Poll your PB-wishlist ...

[Edwin Knoppert]

Edwin,

Do you still offer a trial download for PwrDev

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

[Edwin Knoppert]

@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.

Is 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

[Theo Gottwald]

marketing 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!!!

[Patrice Terrier]

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

[Eros Olmi]

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.

[Patrice Terrier]

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

[Eros Olmi]

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

[Paul Squires]

...Classes & Objects Yes, only if fully compatible with the standard Microsoft syntax (No DDP)

No DDP        Patrice you made me smile with that one.

[Theo Gottwald]

@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.

[Patrice Terrier]

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.

[Donald Darden]

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.



 

[Theo Gottwald]

Patrice,

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

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.

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...)

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

because 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.

However 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).

And 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.

[José Roca]

...Classes & Objects Yes, only if fully compatible with the standard Microsoft syntax (No DDP)

No DDP        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.

[Patrice Terrier]

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

[Theo Gottwald]

but 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:

It 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.