Powerbasic Museum 2020-B

There are rumors of new versions of PB (maybe for chrismas?).
I did not count how man revisions of visual studio have been there since the last PB version update,
but it would be a good idea.

And its a chance to test the polling-feature of the board :-).

If you think the poll lacks something important, post it here, below.

Each user has 3 possible votes. Therefore you can vote for the 3 most important topics.

Multi-pass compiler would make things easier (at least for me) :)  COM is also an area that I wish was easier.

I also feel that PBCC/PBWIN and PBForms should all be one product. Most other BASIC's have all these functionalities built in for a reasonable price.

It is also about time that PB has some form of Class support.

I hope that the next version of PB blows me away. There are other BASIC's out there that are catching up to PB very quickly.   ;)

Is PB support, in your experience, reponsive to good suggestions?

1) Better com support, embedded referencing to vtable stuff and no more variants.
2) foreach() (IEnumerator)

Theo,

you can do much better doubling that list and setting multiple choices. How can we choose just one?  :D
Of course there are rumors. Current PB version is out since ... how long? More than 2 years old?

Ciao
Eros

PS: PB support is not responsive to whish lists unless subscribers are ... many
They are more open to mails sent to support@powerbasic.com but again, they will do something only if requested by ... many

Thinking about the languages itsef:

As a static compiled language PB could benefit from:

Classes & Objects,  (OOP fundamentals)
Block scoping
Forward referencing (to avoid upside down programming)
Lambda functionality (passing functions as arguments)
dim multiple variable declaration with initial values.

Some other improvements:

Update Assembler for missing Ops.
Tools for translating C headers.
Merge PBwin and PBcc.
Bundle stripped down generic Linux version with PBwin.
Library of COM functions - exterior to the compiler, (deprecate current COM syntax.)

100% with you.

On DIM it could be improved a lot like I did in thinBasic. It is just a parsing problem, nothing complicated.
It seems a little thing but is is that little details that keep great a language on a long run.

@Eros.

Quoteyou can do much better doubling that list and setting multiple choices

Ok, i have changed the Poll to your wish. It allows up to 3 choices per User now!

QuoteIt seems a little thing but is is that little details that keep great a language on a long run.

My personal impression is:
If they would take the time to study thinBASIC for a while, they could learn a lot how to improve language structure.
Maybe not only about DIM.

I would be happy just with enanched DIM :D

How long will COM be around or is that future of everything Microsoft? I know I read here on the forums that .net is all com objects in essence, just under a new name. That sure would mean easier com access would be a big item.

I voted for objects and classes, but not forced. That is not like Java or c# where is all object oriented, but like c++ you can do procedural or OOP, whatever fits the solution better.
I totally agree that the form tool be part of the product, I was really disappointed when I saw this was not the case, not when there are so many free IDE's that are superb like the new Turbo languages and Microsoft Express Editions.

It seems the future is multi-core everything... I don't know how much of that is up to the programmer or operating system, but I think if it is up to programmer's then it should be a vital part.

I know that other Basics, for example Purebasic or VB.NET - have an integrated Forms-Editor.
But PB - I am quite sure - will never have that before version 10.
Otherwise Dominic or Paul would maybe have less time to post here and would maybe work on something :-).
They cannot stamp a good Visual Designer "out of the floor".
Therefore I just dropped this point because its tooo far from beeing real.

Visual Designer will be an extra.

 
MUST BE an extra. Don't make me pay for a tool that I'm not going to use. If at least was a SDK visual designer...

Is mine not considered a visual designer?  ???
(+ SDK as well)

Edwin,

Do you still offer a trial download for PwrDev ???

@Edwin, you do not have any links in your posting-footer.
There could be links to your web-site, your tools.
Take Pauls footer for example. thats how it should be to make people know what you stand for.

QuoteIs mine not considered a visual designer?

Sent me a copy and I'll consider it :-).
Actually I've never tried it.

Quote from: Paul Squires on August 01, 2007, 01:32:41 PM
Edwin,

Do you still offer a trial download for PwrDev ???

Yes, i put it up a few days ago.
However on request though.

Quote from: Theo Gottwald on August 01, 2007, 02:19:34 PM
@Edwin, you do not have any links in your posting-footer.
There could be links to your web-site, your tools.
Take Pauls footer for example. thats how it should be to make people know what you stand for.

QuoteIs mine not considered a visual designer?

Sent me a copy and I'll consider it :-).
Actually I've never tried it.

I am waiting with all of this until i have decided to:

1) If i actually want to promote it, marketing is not my favourite thing at all.

2) I have a more complete PwrC version (nearly completed for c-loving fokes, will add some BASIC commands later to make it easier for the people want to try c but will mis the BASIC language).

