Future of powerbasic

[Brice Manuel]

I think the biggest problem is the "radio silence" from the PowerBASIC staff and their marketing efforts seem to be non-existent lately. It's always seemed to have been positioned as a BASIC compiler targeted towards the business/professional developer, but they seem to be falling behind the curve there and I'm not sure they have the resources to change things.

Most alarming is that people are still having trouble trying to actually order PB.  And even worse than that is the PB staff are happy with that and there is no shortage of users who will defend the actions of PB. 

But PureBasic is still universally used and still close to the original standard instruction set.

It is much closer to traditional BASIC than what PowerB is.

Look what has all changed in the meantime, the hardware, the operating systems, the computing power, the Internet and the entire software environment. Requirements and target groups are constantly changing, old structures break up and regroup. Under these circumstances, it is normal if the compiler is developed in line with new challenges. The root is still BASIC!

Unlike other languages, PureB keeps up with those changes.

I imagine it can be used like PowerBASIC though, making direct Api calls, while ignoring the 'super DDT full of gadgets'?

Correct and many do use it in just this way.  Very highly skilled SDK programmers in the PureB community.  However, it is very detrimental for many folks since the Windows API is not cross-platform.

[Theo Gottwald]

PureBasic is more a Macro-Assembler then a "real compiler".
Hard to say that, but you will see the limits if you take a closer look.
PureBasic is not PowerBasic

It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN
At least Purebasic 4.40 does not have the ability to make FOR ... NEXT LOOP with non Integer values.
It does not yet have a full set of datatypes.
What it has is a large set of libraries and a active community.

Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support.
PureBasic 5.30

[Brice Manuel]

... It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN... Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support...

A language that is not stuck in the early 70s and supports modern technology and methodology?  How insane.    It is well into the 21st Century, unless you are targeting DOS, PureBasic is the only legitimate BASIC compiler for Windows that is actively developed and actively supported.

And given your incorrect assumptions in that thread of yours (which I have pointed out before and you have deleted), you really should not link to it and think it has any credibility (unless your goal is to intentionally spread misinformation).  To make a claim that "PureBasic is still  a "Single-Pass Compiler" shows your complete ignorance in the understanding of how modern compilers work.  PureBasic uses FASM which is an industry standard assembler.  FASM is a multi-pass assembler which is the stage where multiple passes are needed, they are NOT needed pre-assembly stage. 

What it has is a large set of libraries and a active community.

PowerBASIC has neither, unless you count the crickets as community members. 

[Bob Houle]

Theo,
I have read most of your posts and Brice is correct.
You say you want a 64-bit compiler, you get it... then you say everything negative that you can!   

- PureBasic is more a Macro-Assembler then a "real compiler".
PureBasic is a "real compiler" and produces EXE's as small as any compiler.

- Hard to say that, but you will see the limits if you take a closer look.
A blanket statement that does nothing to help the reader who might be interested in testing out PureBasic.

- It does not have a real GOSUB/RETURN
It has, and it has been part of PureBasic since the beginning. You just have to follow it's rules and not PowerBASIC's

- At least Purebasic 4.40 does not have the ability to make FOR ... NEXT LOOP with non Integer values.
If you don't like a function the way it exists... create a macro or function that does. Simple.
Besides, when was the last time you ABSOLUTELY needed that requirement. Not often, I'll bet.

- It does not yet have a full set of datatypes.
Another blanket statement. I have never had a problem with PureBasic datatypes. Would I prefer more, like PowerBASIC. Of course, but
you make it sound as if the product is unusable. Horsecrap!

- Instead what they got is XML and JSON (Java stuff) support.
This isn't just "Java stuff". These libraries help you to build programs faster than you could any other way, and have nothing to do with Java.
It's simply a standard method of doing things.

-      JSON - This library understands and produces the JSON format as defined by RFC-7159.

-      XML - The XML library provides set of functions to easily add XML parsing and adding capability to applications. It is based on the expat XML parser, which is licensed under the MIT license. Expat is used in many projects (like Mozilla or Perl). It is very stable and very fast.

Rather than use "Blanket statements that mean nothing", I'm going to include a zip file which shows how to use these new additions to PureBasic.

The JSON sample produces a small database that tracks Players. Notice it has nothing to do with "Java stuff"

The XML sample produces a small dialog from just XML code. Notice it has nothing to do with "Java stuff"

A PowerBASIC / PureBasic user just posted a PowerBASIC to PureBasic Reference Guide.

see:  http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=61153

Now that's much more positive... isn't it? 

--Bob ("blueb"  on the PureBasic forum)

[Patrice Terrier]

Do you know of any PureBasic demo(s) that would knock my socks off ?

All the demos i have ever seen are looking more like those of DOS days.

If you have any screen shot(s) or link(s) that you could share, i would be very happy to revise my opinion.

Thanks

...

[Brice Manuel]

Theo,
I have read most of your posts and Brice is correct.
You say you want a 64-bit compiler, you get it... then you say everything negative that you can!   

I am a few days away from my 11th year anniversary of using PureBasic.  During that time it has continued to grow in functionality and the number of platforms supported (some old platforms like the Amiga and the PowerPC Macs have been dropped) and it has continued to adhere to traditional BASIC as much as possible.  All this has been done with one price and not being subjected to a shakedown for more money every year or two for things that should have been included to begin with.  A language that continually grows and is actively supported will always attract new users eliminating the need for trying to make all of your money off of existing customers instead of seeking new ones.  The introduction of the LTS version has been VERY welcomed as it allows you to use the stable version for any serious work, but still play with the "bleeding edge" version so you can get used to the new features when the time comes that you will need those features.  The only weak point for me is I dislike the included GUI designer and there is no longer a decent third-party GUI designer being sold.  Most people simply don't use a GUI designer for their GUIs, so I am definitely in the minority with this "dislike".  That said there is nothing wrong with the included GUI designer and those that use it love it.  I am just very picky when it comes to GUI designers. 

