Poffs

[Lee Bergeron]

Is POFFS still alive? When will another update take place?

[Don Ewald]

Greetings Lee!

I've bandied the idea of updating POFFS around for a while now. I'll check on a few things and post an update in the future.

[Wayne Diamond]

hmm might be a bit tricky tho with the addition of the new Objects forum - the poffs executable would need to be updated to accomodate that

Borje where for art thou?

[Don Ewald]

Greetings Wayne!

I have the code for POFFS and I've updated the executable before to include new forums; but, I sure would like to work with someone to implement the various features that are above my understanding.

I haven't heard from Mr. Hagsten in a long time either.

[Wayne Diamond]

Don,

Greetings Wayne!

Always good to hear from you Don!

I have the code for POFFS and I've updated the executable before to include new forums

PHEW!!! Otherwise I guess all of Borje's work on POFFS would've gone to waste :-/

It's sad that Borje is no longer here in PBworld, but I take my hat off to you Don for continuing his work (which has in turn helped probably every PB programmer here) - I know it's not easy taking over somebody elses code, you kinda have to learn a new language almost

I'd be very surprised if anything less than 90% of PB programmers use POFFS regularly - it's the ultimate search tool for us PB'ers, and if you don't use it then you're just wasting your own time. Since Borje released it I don't think a single week has gone by without me using it - it's "the Google of PowerBasic"

Time is money, and POFFS has helped save us ALL a LOT of time. (Although it goes without saying that POFFS is only as useful as the posted contributions it mines through, so hats off to all the contributers also)

but, I sure would like to work with someone to implement the various features that are above my understanding.

Which features???

I can't actually think of any feature requests for POFFS myself, it's pretty much already perfect for my needs, but then who knows what ideas will unfold in the future ... ?

[John Strasser]

I'd be very surprised if anything less than 90% of PB programmers use POFFS regularly - it's the ultimate search tool for us PB'ers, and if you don't use it then you're just wasting your own time. Since Borje released it I don't think a single week has gone by without me using it - it's "the Google of PowerBasic"

I guess I'm in that 10%. What is it?

JS

[Wayne Diamond]

John,

POFFS is essentially a program consisting of two parts ...
1) a database consisting of all the posts here at these forums (graciously made available by Bob Zale and PowerBasic),
and,
2) a program (poffs.exe) which can search through those posts. It was originally developed by Borje Hagsten.

POFFS is essentially the Google of Powerbasic, but an offline version!

It allows Powerbasic programmers to search through this vast pool of knowledge that is the Powerbasic forums, but without having to be online, and with the search speed/turnaround time measured in milliseconds.

Once you've used it you'll never stop using it.

I'm not sure where the latest version is stored, but there's one here:

http://www.reonis.com/POFFS/index.htm

[Paul Squires]

Every PB programmer should have POFFs. Sure, you can search posts on-line but there are times when POFFs is definitely faster and more convenient. I used to spend hours and hours reading posts via POFFs. It is amazing how much you can learn just by following a trail of posts about a topic in POFFs. It has surely made me a better, and more informed, programmer over the years.

[John R. Heathcote]

John,

I have to second Wayne and Paul's comments about POFFS, it is an invaluable learning tool.

Don,

One feature I would like to see in POFFS, if possible, is the ability to categorize source code by PB version. I know recently I copied some code from POFFS to try, didn't pay attention to the PB version and tried to compile old code in PB 8.x (don't have my PB 9.0 yet ). It bombed. Since the purpose of the code posted in POFFS is to show the user how to do things and get it to work around Windows inconsistencies in implementation, they have the expectation that the code will run ok from the git-go with no problems. When things don't work, especially when comments associated with the source code have been posted to the contrary, it only serves to add to the user frustration. If I know ahead of time this is old code and may not work under the new compilers I can spend time more productively by reviewing the code from POFFS rather than have to track down compile problems in the PB IDE.

[Wayne Diamond]

One feature I would like to see in POFFS, if possible, is the ability to categorize source code by PB version.

Sorry John but this is not possible, as the source codes don't specify which versions they support.

However, I've always found that whenever an old source code compile fails it's usually just a few minor, subtle adjustments that are all that's required. (Often just a few BYVAL's here and there). There'll always be somebody at this forum who'll be able to pick out the problems to get the source code to the point where it compiles.

[Cliff Nichols]

For people not in the know
the POFFS database can be found here.
POFFS code database
Börje Hagsten's finest achievements (and just WHAT part of his achievements are not excellent??? )

As Wayne said

as the source codes don't specify which versions they support.

Normally yes...and sad to say I am guilty onot posting the same (mostly because it never occurs to me when posting, but later I wish I had)

Anyways POFFS has saved me many many times when researching an idea, and damned if the internet went down in the midst of it....

Complete lifesaver if you ask me

[John R. Heathcote]

Wayne,

Sorry John but this is not possible, as the source codes don't specify which versions they support.

Well it was worth a shot, anyway. Why isn't the PB version a requirment for posting in the Source Code forums? This would definitely help idiots like me.

The problem I have is not knowing exactly what to fix. Some of it I can deduce and make corrections, but sometimes my "corrections" cause additional problems too, which makes the whole research phase not worth the trouble of investigating any further, and I usually end up trying an alternative, maybe not as elegant, or even has the total functionally I desire, but it works.

[John Strasser]

Thanks folks. I appreciate it.

JS

[Michael Mattias]

>Why isn't the PB version a requirment for posting in the Source Code forums

For the simple reason that most of those postings are not dependent on the version of the compiler... or for that matter even which compiler (PB/WIN or PB/CC).

That said, I have suggested several times that posters should always indicate...
- Make (which) and model (version) of compiler used
- Dates of any Windows' header files used.

I'd bet as many of the "won't compile/doesn't work" situations are due to differences in Windows' header files as to compiler version differences.

[Rodney Hicks]

If the new compiler(and all subsequent compilers) expected to find #COMPILER PBWIN 9 as the first line of code this little issue would, many years from now, cease to be an issue. Without that, in spite of Michael's suggestion, things may never change.

[Rodney Hicks]

Could not another combobox be inserted for 'after' "DATE" wherein the list of dates corresponds to the release dates of each version of the compilers?

The search engine would of course have to be modified to accept the date parameter and 'ALL DATES' would have to be default.
This would not guarantee that the results of the search would find code by such compiler, but it would help to minimize the issue, IMO.

[Joe Bailey]

I can't actually think of any feature requests for POFFS myself, it's pretty much already perfect for my needs, but then who knows what ideas will unfold in the future ... ?

One feature that I think would be very useful would be a favorites/bookmark system.
An autoupdate feature would also be really cool, although not entirely necessary.

Other than that, I agree: it is darn near perfect!

[Vidar Hanto]

An autoupdate feature would also be really cool, although not entirely necessary.

I would very much welcome an autoupdate, since POFFS searching is so much faster.

Also, a natural addition to auto-update would be a (toggle) button of some sort to enable a filter that just displays the new posts since the previous update.


ViH