>Sent me a copy and I'll consider it :-).

PwrDev:
http://www.hellobasic.com/demo/request.aspx?fileid=2

PwrC:
http://www.hellobasic.com/demo/request.aspx?fileid=4

Quotemarketing is not my favourite thing at all.

Marketing is really important these days. To be honest, I am also looking with big eyes how Paul is doing marketiing things really fine.
He's really good on this (WEB-Site, etc.).

But programmers and marketing ...
I think its not a secret to say that this is not a bundle which is often together.
Seems to be like blondes and brain :-)).

Example? Here is one:

A blonde guy gets home early from work and hears strange noises coming from the bedroom. He rushes upstairs to find his wife naked on the bed,sweating and panting. "What's up?" he says. "I'm having a heart attack," cries the woman.
He rushes downstairs to grab the phone, but just as he's dialing, his 4-year-old son comes up and says,"Daddy! Daddy! Uncle Ted's hiding in your closet and he's got no clothes on!"

The guy slams the phone down and storms upstairs into the bedroom, past his screaming wife, and rips open the wardrobe door.
Sure enough, there is his brother, totally naked, cowering on the closetfloor.
You rotten bas*ard, "says the husband,"my wife's having a heart attack and you're running around naked scaring the kids!!!

Theo

Your Poll is by far too restrictive

Here is mine

• New advanced DDT commands? I don't mind
• New support for COM? should have been there already
• Enhanced support for multiple CPU-Cores? not vital for me
• Complete Support for new ASM-Mnemonics? I don't feel comfortable with ASM
• Multi-Pass compiler? (No more "Declares") Using declares is not a problem for me
• Unlimited MACRO/Include  nesting depth? I don't care
• Something else? definitly YES, see my list further
• Lambda functionality for me that sounds alike "something else"
• Classes & Objects Yes, only if fully compatible with the standard Microsoft syntax (No DDP)

• STATIC Linking
• Support for VISTA technologies, like WPF and others
• DotNET compatibility (generate IL code that would run on any platform)
• XML support
• DirectX support (directsound, directvideo, etc.)
• A built-in form editor
• A real interactive debugger
• An "UltraEdit like" IDE with text completion
• A project manager
• A control container to build new components

Honestly, how many developers do you think there are behind PB development?
My idea is that the number can be about RND(1, 1).
I really hope to be absolutely wrong.

I know this already, but I would gladly pay more for a product that gives me what I am looking for.
And I could even give some money as a subscription to get it alive if I know they are going my way ;)

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on August 01, 2007, 04:24:07 PM
And I could even give some money as a subscription to get it alive if I know they are going my way ;)

Patrice,

I'm with you 100%. Consider I have 3 lic for PBCC and 4 for PBWIN for people working with me.
Pay some more money to keep PB alive as much as possible is not a problem. Also giving my support for free in any aspect could be needed by PB is not a problem.

Eros

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on August 01, 2007, 03:59:22 PM
...Classes & Objects Yes, only if fully compatible with the standard Microsoft syntax (No DDP)

No DDP    ;D    Patrice you made me smile with that one.

@Patrice:
To me your wishlist does not sound like "PowerBasic" but more like VS 2008.
Are you sure you are looking for the right product?

If you choose VS 2008 you get all that what you write PLUS more.
My personal taste seems to be more "low level" and thats why I choose PB, not VS.

While I second your wish for "Ultraedit- like IDE" my believe in wonders is rather limited :-))
thats why its not even on the wishlist (as well as the builtin Visual Designer).

And just as my (low-level) wishlist seems not to come near to your wishes,
your Hi-level wishes seem to me more like a call for VS 2008 - because it has all you want.

For example, I rather often run into the "nesting depth" error and then have to reorganize my code.
Therefore this alone would be an interesting issue for me to buy a  update version.

Theo

I use already several compilers including VISUAL STUDIO hence the reason why I am able to make some comparisons.

However being a PowerBASIC's fan I get upset to see that some of the features that have been available for years to C and VB programmers are still missing into PB (remember, COM/OLE have been introduced in 1991...)
Forcing those who need them to learn another programming language (my experience)

I must say that I am always using PowerBASIC to write my DLL(s), what ever the front end language being used for my applications, because it is unbeatable for speed and size when you master low level programming.

However the engine must also have a nice body with a modern interface that looks crisp.
And then I can say with no doubt that a program is written in PB just looking at its GUI.

Your points are valid, of course.  But there is a question of how much hand-holding a language or a development package should do for you.  There is a constant tug-0f-ware between those that want lean and mean and others that want fat and juicy.

To me, Jose is single-handedly proving that PowerBasic already has the ability to
do many things and go in many directions, without having to be built out any more.  And he is not the only one (but he makes a good poster child, don't ya think?).

