Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PB/DLL 6.0 CAN make EXE's

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

  • Greg Turgeon
    replied
    Code:
    Michael--
       
    We all realize how fond you are of this particular cliche.  However, 
    artists are especially demanding when it comes to selecting their 
    materials and tools, and they invariably buy the best that they can 
    afford.  They do so for excellent, utterly practical reasons.
       
    Artists, like programmers, also become more skillful with experience, 
    and more skillful they become, the less patient they become with any 
    tool that seems flawed or limited. 
       
    Which perhaps explains why many of us eventually were led to 
    PowerBASIC.

    ------------------
    -- Greg
    [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    I must say that Siamack has a very good point. I can not count the number of times my professors in school have made either a joke about basic, or have simply slammed it altogether.
    It's not the paintbrush, it's the artist.

    MCM

    Leave a comment:


  • Siamack Yousofi
    replied
    PB/CC is ideal for writing very high performance "Server" applications like Web Servers, Database Engines, Mail Servers, Authentication Servers and the like.

    This type of applications do not benefit from GUI overheads. They usually run on 7x24 basis and require very little user interaction. Just because Microsoft has developed IIS with a GUI interface does not mean this is the best method of writing a server application.

    Lotus Domino Server (aka Lotus Notes Server) is a console application and one of the best performing platforms around.

    I am currently developing an authentication server for my employer and have managed to get him interested in a console application. He wants it in VC++ but I may just manage to get him to agree with a PB/CC solution.

    IMHO anyone planning to develop “Server” applications should take a serious look at PB/CC.

    Siamack


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance Edmonds
    replied
    Thanks for your pointers about the usefulness of PB/CC. I guess it seemed pretty useless to me because I don't write dos apps
    If you want to write DOS app's them you'll need to use PB/DOS! Seriously, PB/CC is a 32-bit Windows compiler that produces text-mode Windows applications. I assume you meant to say "applications that look like DOS applications".

    Actually, you *can* write GUI applications with PB/CC too, but as it does not support DDT you have to use stay with the traditional CreateWindowEx() approach (and/or use dialogs from resource files, etc). If you take a look at the COOL.BAS example file, you'll see that it can be compiled and run with both PB/DLL and PB/CC. It is even possible to hide the console window of a console application, giving the impression that you are using a pure-GUI application!



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

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Amick
    replied
    Lance,

    Thanks for your pointers about the usefulness of PB/CC. I guess it seemed pretty useless to me because I don't write dos apps, and because if I need to write something without a gui it's easy enough to do in PB/DLL. But I can see now that it could be usefull in some cases, so maybe I'll have to reconsider purchasing it.



    ------------------
    Peter Amick
    Baybuild Solutions

    Leave a comment:


  • RyanCross
    replied
    BASIC - <B>Beginners</B> All-purpose Symbolic Instuction Code. When it was concieved it was meant for beginners to learn the concept of programing, but now with PowerBasic they have shown that it can compete with some faster known languages like C++. I agree with getting rid of BASIC, but I don't at the same time. First of all PowerBasic is the name of the company and second it gives the sense of fast easy programming. But I really do think PB/DLL should be changed. When I first found out about PB I came to this site. It was promoted so much as making DLLs for VB I din't know it could make it's own stand-alone applications till one of my friends who had PB/DLL 2.0 showed me what it did. I think PB/DOS should be dropped and there should be one all-in-one compiler simply called PowerBasic 7.0. So PB/DLL + PB/CC = PowerBasic 7.0. C++ does console and windows with the right stuff so why can't PB? There has to be a way to do this, maybe it's not a good idea, it just seems like one to me. It would give PB more power.

    ------------------
    Thank you,
    Ryan M. Cross
    Head Webmaster Nofee Inc. Internet Services
    President Likuid Creations Ltd.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    PowerBASIC as a brand name is quite well known. Obviously we are always on the look-out for ways to make it known even more however
    How I wish this was true When I last interviewed for corporate in-house development positions in 1999, whenever I said Power Basic, the response was always 'You know PowerBuilder'

    I do agree with Lance about the usefullness of PB/CC. It is great for prototyping code. It is also great a creating programs that run in 'batch' mode. Where I work we must run a couple of hundred separate programs at the end of every workday and PB/CC is perfect for this type of application. You just need to show interim results and no need for a fancy GUI.

