Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SUGGESTION: PB for Palm

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

  • SUGGESTION: PB for Palm

    Everyone keeps asking for a Linux version of PB. How about a Palm OS version of PB? PDA's are the hot trend, and it seems most applications for it are written in C++ using CodeWarrior.

    I know I would be interested in a version for the Palm systems, anyone else?
    <b>George W. Bleck</b>
    <img src='http://www.blecktech.com/myemail.gif'>

  • #2
    Yes! I definitely would!
    I'd love to be able to create apps on the PC that could syncronise with a cut-down version on the palm pilot and or WinCE device.

    I think the guys at PB are too busy with the next generation of super compilers for the PC tho'

    Comment


    • #3
      Me too

      Comment


      • #4
        Me Three! (or is that Four? )
        PB Dll on the Palm would be a complete Knockout!

        [This message has been edited by William Fletcher (edited November 22, 1999).]

        Comment


        • #5
          While, I agree that it would be good to create a PB compiler for the Palm PCs (Windows CE), the problem is the hardware for the platform is NOT consistant. Each hardware vendor has their own version of Windows CE, which runs on their hardware (from what I have been told) and it would not be practical to create a Windows CE version of PB.

          What may be good, is if the people at PB could find the largest Palm market and make a version for that hardware. Windows CE is a subset of Windows 95, so if they could get around the hardware part (different CPU), it is possible it could be done.

          One reason why PB would take the Windows CE market by storm, is the size of the executables it creates. That is important for Palm PCs with limited Ram and no harddrive.
          Chris Boss
          Computer Workshop
          Developer of "EZGUI"
          http://cwsof.com
          http://twitter.com/EZGUIProGuy

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd love to be able to use a PB like language for Palm Pilots
            (I'm less interested in the CE market because the Palm Pilot is
            much more uniform).

            But I wouldn't want it at the cost of delaying advancements in PB for
            the PC.

            --Brad

            -------------
            -Brad Olson
            mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

            Comment


            • #7
              I have inquired about a Windows CE version of PB/DLL twice before, and got the answer "not at this time" largely due to the two reasons listed in previous posts (non-uniform hardware and the first new platform (if any) was more likely to be Linux than Win CE).

              I am still very interested in a Windows CE version of PB/DLL. I think that could well turn out to be the killer app for the platform, as it would allow a large number of developers easy access to the platform. In the end, getting developers to write for a platform so that potential corporate users feel reasonably confident that they can get what they need (either off the shelf or custom made) is the make or break of its success (remember OS/2...).

              I have the Windows CE Toolkit for Visual Basic 6.0 - great idea, but it has severe limitations plus it requires huge runtimes. According to Microsoft, most of the limitations are actually due to the size restrictions they did impose on the runtime... To top it off, it comes with all the normal VB deployment issues of component versions etc, and throws in a few of its own just for good measure (version of the Win CE Services installed etc). In short: PB/DLL for Windows CE would be a dream come through, quite possibly for Microsoft as well as for us!

              BTW - Chris, I think you have a couple of things mixed up: Palmtop is a format indication/specification, while Palm is an OS for that format and a competitor to Windows CE. The latest gossip is that Win CE is loosing the battle - much to my dismay, I might add. Palm is probably great, but if implemented correctly there are obvious advantages to running pocket sized versions of your desktop apps on the handheld (as opposed to completely different ones), and although scale issues apply it must be better for users and developers alike to have the same environment on both platforms.

              Ketil



              [This message has been edited by Ketil Krumm (edited November 25, 1999).]

              Comment


              • #8
                Ketil;

                Thanks for the clarification !

                I don't work with PALM size PCs (or CE) yet, but have a interest in it. I bought the MS developers books on Windows CE to learn more and was excited to learn CE is a subset of Windows 95.

                Do the other OS support an API similiar to Windows CE ?

                The reason I think that PB should "seriously" consider supporting a Palm PC OS (like CE or others, whichever has the largest market), is that PB has a real advantage over Microsoft products in this are. While C++ can produce small executables, C is also a very "terse" and difficult language to learn. Basic is a much easier language to learn and use. When it comes to Basic, MS VB cannot compare to PB in EXE size.

                A Palm PC requires smaller sized apps and VB just gets bigger and bigger. PB would be the "perfect" solution for development on these platforms and Pb would NOT have any competition with VB, since VB aps are too big.

