Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it maybe time to prune PBDLL back a bit?

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

  • Is it maybe time to prune PBDLL back a bit?

    Hello all,

    I was just thinking about PBDLL and what it would be like to have
    a version of it that was "pruned back" a bit to make it very simple.
    There are a few built in functions that call the Windows API, maybe
    these functions should be dropped because they are redundant and seem
    to be a point of confusion. Case and point the KILL function, There
    has been a post about this just today! The kill function calls a
    Windows API function to delete a file but it doesn't do the same
    thing on "every" version of windows(9x/2k). If we keep having to
    use the Windows API to get around these problems why not just drop
    these built in functions all together?

    I already know the answer to that last question but honestly maybe
    it's time to revamp and forget about staying compatable with older
    basic languages? I have seen other basic syntax dropped (field/using$).


    I'm not looking to start another wishlist, complaint, or attack on
    PowerBasic. This was more or less just to see what other people think
    of this idea...



    ------------------
    Cheers

  • #2
    Mark, I think you are missing one spectacular point and that is most of PowerBASIC internal functions are provided for Compatiblity reasons!

    Therefor simply 'dropping' them would leave users with, probably, thousands of lines of broken code.

    And you know, If you don't want it, don't use it!

    Regards,

    ------------------
    Kev G Peel
    KGP Software, Bridgwater, UK.
    www.go.to/kgpsoftware
    kgpsoftware.com | Slam DBMS | PrpT Control | Other Downloads | Contact Me

    Comment


    • #3
      Mark, I posted the query re: KILL

      If you're not happy with PB functions such as KILL, dont use them!! why not just use the APIs instead? Or inline assembly w/ API? If you dont like the PB/BASIC statements, dont use them, but I dont see what there would be to gain from having a "cut-down" Powerbasic where those statements don't exist - i dont even think it would affect the size/speed of your exe, other than forcing you to rewrite do all the dirty work every time you need to perform a simple function...
      PB is already very much fat-free, what does it take to please some people?
      </2 cents>


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

      Comment


      • #4
        Mark --

        You may or may not be aware that the PowerBASIC For Windows compilers produce object files (DLLs and EXEs) that are quite "granular". If you don't use a statement or function like KILL, the runtime code for KILL is not included in your EXE or DLL. So the only thing that "pruning back" the syntax would accomplish would be marginally faster compile times. It would have no effect on the final compiled program.

        -- Eric

        ------------------
        Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
        Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

        "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mark smit:
          Case and point the KILL function, There has been a post about this just today! The kill function calls a
          Windows API function to delete a file but it doesn't do the same
          thing on "every" version of windows(9x/2k).
          This isn't my observation. KILL always deletes files WITHOUT sending them to the recycle bin, no matter on which Windows your application runs on. If files get send to the recycle bin I'm quit sure that there's another application/tool which monitors file deletion.

          Knuth

          ------------------
          http://www.softAware.de

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello Again...

            I think you guys are missing the point. I know quite well that if
            I dont like the function then I could always "not use it". The real
            question was, what do you guys think of the idea of a "simpler version"
            of PBDLL that basicly just have the bare minimum of built in functions?
            This would ease the job of PowerBasic to support functions that are
            already in the OS. I am perfectly happy with the compiler but I
            thought I would just mention this because there seem to be some
            programmers that would like it...

            Anyway looking forward to the next version!

            ------------------
            Cheers

            Comment


            • #7
              Mark, so want a version of PB with half of it's functions disabled??? Give it to Steve with a bottle of Glenfiddich and a hex editor over the weekend and Bobs youre uncle


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

              Comment


              • #8
                If Bob was his uncle... Oh, never mind.
                "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                Comment

                Working...
                X