    As far as getting PowerBasic into the corporate enviroment, I had to buy it myself and show it's superiority after writing both the VB version and on my own time the PB version. The cost definitely paid for itself in bonuses


    Joe Murphy

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




    [This message has been edited by Joseph W. Murphy (edited March 29, 2000).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Rich Brockway
    replied
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    "Many people here have expressed the amount of negativity they receive the moment they mention basic.

    In my VC++ class the professor actually started out with a lecture on the tools available and why we where using VC++. Sadly enough he knew nothing about PB. What he did say though was that basic “is just such a stupid language."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Colin,

    I find his statement lacking in any shred of intelligence. In a field of so many intelligent and talented people, it is still amazing so many people make comments like that.

    When you are walking around with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To some people, C++ is the solution to every problem. Building a database application? Use C++. Building an accounting system? Use C++. Building Quake 17? Use C++.

    I hope these people keep using C++. While they are hunting down memory leaks, their competition is working on the next release or hanging out at the beach.

    When I was at Lucent, the birthplace of C++, they conducted a study for a new product. After several months of research, they concluded it would take them 100 times longer to complete the project in C++ than VB. Keep in mind, they have some very talented C++ developers. The project, coded mostly in VB, finished ahead of schedule!

    Finally, I believe tool selection needs to be made on a project by project basis. It is not a one size fits all situation.

    Rich


    PS - You may want to ask your instructor why VJ++ beat VC++ in the Sieve of Eratosthenes benchmark. If you want the code, I’ll send it to you.


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


    [This message has been edited by Rich Brockway (edited March 29, 2000).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance Edmonds
    replied
    I find having PB/CC on hand to be _very_ useful, especially when I want to write computational or file-access code for a PB/DLL app, but do not want to have to create a dialog (or some kind of user interface) just to display a whole bunch of test results.

    For example, say I wanted to write a function that created a hash value for a given string. PB/CC's ability to use PRINT statements means that I can just display a whole range of test values on the screen to check my function code out.

    Combine this with NT's ability to provide Console windows with hundreds of rows (and a scroll-bar) it often heavily reduces the time i need to prototype functions and get them working. It's certainly faster than writing my results to a disk-file and then having to open such a file and read it through. YMMV of course!

    Obviously there are ways to implement a console for logging with PB/DLL, but the native console statements provide the simplest and quickest approach.

    Also, PB/CC is very useful for writing command-line app's that can be synchronously SHELLed from DOS applications - I use this technique to add Win32 functionality to DOS app's for things such as printing, email, etc. Also, a PB/CC app can them synchronously SHELL to a GUI application - this gives DOS app's a way to synchronously SHELL to GUI applications - if SHELLed directly, they are launched as a separate process (asynchronously) to the DOS app.

    There are loads of other uses too! These are just two of the most important reasons that I use PB/CC.


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Amick
    replied
    Originally posted by Siamack Yousofi:
    Mike

    Is there any of us who does not own both compilers or will not end up buying both? I doubt.


    Yes, me for one. Can't imagine why I would ever by PB/CC.



    ------------------
    Peter Amick
    Baybuild Solutions

    Leave a comment:


  • Siamack Yousofi
    replied
    Mike

    Your points are valid. With a good RAD IDE and features like COM support, Static Libraries and OOP, Powerbasic will definitely become a dominant force in the market; if and only if it continues to generate small/fast/independent binaries and, as Hutch mentioned, does not lock you into any particular development environment.

    I will go even further and predict that when (not if) it achieves these goals, it would become the lingua franca of programming on the Intel platform.

    You mentioned PB competing head on with VB and Delphi. I rest my case. If Power Powerbasic did not have “BASIC” as part of its name we would be more inclined to think of it competing with C, C++, Assembler as well as VB and Delphi (and everything else for that matter) not just VB.

    It’s too late to change the name anyway. However, it would help if PB/CC and PB/DLL were integrated into one tool and simply called Powerbasic. Is there any of us who does not own both compilers or will not end up buying both? I doubt.

    As a study in body language, you can talk to some decision makers and mention an imaginary Cobol++ or PowerCobol or Fortran++ and watch their knees.

