Oxygen Basic

Information => Reference => Topic started by: John on February 15, 2018, 08:17:05 PM

Title: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 15, 2018, 08:17:05 PM
Eros started a thread looking for advice with array sort. After he posted his ThinBASIC version I posted a Script BASIC example. It was deleted (mine not Eros's) and I'm now banned for making the post they are calling spam.

This is how bad it has gotten on the PowerBASIC forum and the do nothing owner acting like a dictator rather then a vendor. I hope more of the PB customers find O2 and don't get sucked into their BS about carrying on with the compiler.

Quote from: Mike Lobanovsky
I don't want to speculate any more on this subject. Frankly, I both lost interest and ran out of popcorn waiting for anything to happen at all.

Drake Software is like a dog that caught the car and has no idea what to do next.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 17, 2018, 02:02:55 AM

Sorry you got canned, John. I visit the PB forum very occasionally. Is there anything interesting going on?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on February 17, 2018, 06:31:11 AM
John
I don't get it why you post anything there  :o
especially about scriptBasic ..probably is not allowed to post about any other basic dialect.
Heh ..powerBasic users ...looks that are not interested for o2
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 17, 2018, 04:22:19 PM
Quote
Sorry you got canned, John. I visit the PB forum very occasionally. Is there anything interesting going on?

Just the remaining Zale Zombies that jerk each other off.

It is almost too painful to watch Chris Boss trying to sell his $249 EZGUI DLL that is perpetually on sale between $24.99 to as low as $14.99 around holidays.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 19, 2018, 11:36:36 AM
Hello all

As i mentioned before, i have given up on PB. you see anyone who requested or implied for 64bits compiler
he will be shot down by a horde of dogs and his post gets deleted.
Drake also employ fake members to comment and demean against other members who sought for 64bits.
notably one of fake users is "Bob Carver"  he is the mouthpiece of the drakes.

Best that you all come up with a PB to O2 converter and i will buy from you.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 19, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
The only use of PowerBASIC is for hobby programming. You would have to be nuts to use tools frozen in time.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 19, 2018, 07:17:20 PM

PB has a complex syntax, and a huge core. The PB10 manual has over 2000 pages in a 19meg pdf

Any volunteers?  ;D

I think the language set is worth some close scrutiny, though.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 19, 2018, 07:20:32 PM
Quote
Best that you all come up with a PB to O2 converter and i will buy from you.

Can you provide a list of PowerBASIC functionality that would require changes or additions to OxygenBasic

Please exclude DDT and COM.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 20, 2018, 12:41:09 PM
@ John and Charles

I'm not that good in PB either, nor with O2 as i'm only a beginner programmer.
i do find that PB is close to vb6 (which i program previously)  only prob is that there is no update to 64bits
which O2 could offer.  and that my present workplace they're using PB and my boss wanted a change to 64bits

O2 maybe an alternative as compare to Purebasic which is rediculoius to use especially the looping structure
and their variable declaration statements, Purebasic doesn't work like basic at all. Most of my present workplace
also use PB DDT,  so we would like PB DDT be converted to O2 SDK by the converter. My boss is willing to pay for
this converter as customers have demanded for 64bits.

Freebasic users are quite reluctant to help, so we decided not to pursue FB anymore. 

With this PB to O2 converter, I can guarantee that many PB users will  come over to O2 in droves given the stagnant
situation in PB

Chris
 
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on February 20, 2018, 12:59:08 PM
well i translated James Klutho smallBasic written in PowerBasic to Oxygen Basic
just to see if is possible and yes It is..is not that hard .
with some help from Charles and one guy from Jose Roca forum i do that.
But it is written in very Basic- like way with usual structures
and translate or build converter for all DDT would require HUGE include file with very well designed
function,macros and God knows what more to replace all GUI functions.
On the other hand Oxygen is not that hard to learn ,plenty of examples are in oxygen pack.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 20, 2018, 01:21:17 PM
Quote
Most of my present workplace also use PB DDT,  so we would like PB DDT be converted to O2 SDK by the converter.

The problem is that DDT uses a GUI engine built on top of the Windows Dialog engine, and also performs some trickery, so besides a translator it would we needed to replicate this engine with code. I strongly doubt that you will find anybody willing to do it.

Years ago there were some PBer's that thought that it was possible to make a converter from VB6 to PB. I was invited to join, but I said that it was "dead on arrival". After some years losing his time, they abandoned the project.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 20, 2018, 06:37:00 PM
I think it would be more helpful for a side be side PB/O2 syntax list and then determine what type of translator if any is needed. It would also be a good way to test O2 syntax as we know it. I'm sure there is tricks and variations only Charles knows. This may be a good way to have Charles expose them.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 20, 2018, 06:49:26 PM
Charles,

Can you enable the wiki feature (public access) on the O2 Github (https://github.com/Charles-Pegge/OxygenBasic) site? If you make me a member, (support@scriptbasic.org) I can help with the Wiki and maybe get something going.

John
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 20, 2018, 07:24:39 PM
Thanxx all  l appreciate much help from all
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 21, 2018, 02:57:01 AM
PowerBasic keywords A B C / OxygenBasic compatibility

This is derived from a sample of keywords from the manual:

ABS            same
ACCELATTACH    -
ACODE$         automatic
AND            same
ARRAY ASSIGN   int a={10,20,30..}
ARRAY DELETE   -
ARRAY INSERT   -
ARRAY SCAN     -
ARRAY SORT     -
ARRAYATTR      -
ASC function   same
ASC statement  req procedure
ASM            redundant
ASMALIGN       o2 ! 10
ASMDATA        redundant
ATN            same

BEEP           req procedure
BGR            req function
BIN            req function
BIT CALC       req procedure
BIT            req function
BIT            req procedure
BIT$           req function
BITS           -
BITSE          -
BUILD$         req procedure

CALL           same
CALL DWORD     redundant
CALLSTK        req procedure
CALLSTK$       req function
CALLSTKCOUNT   req function
CB             -
CBYT ...       automatic
CEIL           same
CHDIR          req procedure
CHDIVE         req procedure
CHRBYTES       req macro
CHRTOOEM$      ?
CHRToUtf8$     automatic
CHOOSE         req macro
CHR$           similar
CLASS          similar
CLIP$          req macro
CLIPBOARD      req macro
CLOSE          req procedure
CLSID$         req macro guidval
CODEPTR        req macro @ &
COMBOBOX       -
COMM CLOSE     -
COMM           -
COMM LINE      -
COMM PRINT     -
COMM RECV      -
COMM RESET     -
COMM SEND      -
COMM SET       -
COMM TIMEOUT   -
COMMAND$       req function
CONTROL ...    -
COS            same
CSET           req procedure
CSET$          req function
CURDIR$        req function

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 21, 2018, 08:09:15 AM
One thing is to provide alternatives to PB functionality missing in another language and another to do a translation. The alternatives will have a different usage and syntax, and in many cases will use a different tehnology (for example, I don't use TCP and UDP, but WinHTTP and CDO). Therefore, a translation is not possible. You will have to rewrite the application.

For FreeBasic I have written a framework that allows to do almost all you can do with PowerBasic and much more, but don't ask me about converters. The DDTers have become captive of an obsolete proprietay system.

WinFBX: http://www.jose.it-berater.org/WinFBX/WinFBX.html

About 4200 entries...
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 21, 2018, 09:19:34 AM
Outstanding documentation effort for WinFBX!

The only addition I would like to see is the Windows DLL file name that is being used for the calls to the Windows API.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 21, 2018, 09:19:05 PM
Thanxx Jose
but when i approached FB forum on how to convert PB to FB,  i got no help at all
that's why i came to O2 forum, as directed by my boss.

maybe I will try FB and  where do you think I should start out the conversion, Jose ?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 21, 2018, 09:30:34 PM
Keep in mind there is no one steering the FreeBASIC project. I wouldn't invest in doing anything business wise with it. O2 is your best choice and the support is unmatched,
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 22, 2018, 04:31:33 AM
I'm not here to promote the use of another compiler. I have retired and I no longer care of what others use. I'm waiting to see if Charles finally decides to write documentation for O2.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 22, 2018, 09:15:57 AM
There is a manual, very terse I must admit, more like a dictionary, and about 1200 examples which delineate the language. This is all that I can manage at present while completing the alpha phase, so don't hold your breath waiting for a literary masterpiece, yet :)

PB has many black boxes and overlays which don't really benefit programmers when they should be dealing with the Windows API more directly. But I am still interested in seeing how far we can go in providing a compatibility layer for the PB core language.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 22, 2018, 11:29:29 AM
Neither in the help file nor in the examples can I find many of the things if which I'm mostly interested. For example, what about overloading operators and the cast operator?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 22, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
For example, in one of my FreeBsic classes, I have:

Code: [Select]
' ========================================================================================
' Cast operators.
' ========================================================================================
PRIVATE OPERATOR CCur.CAST () AS CURRENCY
   OPERATOR = m_cur
END OPERATOR
' ========================================================================================
' ========================================================================================
PRIVATE OPERATOR CCur.CAST () AS DOUBLE
   OPERATOR = m_cur.int64 / CY_SCALE
END OPERATOR
' ========================================================================================
' ========================================================================================
PRIVATE OPERATOR CCur.CAST () AS STRING
   DIM s AS STRING = STR(m_cur.int64 / CY_SCALE)
   DIM p AS LONG = INSTR(s, ".")
   DIM dec AS STRING
   IF p THEN
      dec = MID(s + "0000", p + 1, 4)
      s = LEFT(s, p) & dec
   END IF
   IF s = "0" THEN s = "0.0000"
   OPERATOR = s
END OPERATOR
' ========================================================================================

' ========================================================================================
' Returns the currency value as a VT_CY variant.
' DIM c AS CCUR = 12345.1234
' DIM v AS VARIANT = c
' cv = v
' ========================================================================================
PRIVATE OPERATOR CCur.CAST () AS VARIANT
   DIM v AS VARIANT, cy AS CURRENCY
   VarCyFromR8(m_cur.int64 / CY_SCALE, @cy)
   v.vt = VT_CY
   v.cyVal = cy
   RETURN v
END OPERATOR
' ========================================================================================

Can I do the same with O2?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 22, 2018, 01:15:01 PM
There have been several schemes I've tried in the past but this one is capable of driving raw assembler without any overhead. It is an extension of the macro system and supports both operators and function sets for any type or class requiring operations.

http://www.oxygenbasic.org/forum/index.php?topic=1529.0

It can also be found in Basics/MacroOperations.o2bas, quite a recent addition
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on February 22, 2018, 01:44:13 PM
It says nothing about the CAST operator, which is essential to get data types implemented in classes to work as if they were native data types.

I also don't find anything about overloaded global operators.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 23, 2018, 05:46:59 AM
CAST seems to be a misnomer when the true meaning is CONVERT.

Anyway, I like the idea of global operators, which could include all the converter operators for the application. So we will do it. Something like macro generic_op which would be accessible to any user-defined types and classes.

In o2, all primitive types will automatically convert, including strings-to-numbers, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 23, 2018, 10:32:51 AM
Quote
In o2, all primitive types will automatically convert, including strings-to-numbers, and vice-versa.

DLLC is a good example of O2 defining API functions with it's variable types.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 09:32:57 AM
Guys,

I'm getting older and wiser and tired of and bored to death with BASICs and the accompanying ado.

But there is still one challenge that could stir me back to life, BASIC-wise. If we could gather at least three active and skilled language developers, Charles and myself included, and could persuade them to swear to stay with the project for at least two years no matter what, I am ready to try and replicate/rewrite/translate/younameit the defunct PowerBASIC in all its diversity in 64 bits, free to use by anybody for any purpose including commercial applications, based on Charles' OxygenBasic engine.

The PB documentation is freely accessible and so complete, clear and concise that it should be practically obvious for a skillful language developer to guess the inner workings of BZ's assembly code.

In this way, we could probably save a few businesses from going broke, and a few lives, from sudden demise. ;)

I did not like what Mrs Zale was doing to PBers in the past, and I do not like what the Drakes are doing to PB now.

This is for the second time over the recent few years that I'm vocalizing this call on this forum. I was full serious then, and I really mean what I'm saying now.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: jcfuller on February 24, 2018, 09:58:02 AM
Mike,
  The Drake's have deep pockets. How to handle a copyright infringement ?

James
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 24, 2018, 10:23:59 AM
Drake bought PowerBASIC in a fire sale as there was no one else willing to try to unravel Zale's creation. It's too late for PB to go 64 bits.

Quote
How to handle a copyright infringement ?

What in PB is copyrighted? O2 or FreeBASIC were created from scratch using traditional BASIC syntax. Microsoft should have sued Bob Zale for Quick BASIC infringements in the day.

I'm in as O2 is an extension module (DLLC) for Script BASIC.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 10:27:27 AM
OxygenBASIC stays OxygenBASIC, PB stays PB. Apart from the name, there is nothing subject to copyright law here. You can't claim ownership of the language vocabulary, semantics, or behavior. You can only claim ownership of particular implementation. The BZ->Drake code implements the language functionality in its own manner while we'll be implementing the same in our own way.

What I suggest is called clean room design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) that's recognized, and protected, by the US law as a fair means of industrial competition. A vivid and quite successful example of clean room design is ReactOS (https://www.reactos.org/), a public open source attempt to re-create MS Windows NT platform from ground up.

There is not a thing in PB that Bob Zale or the Drakes could claim US patents for. ;)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 24, 2018, 10:32:43 AM
I wonder how much money Bob Zale stuck people like Eric Pearson for? Did Drake assume PB's debt?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 10:38:29 AM
John,

Gossip and guesswork is exactly what I'm sick and tired of. That's what my message on Josť's forum that you quoted had been about.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 24, 2018, 10:46:10 AM
My point is Zale didn't die a saint. There is no reason to idolize him now.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 10:53:47 AM
I am not idolizing anyone. Nothing personal, just business, is all.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: jcfuller on February 24, 2018, 11:06:57 AM
Mike,
  A huge segment of Pb users are DDT'ers and it would seem that functionality would have to be implemented. Wouldn't that be grounds for infringement?

James
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 11:40:36 AM
No James,

DDT is just a subset of language vocabulary to manipulate the MS windowing framework. Regard it as an agglomeration of high-level macros built on top of Windows SDK to abstract from the low-level C paraphernalia and thus simplify the use of Windows GUI. Every other GUI library like IUP, wxWidgets and dozens of others (including BCX/BC9 GUI) is a DDT of sorts though each of course at its own level of abstraction.

As I said, re-implementing keyword-for-keyword functionality under a clean room environment isn't infringement. All those GUIs amount to the native WinAPI one way or another in the long run. Infringement is doing the same using the exact same implementation language and code flow.

Using O2 (and the FB translator it is written in!) and Windows SDK and guessing the code flow in the black box of PB assembly according to the language description, done by the dev team who have never had a chance to peep into Bob Zale's original sources, would be vanilla clean room development.

I own the PB documentation (help files) legally and so do you or Josť or many others. But any other potential dev team member who isn't a legal PB copy owner can still download them now legal and free from the PB site.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 24, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
Interesting that there is no reference to PowerBASIC on the Drake Software site.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 12:21:16 PM
Bottom drawer. Premium grade steel lock. Key thrown far into the Little Tennessee River.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 24, 2018, 02:15:59 PM
Yeah, PB might be locked up but it also has buried its users alive.

What you capable O2 members should do is to create a visual designer IDE similar to EzGui, so that newbies
like myself can create forms and dialogs with ease.  It would be easier to learn a language with a visual form
like VB6 then to hardcode the old way.

What we need is something that we can create a dialog, and with ability add and buttons, combobox, option and checkbox
into this dialog. Then to produce the O2 code.  There's need not have to have a translator from PB to O2. 

Also bring in listbox, listview controls would be nice to have.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 24, 2018, 02:56:48 PM
I think Drake's future is with their web version and subscriptions. The PowerBASIC purchase was insurance until they can convert their customers to the web. If anyone has a better story, I'm willing to listen.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on February 24, 2018, 04:12:11 PM
Oh Dreads ! >:(
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 24, 2018, 07:55:08 PM
The manual is not as intimidating as it looks at first glance. The 19meg PDF has a massive number of duplicated pages.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 24, 2018, 10:35:14 PM
There's yet another 23MB worth of PBCC6 PDF manual, Charles. ;)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 25, 2018, 04:14:29 AM
Yes, we seem to have the same problem. In the console compiler manual, there is a massive duplication of various topics like con and power time
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on February 28, 2018, 09:43:07 PM
It looks to me that a PowerBASIC DDT emulation could easily be coded as an IUP wrapper.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on February 28, 2018, 11:13:48 PM
I am exploring the potential for a Power Basic Compatibility Library, which would go below RTL64, and handle all the fundamental keywords used in PB but not present in core O2.

DDT, PB objects, and Xprint are all distinct units which can be handled separately. If necessary, these units could be given full preprocessing in a customised compiler. Two years, as Mike suggests,  sounds about right to me. But the Compatibility Library could start right away.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 PM
Two years, as Mike suggests,  sounds about right to me.

Does that mean you're on the bandwagon, Charles? :) IMHO the project is infeasible unless you are at its core.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 01, 2018, 04:16:40 AM
I'm plodding through the PB10/Windows manual, Mike. There are a few things that need to go into O2 core, for instance: on...goto

And about half of O2's RTL32/RTL64 could be abstracted into basic.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 01, 2018, 05:06:59 AM
maybe creating dialogs in o2 is gonna to help pb users so what we need is something like
Ezgui form designer that can produce O2 code?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 01, 2018, 07:26:03 AM
Dialogs can also be put together dynamically, under full program control. A selection of standard flexi-examples, I think would be helpful, in enabling coders to adapt them to their own requirements.

 In the long term, a bit of hacking might be more instructive and productive than using a form designer :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 01, 2018, 12:34:04 PM
form designer...hmmm that would be nice
but that job require lot of time and knowlwge and experience ..
and,,,
look into some GUI examples - scintilla maybe?
no is not a joke... you can find awinh.inc ...it is experimental but work
for 32bit apps.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 01, 2018, 02:33:47 PM
If someone needs a DDT dialog like generator they should use IUP. Charles already has the IUP C include file working with O2.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 02, 2018, 12:51:32 AM
Using pure win api :

Code: [Select]
$ Filename "ListView.exe" ' o2
include "RTL32.inc"
include "awinh.inc"
INT win,wx=0,wy=0,ww=600,wh=400,wstyle = WS_MINMAXSIZE
INT button0,b0ID=100, lvControl,lvID=1000
win=SetWindow("GUI-PB->o2::ListView",wx,wy,ww,wh,0,wstyle)
'crete button--------------------------------------------------------------------
button0 = SetButton(win,180,4,80,26,"Close (X)",0x50001000,0x200,b0ID)
'create ListView ----------------------------------------------------------------
lvControl = SetListView (win, 20, 60, 300 , 300 ,"ListView", 150, 0, 0x200, lvID)
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait()  'message loop
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'func main
Function WndProc (sys hwnd,wmsg,wparam,lparam) as sys callback
SELECT hwnd
CASE win
Select wmsg
CASE WM_CLOSE
CloseWindow(win)
EndProgram
End Select
END SELECT
RETURN Default
END FUNCTION
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 02, 2018, 05:48:50 AM
That's a beauty Aurel

@john
what is an IUP ?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 02, 2018, 05:59:24 AM
Hello Aurel

does the below statement means using win32 api ?
include "awinh.inc"

what would be or how to convert for 64bits?  as PB users are mainly interested  in converting
their 32bits programs to 64 bits ones ?

can we use the below header for 64bits ?
Code: [Select]
$ Filename "mylist.exe"
include "RTL64.inc"
include "awinh.inc"


Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 02, 2018, 07:24:16 AM
hi chris
my small unfinished - experimental set of 32bit api functions is in attachment.
I really don't know how to convert this to 64 bit,,,,
I don't use 64 bit windows...i only know that oxygen can compile to 64bit app
so what variable type must be changed i really don't know...
you must ask Charles about that!
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Chris Boss on March 02, 2018, 07:26:41 AM
Just to clarify: I haven't sold EZGUI for as low as $24.95 or $14.95. The lowest price has been $39. The reason for this is that the current PB market can not support my old price range and I tried all sorts of prices and have now found $39 to be the sweat spot for the current market. I had a number of orders this month and sales continue. Future development though is currently on hold until I see a change in the PB market.

Now to the discussion at hand:

The key to a new compiler is as follows:

Support for the entire PB command set is not important. What is important is "core" BASIC which has been around since the DOS days. Commands like IF THEN, FOR NEXT, SELECT CASE, etc need to be fully implemented. Such commands can not be owned by anyone at this point since it has been around for decades. Even TurboBasic (aka. Powerbasic for DOS) copied previous BASIC's for its core command set.

Next, the language needs to support core functionality for working with the WIN32 API. Things like pointers, data types, etc. need to be supported so calling the WIN32 API can done without issue.

Next, expandability is vital. Things like Macros, DLL compiling and possibly some standard static library format (ie. COFF). The language needs to be sufficient enough so it can compile itself at some point and then future development would be in the language itself, rather than using C++, Freebasic or even Powerbasic. Inline assembler and other features which make expanding the language using itself are vital.

Next, the language initially should be able to code in just a simple code editor (allow one to use any code editor they like). Once this works, then step 2 is necessary.

Sept 2: GUI framework and Visual Designer front end.

BASIC needs to come out of the dark ages. Bob Zale didn't recognize this. Bob was great at core compiler development, but he was very weak at building a high level GUI development system. In this day and age GUI development at a high level is vital, especially for commercial development. If you compare the different iterations of DDT, each new version was years behind each iteration of EZGUI. Bob was tackling the standard controls, while EZGUI was doing the common controls and graphics. Bob implemented a decent, yet simple, Graphic engine based on simple GDI commands, while EZGUI pushed on to advanced 2D Graphics, animation and OpenGL 3D. The point is that, Bob never could catch up to modern development for the GUI side of things. This does not nullify his great achievements, but it was a simple fact that GUI development has been mainstream for years and Powerbasic lagged behind. Look at what Eros has done with ThinBasic. It has been expanded upon in many different ways.

