How is PB developed

[Rodney Hicks]

Not to mention the fact that if PowerBASIC was written in PowerBASIC 1 and and upgrade to PowerBASIC 2 was available that was written in PowerBASIC 1, why would I buy it, I could just write it myself.(If it were that easy)

[Theo Gottwald]

That's likely to change soon enough.

Do you think he plans to switch to a language that uses objects?

In fact that would be good news, because then we will not have to wait two years for the next things to come!

[Tyrone W. Lee]

Are we slow?

Rodney,

I'm not saying that it is easy.. I said that the same benefit of maintaining a project in HIGH level language over ASM would now be available to the PowerBASIC developers. Many people choose PB over C because of the simple syntax yet a effective compiler. (Yet... *we assume* the PB Developers are using ASM, so they *aren't* able to benefit.) - It would surely benefit them if they could.

John & Micheal,

I said this about 4 posts prior. this is all speculation. There are many factors that would make either of us wrong. But from the *general* history of ASM in comparison to ALL HIGH level languages.. I'm probably right.

A great example is Firefly, an IDE for PowerBASIC. I believe, *next* version of FireFly will be written using FireFly. (It stands as a testimony to the reliability of the IDE/PowerBASIC.)

George,

I know.. I don't know why I waste my time.

[Michael Mattias]

I said that the same benefit of maintaining a project in HIGH level language over ASM would now be available to the PowerBASIC developers

When making such pronouncements, you really should include a disclaimer that you have been engaged by PowerBASIC, Inc. to provide management consulting services.

As an additional note - being in that business myself - I consider it highly unprofessional to share recommendations with the public, at least without a "permission granted " tag. When you are a paid consultant, your work product belongs to the client.

Oh, you're not? Never mind.


MCM

[Cliff Nichols]

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

MCM

Hey if I had KNOWN it would spurn such a debate, I would've kept my mouth shut

I was just afraid that uncharacteristically Bob and the Team would be changing from "What Works" to a .Net concept (which to me is bloated, and still has to call the Windows API in the 1st place)

That is what prompted me to say "Say it ain't so", cause I did not want to see a product that is not only competitive, but in my mind SUPERIOR to other programming languages

Bob's post yesterday was a surprise (and from the lil bit I have researched...a WELCOMED SURPRISE) that eludes me to thinking that did not abandon "What WORKS" for the the so-called "Hey look at our new look, whizzbang, glitz and glamour garbage"

Thats what I LOVE about PB....they can explore the newer techs, but do it better than M$

[Michael Mattias]

I have nothing empircal, but if you trust my visceral reactions...

I have used PB's products back to 1991, and ain't nothin' 'bloated' , ever.

As I do not speak for PowerBASIC Inc, I don't know for sure; but I do believe "small, fast, efficient" is a guiding principle - perhaps even THE guiding principle - for all their product development.

MCM

[Barry Marks]

This is a pretty silly argument! Some of you are old enough and experienced enough to know better than to keep going when arguments get to this level, or so one would think.

Barry