    Siamack

    Disclaimer: Try the suggested body language observation on male decision-makers only.


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




    [This message has been edited by Siamack Yousofi (edited March 28, 2000).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Hutchesson
    replied
    I am a lot less interested in the name than I am in the description of
    what the language actually is if you look at what the languge can do in 32
    bit native code.

    The current version of the language can routinely write assembler, basic
    and C so in respect to its actual capacity, it is a hybrid compiler that
    is able to mix all 3 on a line by line basis. I suggest there is little
    doubt that the language is powerful but there is also litle doubt that
    some aspects of the language need extending to make it more attractive to
    the corporate end of software development.

    There has been an extended discussion about many of the things that
    different people would like to see the language become but if it is going
    to penetrate the corporate level of software production, it will have to
    pick up the attributes of the older styles of languages in terms of
    libraries and proper text macros.

    At the other end, there is a need for faster interface development tools
    and a compiler based COM interface to access the later features of the
    operating system. One of the things that has made PowerBASIC compilers a
    technical advantage to use is the non-dependence of its compiler on the
    IDE supplied with the product.

    While alternative systems often commit the user to one specific IDE with a
    preset system to build code, the hallmark of true professional code
    production tools is the INDEPENDENCE of its components. The idea of having
    a seperate compiler, debugger, editor, resource/form editing tools and
    then screwing it together into one comprehensive package is the way that
    large professional systems have always been done.

    Having a selectable range of libraries to add in, write or buy from the
    aftermarket is another necessary component to professional code
    production. These are the things that will put PowerBASIC into the corporate
    end of code production when it has the tools and accessories to compete
    in that area. The compiler technology is already there and it will only get
    better.

    When PowerBASIC can advertise its capacity in terms of the ease of basic
    syntax, the power of C style coding and the speed of true assembler code
    with the rest of the toys and tools to back it up, it will have a full
    arsenal to assault the corporate end of software production.

    If I had any encouragement to pass to the development team, it is don't be
    seduced by the quick 'n dirty approach that threw away the power and
    performance that earlier C compilers had for the glitzy front ends, just
    keep slugging out the hard stuff with code optimisations, cycle counting
    and extended capacity and people like me will continue to vote with their
    feet and buy the next PowerBASIC compiler and any additional professional
    tools that come with it.

    Regards,

    [email protected]

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance Edmonds
    replied
    Thanks for the feedback folks, we love to hear this type of information.

    JFYI, since the release of PB/DOS so many years ago, our customers have included a large number of Fortune-500 companies, the US government, and an (almost!) uncountable number of corporates. Many of these customers have purchased at least some of our Windows series of compilers too.

    Also, there are a large number of people that "hang out here" (and/or just lurk) that work for these type of companies and organizations just do not make the fact known. The number of active posters on this BBS is hugely outweighed by the number of regular lurkers that just visit to soak up the code, for research, etc.

    PowerBASIC as a brand name is quite well known. Obviously we are always on the look-out for ways to make it known even more however!

    Thanks again for the feedback and keep on programming!

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Joseph
    replied
    I guess i would tend to disagree with you Siamack. The reason PB isn't being adopted by corporate decision makers in the RAD tool market is that PB isnt quite a RAD tool... yet.

    At this stage, PB is probably more compareable to C then it is to Delphi or VB. If this is the case, then corporate decision makers in the market for a non object oriented, non RAD tool may very well (as you say) chose C over a "BASIC" language. That being the case, even a name change wouldnt be enough to get corporate decision makers to buy into it. Besides, what do have left if you change the name? People will wonder if its a C type language, a C++ type language or what... As a VB programmer, I'd probably never have noticed PowerBasic if it didnt have Basic in the name... it'd be just another quasi language in my eyes.. something like Python, Perl or Lisp.

    Im guessing that PowerBASIC's target customers are developers working for small companies who are looking to suppliment their VB code with PB written DLL's. (Hence the name PB/DLL) Next in line are probably independant VB developers and former QBasic developers. Its probably the BASIC in PowerBASIC which attracts this target group and if you remove that from the name, you risk alienating those other basic programmers who would be interested in faster and more powerful(with some caveats) basic compiler.

