How is PB developed

[Mel Bishop]

Some of these guys have been reading and writing assembly language since you and I were in short pants.

What's your point of reference, here, MM? I'm 58 years old and I still wear short pants.

Anyway, as MM stated before, as long as it's available, doesn't cost much, does what I want it to do and works reliability, who cares what language it's written here?

[Cliff Nichols]

Ok, so sometimes I disagree with MCM, but in this case

For any language product to be "written in itself" is a heck of a marketing hook.

I Whole Heartedly AGREE!!!! with that!!!!

My comment of

Please Bob, Say it AIN'T SO!!!!!

was meant more as "Please tell me you will not fall into the trap of building a compiler built on newer technologies, when we all know the new still relies on the old at the core"

AKA show me a wiz-bang thing in VISTA that can NOT be done in 95??? (given hardware can do it).....its all still Windows API...its just a matter of knowing how to do it.

For me, PB is not only the LEANEST but also the MEANEST compiler out there....name me one that can let you merge from the mislead days of VB, and have the power of C (not to mention assembly, and dos, and dare I even say binary????)

All in all...a product that can not only cross the barriers of how each developer thinks, but can rely on it to develop its own to debug itself....is a HECK of a PRODUCT

[Brad D Byrne]

it's been a few years since I studied any of this stuff, but as I remember the newer hardware (P2's on) has capability to optimize the processing, I would guess that Bob is suggesting that PB9 will be able to take advantage of that with some higher level structuring/commands ??????

[Tyrone W. Lee]

Well..

MCM,

Are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? You haven't supported your statements with many examples of the "cons" of keeping things as they are. I have listed several PROs that could result in writing PB in PB.

But who really cares?

We ALL care. And remember this is all speculation. I am not saying that the PB developers would like BASIC over ASM.. I'm saying that if 97% of the population does, its a good chance that these developers will also.

If they do, its clear it will increase and IMPROVE version fixes and new release.. (ie Can we get that PB for LINUX I've been waiting for?)

Saying that, its completely up to Bob and his team... But other than arguing the point, What is an actual Con that could result from using PB to build PB?

Tread carefully, because the Con you state is also the same Con that would exist in all the Apps we current develop in PB.. (snicker)

So sad..

[Michael Mattias]

Are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? You haven't supported your statements with many examples of the "cons" of ...

No, I am simply pointing out that from where I sit - as a user - "how" the compiler is written is immaterial. I care only about the "what."

Does it work as advertised?
Is it reasonably efficient?
Is it maintainable, allowing for prompt bug fixes, updates and upgrades?

A compiler to me is like any another application... I'll use the brand(s) and model(s) which best serve my application development needs.

Time and energy spent worrying about what language is used to create the applications I use is less time and energy I can devote to using those applications.


MCM

[Tyrone W. Lee]

lol

No, I am simply pointing out that from where I sit - as a user - "how" the compiler is written is immaterial. I care only about the "what."

Does it work as advertised?
Is it reasonably efficient?
Is it maintainable, allowing for prompt bug fixes, updates and upgrades?

A compiler to me is like any another application... I'll use the brand(s) and model(s) which best serve my application development needs.

And what I'm saying is stop "being selfish". You are looking at the picture from ONLY YOUR NEEDS. Consider what the PB Team has done: A high-speed compiler comparable to C, with the ease of BASIC.

They have allowed faster application turn around times with maximum efficiency.. Now, also consider that they *could possibly* be struggling with ASM to give *you* such a great compiler to use. You should care that these guys "don't get burned out", and that they continue to program with excellence. You should care that their work-load can get "easier" so they can produce more. (ie PB for Linux)

If PB written in PB can accomplish this, I'm all for it. I want the PB team to benefit the same way I have. I can't express how much this language has improved my development speed.

In short, consider the benefits you have when using PB, and ask yourself if the programmers than made PB deserve the same benefits?

Hopefully, you get the point now..

[Fred Harris]

Assemblers seem to be very extensible using macros and so forth. They can begin to take on the look and feel of higher level languages. I can't help but believe that for as long as Mr. Zale has been MOVing bytes around, he has got his toolkits full of utility functions/macros that work good for him.

Not knowing much about it, compilers do seem somewhat mystical to me. I can't imaging how difficult it would be to create an OOP implementation. I'd think about an order of magnitude harder than a simpler procedural language. When you look at other OOP languages (Microsoft, Borland, GNU C++, etc), I think they tend to be the results of the endeavors of pretty large organizations or groups of people. I havn't checked on that and am not even sure where to check. Maybe someone has some knowledge of that?

[Michael Mattias]

>You are looking at the picture from ONLY YOUR NEEDS

In a market economy, that's what customers do.

