Announcement

**Chris Boss** · 28 Dec 2000, 04:58 AM

I agree that "any" Visual Designer should support integration of
standard API code.

This is why the Visual Designers I (and have already) am developing
support integration of API code. I will also be releasing designers
that produce both 100% SDK style code and 100% DDT code.

If VB continues to go in the direction it is, likely many VB programmers
will jump ship and think seriously about using PB. I use to be a VB
programmer, but I now use PB 100%.

Backward compatibility of the language, as well as having a Rich command
set, makes PB very powerful. While I have nothing against runtimes
(grin), I do believe a runtime shouldn't rob you of the raw power
available with low level windows programming.

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

**Steven Pringels 3** · 28 Dec 2000, 05:56 AM

Hi Chris, Edwin

An nice feat would be that the Visual Designer would work in two
ways - Chris, here is another neat idea !! - meaning that you
would give it some code that encompasses the controls and would
'reverse-engineer' the dialog box from it. This is relatively easy
to do with Ez-GUI as a DLL version but also possible with SDK and DDT
style coding.

Just a thought.

Steve.

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

**Gregery D Engle** · 28 Dec 2000, 06:07 AM

IMO Visual Basic is a standard that employeers look at. If I
told my current and future employeers that I nolonger program
in Visual Basic *BUT* I program in Powerbasic, then two things
will happen: My Employeer will think that the speed of creating
applications will be the same with PowerBasic vs Visual Basic.

That is definetly wrong. Using SDK slows down development.

I hardly use VB anymore, but with those crunch projects I don't
hesitate to work in VB. I think the way the market is I will
be forced to work with the new version as well.

My employeer doesn't care about how many files or the overhead
a Visual Basic project produces. What matters is how fast I can
make it. When time isn't a prioirty PB is my number one choice.

VB users don't concern themselves with SDK style programming.
That is why I think PB was right with the invention of DDT.

I think the best way to approach this would be to have a
visual designer that makes .DDT files that can be included into
your .BAS file, and you simply write code for the callbacks. Similar
to SDK programming and a .RES dialog.

------------------
-Greg

**Edwin Knoppert** · 28 Dec 2000, 07:15 AM

My concern is that an evt. future designer will most likely be incompatible with hand coded/add controls and eventcode.

Logically this is, for me, the winapi but it could be another system.
If VB was more aware of additonal coding techniques to add and remove controls, it should be no problem.
But we just banned VB and the compagny is using borland.
I don't programm in borland (yet).
I preffer PB.
At the moment AND VERY UNF. PB can not compete these kind of RAD tools (Visual design/event code)
I don't mind to use winapi, it's versatile and does not really care about changes in run-time.

A mixture in VB or borland is not very likely.

NOTE: This subject is ABOUT the mixture of generated code and hand written/added code!

For example:

I wrote some SDK code to get all my needed thingies done, color font handles etc..
But also the tabindex.
When i add a control using CreateWindow sep. from this SDK code, i still need to execute a small procedure to make my SDK system aware of the new control.
This is something i wish to prevent somehow.

Therefore this discussion for evt. future designers.

Gregery,
I don't think SDK will slow development, no knowledge does...
A combination of a good designer with a standard wndproc is sufficient to me.

I know programmers wo like VB but don't ask them to build things themselves, they don't know anything in fact.
Well, that's a bit hard but i meant on winapi level of course.
It's the drag&drop generation i'm affraid. (And i don't like it)

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

**Chris Boss** · 28 Dec 2000, 07:41 AM

Gregery has a very valid point !

Development speed is important. This is why RAD tools are a must,
IMO. The question is, do you write everything at a low level (API)
or do you write everything at a high level (ie. EZGUI - runtime) ?

My answer is "both" !

If time is critical, then using a runtime tool like EZGUI allows
you to develop apps nearly as fast as you can with VB, yet allows
integration of pure API code when needed.

If time isn't critical, then my (yet to be released) Visual Designers
that produce 100% SDK or DDT code can be used.

Why limit yourself to one style of coding !

Some of my EZGUI customers have reported that my Freeware DDT designer
is their prefered tool for many apps. They can produce the code
for the GUI quickly and yet still have small apps with no runtime.
One customer even said he was making the "C" programmers at work
jealous, since he could produce tiny apps (and fast) like C, but
very quickly (as if he was using VB), when he used my Freeware DDT
Designer.

Many new tools are on the horizon for PB and many of them are RAD
tools. RAD is obviously a must in todays programming market, but
RAD doesn't mean you have to lose the Power found in PowerBasic.

What is needed, is more PowerBasic specific tools ! As more third
party developers create PowerBasic specific tools, the more productive
we all can be.

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

**John Kovacich** · 28 Dec 2000, 09:11 AM

On the other hand, if PB provided a rich set of screen construction
tools (DDT) which allowed me to totally abandon API coding, then
they might be able to create a source language which could be easily
ported to LINUX, or any other platform they choose to target.