    You did hit on one thing though... MS sure has/does market the hell out of VB. I'm sure that once/if PB ever gets an improved IDE with an integrated Visual designer that is somewhat compareable to VB's, that the PB folks will then be able to seriously market PB as a RAD tool to compete head on with VB and Delphi. Once that happens, the 3rd party tools market will begin to open up, more independant developers will use it, scores of VB users will start to convert, and the snowball effect will ensue. Hopefully

    -Mike


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Colin Schmidt
    replied
    Hello. Just my humble opinion here, nothing else.

    I must say that Siamack has a very good point. I can not count the number of times my professors in school have made either a joke about basic, or have simply slammed it altogether.

    Many people here have expressed the amount of negativity they receive the moment they mention basic.

    In my VC++ class the professor actually started out with a lecture on the tools available and why we where using VC++. Sadly enough he knew nothing about PB. What he did say though was that basic “is just such a stupid language.” It took me six weeks to get him to look and some DDT source code: Once he did, he actually loved it and stated that it was a clean and beautiful interface. He also said (not realizing that he was part of the problem) that he could not figure out why something like this had not taken off.

    Thus my own 2 cents is the same as Siamack’s. Find a unique name that no one will associate with anything else. From there you can then create your own image of the product from scratch. If possible though also have the name mean something relevant if ever looked up for a real meaning.

    For example with my own company: Praxis is actually an old English word that is still in the dictionary that means a “standard or common practice”.

    Colin Schmidt

    ------------------
    Colin Schmidt & James Duffy, Praxis Enterprises, Canada

    Leave a comment:


  • Siamack Yousofi
    replied
    Since I seem to have an opinion on everything, here we go…

    IMHO the ‘BASIC’ in Powerbasic does the product more disservice than anything else. We all use and love BASIC and know that no other language can beat PB. But corporate decision makers will not adopt a tool for serious stuff if it has BASIC in its name.

    Before you all jump on me let me say that the case for Visual Basic is different. The decision-makers are really deciding on ‘Microsoft’ not ‘BASIC’ and even then for serious and mission critical projects they lean towards Visual C++ or other tools.

    Powerbasic is a good name when we target the BASIC programming community and there are millions of us. So if the name needs changing at all (and I am not suggesting that it does) then it may be better to leave the word ‘BASIC’ out.

    Borland did not name their tool Visual Pascal or Pascal++ or Object Pascal or PowerPascal. They simply called it Delphi. When talking to Pascophiles, Borland sales executives emphasise the Pascal ancestry and if confronted with ‘its only Pascal’ they jump on you with ‘no it is not!”

    If I write a real kick-butt compiler that gives you the ease of VB and the power of Assembler while using a dialect of say COBOL or FORTRAN, how would naming it PowerCobol or PowerFortran help?

    Siamack


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




    [This message has been edited by Siamack Yousofi (edited March 28, 2000).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Joseph
    replied
    Yep. Thats exactly what happened to me. I couldnt find the confirmation that EXE's were possible on the website (even though it is there in the "Choosing a Compiler" section). However, I had a feeling I was missing something because I couldn't figure out why everyone using PB/DLL would need a Visual Editor and there was so much discussion going on about that! After a bit more digging through the messages in the forumn it became clear that EXE's and DLL's were both possible.

    -Mike

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I just came across PowerBasic in a Visual Basic Usenet group. It is only
    through this forum that I found PB can make EXEs. I looked on the home page
    for PB and did NOT see this information. When I used the link provided by PB support
    I did see the page about choosing compilers.

    This looks like an intriguing product, but it definitely needs a name change and a
    home page update. I wonder how many casual browsers like me just passed it by?

    David Lees


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I don't know if anyone cares...

    Possible name change away from BASIC. This would leave all the negative concepts behind.

    (Ok! Ok! don't jump all over me. It was just a suggestion.)

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

    Leave a comment:


  • jcfuller
    replied
    With the advent of PBCC the natural name change in my opinion
    would be PBWC PowerBASIC Windows Compiler.

    On a related note:
    I noticed in latest Programmers Paradise catalog a product called
    PowerGEN; an addon for Power Builder. It appears there is a trademark controversy
    brewing???

    James


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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X