                PowerBasic ought to seriously look into making a "deal" with some of the big Palm PC OS developers to develop the first real "Basic Compiler" for Palm PCs. It amazes me how many companies and programmers have never heard of PB and if they saw it in action they would be amazed !

                Chris Boss
                Computer Workshop
                Developer of "EZGUI"
                http://cwsof.com
                http://twitter.com/EZGUIProGuy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Chris,

                  The Palm OS SDK information is available at:
                  http://www.palm.com/devzone/docs.html

                  It's been awhile since I looked at it, but my recollection is that it's a bit leaner OS that gets more done on less metal but don't expect windows. It doesn't have the bloat, nor does it have all the features. Only the newer versions, if I remember right, have multithreading. Also, the OS is record-based, not file-based.
                  http://www.caslsoft.com/ makes a language called CASL that runs on Palm and CE. It's interpreted, but has a lean runtime. Fun to play with, okay for small apps.

                  Overall, I think I'd rather write for Palm. It's more in in the spirit of PB, but there are a lot of Win32 skills that don't transfer.

                  --Brad


                  -------------
                  -Brad Olson
                  mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Seems like someone has already released a BASIC compiler for WindowsCE. Any use this? Comments? http://www.nsbasic.com

                    -Mike

                    ------------------
                    Upon further inspection, it seems like it requires several run times and it uses VBScript for its core. According to their site it performs better than VB CE programs, but im sure thats still tons slower than native C/C++ programs. I think PB could really excel in a WindowsCE market. I'd also like to see a Linux version too.... why not. I want it all ;-))

                    -Mike


                    [This message has been edited by Mike Joseph (edited April 07, 2000).]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mike Joseph:
                      Seems like someone has already released a BASIC compiler for WindowsCE. Any use this? Comments?

                      NSBasic is not much use, as far as I can tell. Doesn't produce stand-alone exes, and is seriously bloated. Dialect Standard (www.aristar.com) is better in that it can produce exes, but they are huge. Neither are suitable for commercial apps.
                      PB would be perfect on CE, it's ease of use, power, speed, and small size would make it the only compiler to use, and I expect would quickly become the industry standard. And yes, of course it could be done in spite of the multiple platforms since it's been done with other compilers. It's just a matter of PowerBasic deciding which way they want to go. If it were up to me, I'd say forget Linux and go straight to CE. But then, it's not up to me, is it?


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We must not forget that PB is a 'native code compiler' highly optimised for Intel platform. The intimate knowledge base of Intel architecture that exists within the research and development team at Powerbasic cannot be translated to other platforms overnight. Unless the target palm PC uses an Intel chip and a reasonable subset of Win32 API, it would take years to port PB to palm platform and achieve the same level of performance and quality of output.

                        Siamack


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


                        [This message has been edited by Siamack Yousofi (edited April 08, 2000).]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hello,

                          To everyone counting out MS in the Pocket PC market you should probably have a look a look at the new OS which should be out shortly. It's reviewed at http://www.wiredguy.com/reviews/sr/pocketpc/index.htm and the word from the beta testers is that it is a major improvement. MS takes this market VERY seriously so I wouldn't count out Windows CE just yet. Even more interesting is Windows 2000 Embedded. It won't fit on a Pocket PC but it has very interesting possibilities for many products that need a small, fast, and very reliable embedded OS such as TV Set top boxes, Home control central processors, industrial automation, robotics, etc. PB could really shine in this market.

                          One other piece of hardware to watch is Microsoft's new XBox ( http://www.xbox.com/intro.htm ) which will be available fall 2001 (They say !!). It's essentially a very slimmed down version of Windows 2000 and DerectX 8.0 on top of some very interesting hardware. I plan to use PB (hopefully) to build products for the XBox in the Home Services market. PowerBasic is the best compiler currently available for the Intel architecture when you need speed and very small size. I would hate to see them miss an opportunity to do very well in the embedded Windows 2000 market or even the XBox market. Windows CE might be a different story because of the variety of processors used but it sure would be nice to see them try.

                          Brent...

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Siamack Yousofi:
                            it would take years to port PB to palm platform
                            Then they better get started, right?

                            I'm sure it's painfully obvious that I don't know the first thing about porting a compiler to a new platform. I just tend to assume that if it can be done with C++, it can be done with PB.
                            Mostly I just wanted to express my strong interest in PB for CE, in part because I use a CE device on a daily basis professionally, and have been frustrated by not being able to program for it. I have ported one of my desktop apps to CE via VBCE for my own use, and would like to market the program but can't due to the serious shortcomings of VB.



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

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X