And frankly, other than they stay in business long enough to support their customers and products, I don't give a rat's butt about the "needs" of PowerBASIC Inc.

The "needs" of PowerBASIC Inc. are the concern of the ownership of PowerBASIC Inc. If PowerBASIC Inc decides creating their products using method "B" is better for them than is the current "method A", hey, fine by me.

And when it gets right down to it, I don't particularly care about your individual "needs," either.

The "needs" of Tal Systems Inc. are my concern.

[Michael Mattias]

Greed is Good.

[Tyrone W. Lee]

lol..

And with that.. I'm sure your consumer base just sky-rocketted.. (LOL)

That method of business is the reason why American economy is struggling. They are so ruthlessly greedy that they are LOSING money. That mentality will eventually jeopardize your integrity. One of the cool notions explained in movies like StarWars is the understanding of balance.

PB to me, to you have a connection. That connection is the PB Compiler. And for you to "so blatantly" say you don't care about the PB team's effectiveness shows you are clearly "lacking" some type of moral fiber. (or maybe you just need to "get over yourself.")

If PB thought the way you did, they could simply abandon the compiler and send you back looking for a new language. Or embed bugs/flaws in the compiler to get you on an upgrade cycle like some of our other more scrupulous companies. (ie M$)

Greed is good... but not when it compromises the foundation for success. Your statement has clearly put your company on my radar "of who NEVER to do business with."

-And with that.. I think this conversation is over.

Good luck, and be well.

[Michael Mattias]

Suggesting my 'moral fibre' is lacking because of how I view my vendors is a bit short-sighted.

As a SELLER, of course I am concerned about my customers' needs. If I weren't, how do you explain I have not worked for anyone but myself for the past fourteen years?

As a SELLER, of course Mr. Zale is concerned about my needs - as a customer. If he weren't, how do you explain he has not worked for anyone but himself for at least seventeen years (when PowerBASIC Inc was created)?

And you know what? My customers and clients don't give a rat's butt about my bottom line, either, other than to know I'm in business still supporting them and my products. (And I'll bet Mr. Zale really doesn't think about my revenue stream, either).

I mean, what's next? Do we start to concern ourselves with what brand of computer PowerBASIC uses for development? Or wonder if we wouldn't get better compiler products if PowerBASIC Inc. used a Canon brand instead of a Minolta brand copy machine in their office?

As I said before, we are in a market economy; the market makes the rules. The customer is king. The seller can only offer; the customer makes all the really important decisions.

Upon what features you base your compiler purchase decision is yours- nobody can tell you what make or model to use. If you choose to select a product because it's produced using 'language A' that's your call. If I choose a compiler product without regard to the language used to produce it, that's my call.

Thanks (not!) to Cliff Nichols for starting this whole thing with his "say it ain't so" comment.

MCM

[Tyrone W. Lee]

Do you you read?

You don't have a very good reading comprehension either.

And you know what? My customers and clients don't give a rat's butt about my bottom line,

You are mixing in business & customer relationships into a discussion that lends itself to innovation and future growth. This topic was not about "business," or "accounting". This was about effectiveness and efficiency. I'm sure your clients want you to be *effective* and *efficient* at solving their problems. - But what about AGILE enough to work in a *changing* market?

Because ultimately, your delays can effect THEIR delays... (duh) You are dragging in the ideas of money, and profit into a discussion that was intended to be about power & features.. turn around times, and the benefits of PB doing something differently that can, in effect, trickle down to YOU as an mid-user.

Example: If your business doesn't support Linux. And the decision to compile PB with PB helps accomplish cross-platform support. It means now, YOU the mid-user can offer the service to your customers.

The PB team has been "buzzing" about Linux for years, and if this is a step that can speed it up, I'm for it. (and I care about it.) It hasn't nothing to do with their BOTTOM line. Its the entire system of programmers and end users. You are only *one* of those programmers, but you speak as you are 100% self sufficient. (You are mixing your business philosophy with ideas of PURE computer science.)

When you are 100% using your own compilers, operating system, and code. (and I even suggest in some cases hardware too.) Then you have a right to be "arrogant", until then.. You are just a part of a bigger system. If you don't care about the other pieces, its pretty clear you will eventually fail.

One of the reasons many people use PB is because they are tired of Microsoft *forcing* upgrades, changes and deprecating features. - Microsoft follows *YOUR* business philosophy. If PowerBASIC switched to *YOUR* cut-throat tactics they would do the following.

1. embed features to force you to upgrade.
2. embed snoop code.
3. deprecate every 2 years to ensure revenue.