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

**stephane fonteyne** · 28 Dec 2000, 10:29 AM

Hey,

Mij opinion is that Borland Delphi OOP programming 100% and PowerBasic is ready to build
an Visual Designing and OOP Programming
Let's work guys!
And PowerBasic is very fast then VisualBasic because PowerBasic is
an project of Turbo Basic of Borland International
I have Turbo Pascal, Turbo Basic

OOP programming have most advantage:
- you can building classes
- you can update simple your class in an application (dll-file)
- you can build very large programms
- you have inherired and polymorfm

That my reason voor the new version like Borland Delphi

- PowerBasic for Windows is the name

1. Graphical User Designer/IDE/Debugger/Compiler/Builder in one application
2. Templates
3. Forms
4. Units sure
5. Projects
6. Using SDK, WinAPI and DDT code
7. Create Custom Controls
8. Build-in controls like Delphi with tab-tables

Greeting
Stephane

I think $300.00 is not expensieve

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

**Siamack Yousofi** · 28 Dec 2000, 06:35 PM

RAD and Visual Design are not necessary the same thing. If the programmer
can look at code and visualize the screen design then all that is needed is
an editor with good text substitution (macro) capability.

This is how I achieve RAD. Simply type CreateWindow (or CW) then press a function
key and the text instantly explodes into the 20-30 lines of the API call with
comments and “to do” placeholders which I replace with the appropriate values.

It is quick and eliminates typos. The placeholders tell me what to do so I hardly
miss anything. The same applies to callback functions, event handlers, error
trapping and so on. In most cases I have the skeleton of the program created
quicker than it takes to load VB!

More importantly I create the macros myself. They are in effect my personal
“meta-language” and I have total control over it. I can change anything I want
without waiting for a vendor to come up with the goods.

Of course I acknowledge that visualizing a screen design by looking at pure
text is not for everyone but I think it is a skill that one can learn and is
extremely useful and liberating. If one could master such a skill then all that
is needed is a good editor.

One of the items in my wish list is a PB editor with good text substitution
capability.

Siamack

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

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

**Borje Hagsten** · 29 Dec 2000, 12:11 AM

I complete agree with previous speaker. A good editor is the key
to it all. One that can handle whole projects, have fast and smooth
syntax coloring, unlimited undo/redo, have a library of ready-made
routines easily accesible and is fully configurable, since we all
work in different ways. Since I'm one of those stupids who always
believe we can invent a better wheel, I'm actually trying to write
one on my spare time here..

Visual Design is only a fraktion the entire process of creating an
application. I can actually wrap up a dialog just as fast through
SDK or DDT, as in VB/Delphi. Sometimes even faster, since the code
way gives me complete control of placements, etc, whereas dragging
controls around sometimes makes you drag them around forever, only
to finally end up in the first place again..

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

**Steve Hutchesson** · 29 Dec 2000, 02:09 AM

Visual design tools are by no means new, the ancient Microsoft Dialog Editor
was an amazing RAD tool in its time and dialog editors will still do the job
in terms of development time. If you look at the range of application types,
a window with a menu, toolbar and status bar is not drawn any faster in a
graphics design tool than it is in code.

It is essentially dialog style applications that benefit from graphics design
tools. Much of the push for "Form Editors" and the like come from users who
still write in Visual Basic and write dialog style applications. There would
be little doubt that VB is a very user friendly front end creator but it falls
down very badly in code access, code design and low level power and this is not
without good reason.

To structure an application to fit the multi-window style editor in VB, the actual
code turns into a cluttered mess and it badly misses the performance of a true
compiler because of it. The rough distinction is between front end friendly and
back end friendly, VB is the first, PB is the second but PB will deliver in
performance terms where VB will not.

With current technology, an application of the dialog style can be developed in
a compiler very quickly, a dialog editor is a true visual design tool which is
fast to use and it has the added advantage that the RC format is one of the few
interface standards that works across windows programming languages.

When a "Form designer" differs from the RC format, it must produce its own and
that limits its usefulness. RC format is compiled by the resource compiler into
a RES file then converted to a module that is linked into the EXE file. Visual
designers cannot normally do that so the code cannot routinely be re-edited in
the same manner as a resource file.

Front end generators are a different animal, they can be used to create the
interface and dial up the startup code for an application but they cannot
normally re-edit the code after. VB does its own binary creation which is
different to RC format. Where I see the difficulty with the current crop
of visual designers is in them being able to re-edit the code they generate.

Until they are able to build their own binary code, they will tend to remain
interesting accessories but not true visual designers. In the mean time, the
RC format will more or less do it all and it is re-editable and recompilable.

Regards,

[email protected]

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

**Andy Flowers** · 29 Dec 2000, 12:26 PM

Have any of you had a look at or used the "FREEWARE VISUAL DESIGNER" by
The Great Guru Ed. Turner? at http://home.san.rr.com/greatguru. I think
you would like what you see. And it's free.

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

**Colin Schmidt** · 10 Jan 2001, 09:05 PM

I just had a look at MetaFourGL for Windows 4.0 and my impression so far is very good!
Note however that it uses SDK, not DDT.

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

[This message has been edited by Colin Schmidt (edited January 10, 2001).]

Announcement

My opinion about Visual Designers

My opinion about Visual Designers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment