of line. PowerBASIC has stated that the product is real, but it is simply not yet ready for release. Assuming your (dis)belief is not a ploy to "hurry" things along, I'll try to explain the situation a little.

Firstly, many folks do not appear to understand what is involved in creating a commercially viable "world-class" compiler. Simply put, it takes a lot of man-hours.

The development cycle goes something like this:

• R&D and Sales start off designing the language set and functionality, heavily biased by customer requests and technical viability.
  
• Next comes the actual implementation of the design (ie, R&D actually start writing the compiler application itself), and they remain locked away in the dungeon until the first alpha version is ready for review.
  
• At the same time as the compiler is being created, R&D also start work on an IDE to go with the compiler.
  
• This is followed by _extensive_ alpha and beta testing cycles. This part alone may take the longest!
  
• Next comes the creation of documentation and example programs and these must also be tested.
  
• Final QA testing.
  
• Pre-sales and after-market staff training, packaging, marketing, and various other things to sort out.
  
• Release.

In all, it's a VERY serious business, requiring a huge investment in time and effort, and a LOT of money up front.

Hence, a development cycle measured in years is certainly not uncommon. For example, PB/Win 7.0 took over 2 years to develop too.

Comparitively, some software companies take as long (or even longer) despite having hundreds or possibly thousands of programmers working on it, so our development cycles are not extraordinary (although we believe our products are!)

In any case, I hope this helps give you some perspective on what goes on behind the scenes...

Thanks for listening.


------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[Mel Bishop]

Originally posted by Lance Edmonds:
Comparitively, some software companies take as long (or even
longer) despite having hundreds or possibly thousands of
programmers working on it...

And that's the problem, __right there__. Anything designed by
committee is doomed to be unreliable and unstable from the
start. Re: windows and the U.S. government.

I really didn't want to say "doomed" but that's the best word I
can come up with.


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


[This message has been edited by Mel Bishop (edited July 31, 2002).]

[Bob Zale]

Originally posted by Omer F (Rick) Hartz:
I'm sorry guys; I just don't believe you anymore.
We've been hearing the same ol' line for YEARS and now my latest
inquiry prompted the following response:
"Don't you have anything better to do"
What a bunch of - - - - Oh well.....

Folks...

It's too bad that Mr. Hartz didn't choose to post a complete, truthful comment here.

The truth is this: In his email to PowerBASIC on 7/30/02, Mr. Hartz never once asked a question about PowerBASIC for Linux, or anything else, for that matter. He simply stated repeatedly his opinion (factually challenged, of course) that we are dishonest, and demanded we admit we never intended to release a compiler for Linux. Frankly, I respectfully refuse to make such a false admission, no matter how hard he stomps his feet. {smile}

So, in the interests of honesty and integrity, I must confess: I asked "Don't you have anything better to do?". Mr. Hartz has not yet responded to me. However, I am sitting on the edge of my chair waiting to see just what he has to say this time. I'm certain it will be intellectually stimulating.

Regards,

Bob Zale, President
PowerBASIC Inc.


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

[Jerry Mason]

Is anybody here really eager to have powerbasic release an imaginary timetable full of vaporware? I'm not.

Kudos to powerbasic for refusing to release vaporware!



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