As I said on another thread, I don't doubt that PowerBasic will continue to invade the domain of VisualBasic, hoping to steal away a community that will feel abandoned by Microsoft in its pursuit of .NET and collaborative computing.  So if you want more VB functionality without the VB bloat, you are possibly going to get it in time.  I don't think PowerBasic is likely to abandon Windows in favor of Linux or the MAC OS any time soon, so that is likely the best course for it to pursue.

I think the main things confronting PowerBasic though, is how can it keep distinguishing itself in the face of the competition?  And how can it also make itself more appealing the the disgrunted VB crowd?  And further, what does it have to do to get existing owners of PB products excited about the prospects of buying a newer version of the compilers?

So I think if you look at what you can do with VB, and what thunder that it has
that would benefit PowerBasic, I think you can at least hope that some of that will eventually make its way over to PowerBasic.  It won't be pure VB of course,
because PowerBasic comes in its own flavor.  And it won't be a clone to anything else out there.  So I would expect some real surprises as well, just because we've seen them in past releases.

One strategy that PowerBasic has not exploited is bundling of third party products with its own,  Instead, it has allowed third party developers to market
(or at least link) through its web site, and shown no partiality towards alternate IDEs or add-on products.  If I were involved in their marketing, I think I would look at some of the thrid party products that have failed to market well and have been placed in the public domain, and see about working a deal with the original developer to incorporate it into PB's product tree, especially if it means
acquiring a more sophisticated IDE in the process.  But that is just a thought.

And if I could program as well as Jose can, and knew as much, I think I would collaborate with someone to produce a book or course material so that others can learn to do the same as he has on his own.  He hasn't waited for features that aren't there, he has just gone ahead and done it anyway.



 

Patrice,

I think we are not that far from each other as I thought before. Lets see what you write:

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on August 01, 2007, 06:24:36 PM
I use already several compilers including VISUAL STUDIO hence the reason why I am able to make some comparisons.

Its always good to get experience from elsewhere into a project.

QuoteHowever being a PowerBASIC's fan I get upset to see that some of the features that have been available for years to C and VB programmers are still missing into PB (remember, COM/OLE have been introduced in 1991...)

Somehow I am with you on that. I'd prefer faster update cycles.

Quotebecause it is unbeatable for speed and size when you master low level programming.

Thats why I am here. Please notice, that if PB would change to a Frontend for IL (intermediate Language) this advantage would have gone.
Therefore I am more interested in furhter developements on this LowLevel stuff.

QuoteHowever the engine must also have a nice body with a modern interface that looks crisp.

Sure, and while the PB GUI is rather stable, it doesn't have the luxory we see in SED (or what I am often using: Semens PrePBEd - which has at least TABs).

QuoteAnd then I can say with no doubt that a program is written in PB just looking at its GUI.

You think it may look a bit old fashioned ... if done with PB?

Reminds me that I checked your Photo-Composer today. This thing really looks modern how I would like PB programms to look.
But my hopes are not big in this direction, maybe anyone who wants that will ahve to by your tools or EZ-GUI etc. :-).

And then hope they work with the next version of PB.

Reminds me that third party developers should actually think of giving customers a update guarantee for their product once the new surprize from Bob will be revealed.
This would make it easier for people to buy actually a product after Bob has already anounced something.

Quote from: Paul Squires on August 01, 2007, 04:47:59 PM

Quote from: Patrice Terrier on August 01, 2007, 03:59:22 PM
...Classes & Objects Yes, only if fully compatible with the standard Microsoft syntax (No DDP)

No DDP    ;D    Patrice you made me smile with that one.

I don't know what DDP means, but the multiple doted syntax is a performance killer used with Automation. My request is native support for direct interface calls with single doted syntax. Not only is faster and less bloated, but above all it allows the use of low-level interfaces, something that Automation only languages can't do. Having only Automation support will be like if you only could use PB's statements to program, without having access to the Windows API. There is a whole COM subsystem in Windows, that grows every day. It already is bigger than the API.

Quote
Please notice, that if PB would change to a Frontend for IL (intermediate Language) this advantage would have gone.

The JIT compilers are highly optimized and there is no speed degradation, it is like running Java applets.
And you don't have to worry if the target is 32 or 64-bit, Windows, Linux or Mac because the JIT takes care of that for you, transparently...

I don't mean that PB should become DotNET, but it could have an option to generate IL code instead of native code and that would be great...

Dreaming at loud voice ;)

Quotebut it could have an option to generate IL code instead of native code and that would be great...

You know that every big thing started once small as a dream?

But in some cases, dreams take long time to become true or even do not come true as expected, but somewhere else.