If you *DON'T* care.. In essence, you don't care about your own business. You don't care that the tools you use are built by people with integrity. And clearly, you don't think much deeper than your wallet. Like it or not these things affect you.

So silly..

[Michael Mattias]

Its the entire system of programmers and end users. You are only *one* of those programmers,

No; with regard to the products of PowerBASIC Inc., I am 100% a user.

[Tyrone W. Lee]

You a user from a PowerBASIC perspective.. but you are a programmer with respect to the people you service using PowerBASIC. (You can't do one if you don't respect/care about the other.)

Because you have a dual role, things are NOT as simple as you make it. Let's face it.. Software development is not the same product as a cheeseburger. When a consumer buys a cheeseburger, he eats it and moves on with his life. Software has a lifecycle, there is support time, debugging, and years of interaction between YOU as a user and the PoweBASIC team.

That is the #1 reason why you should care. A great hypothetical example:

I've been with PB since v1.0. Hypothetically, lets say you have too. During that time it was 16bit. What if, the company (PB) failed? (ie, You don't give a rats butt about their bottom line.)

Scenario #1: I use PB1.0 for hobby projects.

Scenario #2: YOU use PB for over 500 projects for your customers.

(in comes Microsoft)
M$ switches to 32bit, which causes many 16bit apps to fail on the new version of Windows. Its clear the 32bit version is better than the 16bit, and M$ is a powerhouse who *forces* the upgrade.

Scenario #1 : I only use PB for hobby projects.. I don't upgrade

Scenario #2 : You have to re-write all 500 apps.. Billing the customer may *NOT* be an option because you are a small company, M$ is the king at this time. (You could lose ALOT of your customers because you *can't* keep up with MS$.)

As a consumer of PowerBASIC, the more you use their compiler to write code.. The more you should care that they are efficient, effective, and have a decent bottom line. So they can stay in business as technology changes.

This example takes into account of a simply business failing, that you & I rely. This doesn't take into account failing due to cut-throat business practices. If everyone is only worried about their own pocket, business turns to anarchy instead of long-term business partnerships.

I respect and rely on the PowerBASIC team.. They have done amazing things to cushion the blow of the M$ strong arm tactics.. Sun Micro is another business that has done wonders to shield us little guys from the M$ tyrant. If they didn't exist.. You would either be using Visual Studio .NET, or not programming at all.

- I get the feeling, you understand now.

[Michael Mattias]

A terrific screed, sir; but what has it to do with the price of tea in China or the language product used to develop the compilers?

BTW, I'm really NOT so dense I did not anticipate the death of 16-bit everything. Matter of fact, I took about three months away from revenue-producing work in 1999 simply to teach myself Windows' programming.

I may be a little less dependent on 'latest technology' than others; frankly, it never comes up when I deal with prospects. I sell solutions, not technology.

[Tyrone W. Lee]

A terrific screed, sir; but what has it to do with the price of tea in China or the language product used to develop the compilers?

Turn-around time.. When M$ makes changes, the PowerBASIC team can be more nimble in a BASIC syntax over ASM syntax.

I'm really NOT so dense I did not anticipate the death of 16-bit everything. Matter of fact, I took about three months away from revenue-producing work in 1999 simply to teach myself Windows' programming.

I think your previous posts speak to how "dense" you are. I'm not here to insult you, but rather trying to inspire a little more "unity" to independent developers. I want you to be profitable and successful, as do the PB team.. (If you are, it means they will be.. but you spoke as if you don't care if they are.) - if not for business, simply because you are a "good" person.

I may be a little less dependent on 'latest technology' than others; frankly, it never comes up when I deal with prospects. I sell solutions, not technology.

Good for you! I am almost totally independent. But remember, your solutions have connections to sources bigger than yourself. NEVER lose sight of that.

Good luck!

[George Bleck]

[John Petty]

Tyrone
I think your arguments are based on a false premise

Turn-around time.. When M$ makes changes, the PowerBASIC team can be more nimble in a BASIC syntax over ASM syntax

I don't think the language used makes much difference to the time it takes to produce a reliable, fast, unbloated compiler like PB. Of course if you want fast upgrades then talk to Bob about building compilers that work by building classes on classes that were inneficient in the first place, or simply just use m$ products. What version of .NET are we up to now?
John

[Michael Mattias]

the PowerBASIC team can be more nimble in a BASIC syntax over ASM syntax

And just how do you know that? I certainly would not make that assumption.

The compilers have been written in assembly language for so long for a reason.

MCM

[José Roca]

And if Bob has thought in changing it ("The PowerBASIC Compilers are all written in 100.0% assembler. That's likely to change soon enough."), there must be also a reason or two.