For those who do NOT want a BASIC compiler that properly supports modern hardware and technology and would prefer a legacy BASIC that never really progresses, True BASIC is still being sold and actively developed and it is the original BASIC (all other BASICs have been imitators).  I would never recommend it for anything but hobby use and I would never recommend it for anything you intend to actually release (even for free).

[Bob Houle]

Do you know of any PureBasic demo(s) that would knock my socks off ?

All the demos i have ever seen are looking more like those of DOS days.

If you have any screen shot(s) or link(s) that you could share, i would be very happy to revise my opinion.

Thanks

...

Patrice,

I've been a user of your Winlift program (2003), so I know you don't impress easily. {grin}

Would the ability to use PostgreSQL or SQLite out of the box knock your socks off... it doubt it.

But that's my point... as a 'bare metal' programming tool PureBasic probably outshines PowerBASIC, only because it provides much more OUT-OF-THE-BOX.

But, I've included a few graphical examples (Zipped) to show what's possible...

[Patrice Terrier]

Bob--

Thank you for the ZIP file.

...

[José Roca]

Would the ability to use PostgreSQL or SQLite out of the box knock your socks off... it doubt it.

I already have headers and a class for SQLite, and translating the headers of PostgreSQL would not be a difficult task.

My problem with these cross-platform compilers, such PureBasic and FreeBasic, is that they are not well suited for the kind of programming that I do.

[Theo Gottwald]

Why do you get religiouse here, folks?
In fact i did not say anything negative. A Macro Assembler is nothing negative.

Now think a minute. If Fred would make Purebasic a second time - would he do it the same way?
I think not. He started that time, and what you get is a large toolbox.

What was exactly negative?
A Macro Assembler is one of the best programming tools you can get and PureBasic is built on one "as an enhancement" somehow.
And it does not go so far above it if you look into difficult to compile code.
My problem with it was that just any time when i used it, i crashed into some limitations that a "real compiler" like PB doesn't have.

If i use Gosub and i run into an error - due to the stack frame that PB uses, the compiler will clean it up when i leave the procedure.
And of course i can use real GOSUB/RETURN. I use it very often.
All needed types of variables are there. Yes some types were later added in Purebasic, but it did not look to me as if it really fits together like in PowerBasic.

And the String-Engine in Powerbasic saves me most of the problems i have in other languages.
I have tried that in PureBaisc as well, but it never worked for me as expected.
The Strings are just not like the PowerBasic strings.

Having said that about the "Core" of the compiler, (and thats where i would like to see changes),
i add that the many libraries from all sorts of uses are a great tool set for people who want to build applications in some sort of "construction set" style.

And while the system is different from PowerBasic, its still usabel and i have also done some applications in PureBasic where i needed 64 bit.
Its just different. And ... yes i prefer PowerBasic.

Let me add that if i would use Purebasic for so long time like others, possibly i would know workarounds for most problems.
Its like in any sort of programming language. At the end its the programmer - not the tool.

[Steve Hutchesson]

I confess to being very disappointed in what has happened with the PB forum lately. I see Gary as a good guy who tried very hard to get the SDK/API subforum going and we saw code from Jose, Patrice, a number of the PB forum members and I managed to get a bit of stuff done as well but the endless trolling, arguments, insults and general influence peddling have done the damage and very few are game to post API based code any longer as the talking heads just put the boot into it.

Like Jose, I am not dependent on the PB forum and can post PB example in the MASM forum which is now a better choice as no nonsense is allowed in the MASM forum at all. What has p*ssed me off the most is there have been a lot of very good programmers in the PB forum in the past who faded away with the flooding of DDT code who could have come back and posted decent API based code but with the endless cr*p going down, they just stopped bothering or in fact did not bother at all.

[Patrice Terrier]

Steve--

You know what, i always had a hard time to read the DDT proprietary syntax.
And i am amazed to see how the fagocited DDTers are bashing us SDKers, perhaps because they realize now that they have made the wrong choice

...

[Steve Hutchesson]

Patrice,

I don't have any beef with DDT, I think Bob hit the mark of a simplified system for people who could not put in the effort to learn API style coding but we have a very similar view of the folks who thought that peer pressure would ever effect those who put in the effort years ago to learn how to write Windows code properly. I have not won any friends by labeling this nonsense as membership of the "Mickey Mouse Club" but eventually you get tired of people who keep trying to cripple the language to maintain their own flavour of influence peddling.

32 bit PowerBASIC is in its twilight as Bob never had the chance to finish the 64 bit version but it is still a very good tool in the 32 bit area yet trying to promote its advanced features in the PB forum is like p*ssing into the wind and wondering why you get wet. I feel sorry for Gary as he has tried hard to get it going again but the "Mickey Mouse Club" will continue to sob into their chardonnay until it turns into the "Grapes of Wrath" and will take down the viability of the language until there is no-one left.

I think you said it all a long time ago, behaving like "beached whales". 

[Patrice Terrier]

Bob never had the chance to finish the 64 bit version

Because he spent too much time on DDT rather than enhancing the compiler itself, this has been my main dispute with Bob several years before his passing. And the main reason why the most advanced programmers have left the boat since long.

...

[Theo Gottwald]

We had several disputes with Bob in the past.
Most of all, however only people that have been very close to Bob and the PB Company know all of the truth.
What we see as outsiders, is that:
1. About 32 bit - PB is still usable and a very good program
2. About 64 bit we need to look around

How is Charles Pege doing?
Some time ago he told me, he could make his compiler to compile (non-DDT) PB-like Code into 64 bit.
Did anybody test his newest creations?