Kent wrote:

QuoteIt will be the DeathStar when Orca (VS2008) is complete and released

Time will show if PB has the Power to survive in its "LowLevel" Market-Corner, what we all hope.

Reason:
We all got this e-mail from Bob where he announced a surprise.
If they had enough personal, I believe there would be a new 32 or also wanted a 64 bit compiler out here already.
Instead of selling PB/Win and PB/CC, they would sell PB/32 and PB/64.

This is not the case, therefore Bobs surprise seems to be still in work.
An IL-Option doesn't look to me as a must have - "but as a nice-to-have".

Thats why I would not expect anything like that before PB 10 or 12 :-).
I think, maybe Eros could make an IL-Compiler Option for thinBasic faster.

QuoteIf they had enough personal, I believe there would be a new 32 or also wanted a 64 bit compiler out here already.

A new 32-bit compiler, why not (current TASM version should help doing the conversion).
As for us, fortunatly the current 16-bit compiler works fine, even on VISTA, and it produces plain lean 32-bit code.
Now does a 32-bit version of the compiler will be able to produce directly 64-bit executable, that is another question.

I think that, if the R&D team is too small, one solution would be to accept the help of other peoples who can help on a specific topic, and work closer with them.

Most of us are getting old (except me) thus waiting for version 12 could take a long time, even if Mister R&D is in good health, then I must say long live to him!   
Amen.

The old Intellectual property barriers are breaking down very rapidly, as software development becomes a community enterprise. I think it is a very good strategy to accept outside help from wherever it comes. It should not matter that PB inc is a commercial organisation.

QuoteI think that, if the R&D team is too small, one solution would be to accept the help of other peoples who can help on a specific topic, and work closer with them.

This is one of the strong sides of PureBasic. The developer (Fred) always accepted and honoured help from the community.
Actually important part of the package itself are developed by community members.

And in fact the PB community is not worth.
We have SED-Editor, PrePBEd, all the stuff from Jose etc.

Anyway if you buy PB today, you still get that old fashioned Editor, instead at least a PrePBEd Version with Tabs or a version of SED - Joses well made Editor.
Personally i believe this is a very important point where PowerBasic could improve.
Just let the communty take part in the official developement and help to speed things up.

My biggest concern about PB is not with the compiler but with the rate of change in the compiler (too slow). In this day and age of Internet, everything is moving faster. It seems that you need to accelerate your development times and release more product, more often, or you will be left behind by competitors. I look at a compiler like FreeBASIC and marvel at how much functionality is already present in a compiler that is less than a few years old. Maybe it is time to revisit that "no vaporware" policy. Is it really helping or hurting?

... another thing that I have asked for in the past: Allow dynamic strings in TYPE structures. Having this built into the compiler to handle is much easier than having to use ASCIIZ Ptr's and manual create the memory, assign the string, and then free the memory when finished with it.

Paul,

I would like too to have dynamic strings inside UDT.

For those in need to have something similar, using DIM ... AT you can quite easily use dynamic strings inside any UDT
Yes, it remain the problem to free the string when all is done.

Example:

'---Define some LONGs in place of strings
type MyUDT
  aString1 as long
  aString2 as long
end type

'---Define a UDT variable
dim MyVar as MyUDT

'---Define a dummy string that in reality is a place holder pointer pointing to the LONG inside the UDT
dim DummyString as string at varptr(MyVar.aString1)

'---Do what you need with DummyString like any other standard dynamic string
DummyString = "abcdef"
DummyString = repeat$(10, DummyString)
...

'---The bad part, free allocated string data manually
remove MyString



Allow dynamic strings in TYPE structures
@Paul: I strongly second that. Is something I often miss.

@Eros: I know there are some sorts of workarounds, anyway none of these can substitue a clean implementation in the compiler, you know.

Reason: Using Types you can easily programatically duplicate "Real world data" into data structures.
And dynamic strings are perfect if you do not want to care for the amount of data you may get.
Together it would be a good team.

I would like to add: classes.
Constructor and deconstructor.
Would also solve the dynamic string in structure :)

Another thing that I wished for: Built in statements for allocating/freeing blocks of memory so you don't have to use your own wrappers around WinAPI functions. For example, new BASIC functions like, MEMALLOC and MEMFREE or similar. Hell, we have pointers but pointers really shine when the programmer can dynamically create and destroy blocks of system memory on-the-fly.

Just noticed that this topic is the second strongest topic in this sub-forum.
Also we can count on 11 votes already, that shows that the most missed features are classes/Objects and COM-Support.
And I am not the only one who would want to live without DECLARING things to the compiler.
Its enough complicated, that we have to declare everything to the german tax-office. :-)