The key to a new generation of BASIC is expandability. Like what happened with classic Visual Basic. Microsoft did not envision what would happen by third party developers. Sadly classic Visual Basic was not built from the ground up like Powerbasic was. Microsoft purchased a visual scripting engine from a third party (which was not BASIC either) and turned it into Visual Basic and seemed like they didn't intend it to be a professional development tool. In later versions they had to fudge it by using a C compiler backend just to turn it into a real compiler, rather than just pcode.

Powerbasic itself only really became productive when the likes of EZGUI, Firefly, Phoenix, etc. came along. Remember the days of Powerbasic being advertised as an addon to classic Visual Basic ? When classic VB died, Bob was not prepared for the next level he needed to accomplish. Bob had to catch up with his own PB Forms simply to keep GUI development done using his products, rather than third party. But third party developers were far beyond what Bob was doing when it came to drag and drop design, code generation and GUI frameworks. It just was not Bob's area of expertise. Third party developers helped keep Powerbasic alive, while Bob tried to catch up.

One of the projects I have in mind is to turn my EZGUI 5.0 Visual Designer into a generic front end which can be used with any language, even Oxygen, C++, etc. By building a plugin engine which allows third party developers to turn my generic designer into a front engine for any language they choose, it might open up possibilities for the like of Oxygen, Freebasic, Purebasic, Thinbasic, etc. This could open up some possibilities for Oxygen.

I am not a compiler developer and it currently is beyond my skillset right now. I have looked at LLVM and that is another good candidate for building new languages (generate LVMM low level macro code and LVMM does the compiling to any platform). For those interested in building a powerful compiler, take a look at LVMM for a back end. Apple is using it and so are many other companies.

I am willing to consider working on the next generation of BASIC where my skillsets apply, such a front end visual designers and GUI frameworks. I am watching the progress of Oxygen with interest.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 02, 2018, 09:24:43 AM
Thanks Chris for the clarification. I'm happy that you're still able to make something off the PB community.

What is preventing EZGUI from being used with OxygenBasic now?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 02, 2018, 11:05:25 AM
Really nice elaboration but:

Quote
while EZGUI pushed on to advanced 2D Graphics, animation and OpenGL 3D.

well where is the DirectX support?
bump  :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 02, 2018, 11:29:52 AM
Welcome back Chris Boss

Glad to see you online again at O2,  betcha many PB users will be flocking here if you can SELL
to us your EzGui for O2.  We really need some code generator for graphics and dialogs which Ezgui did for PB
Start small and built your Ezgui for O2 step by step and grow with O2 -- start with visual designer first
don't need OpenGL graphics etc as for now

disinllusioned  pb users like myself and my boss, we definitely will buy from you if you can provide Ezgui for O2 64bits
just generate the O2 code and that's all we need.  Don't have to sell to us at $39 but sell to us at your normal price


Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 02, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
thanxx Aurel
for your 32bit awinh.inc you are still moving in the right direction, pls keep up the efforts to upgrade O2
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 02, 2018, 12:15:55 PM
Quote
pls keep up the efforts to upgrade O2
ok chrisc ..i will try  :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Chris Boss on March 02, 2018, 12:28:08 PM
I chose OpenGL rather than DirectX for EZGUI for the following reasons:

Direct-X is Object based (COM), while early OpenGL (1.0/2.0) is procedural based, which I prefer.

Direct-X can only display either full screen or if Windowed in only one Window. It is not suited for using in a Graphic Control.

OpenGL can be used in multiple child windows, so it is better suited for a Graphic control.

Most 3D is used for gaming today, so full screen (or one window only) is sufficient for that and so Direct-X is the better choice.

EZGUI was not designed as a gaming engine, but instead as a business app framework. Having a real custom control which does OpenGL 3D makes it perfect for a real custom control, which can have multiple instances on the same parent form. EZGUI's use of OpenGL also makes it work better on Linux with WINE too.

So, Direct-X would not suffice for the needs of a real custom Graphic control capable of multiple instances.

With that explained, EZGUI supports the STL 3D model file format and it loads/displays STL models which contain millions of polygons in just a few seconds on a typical mass market PC (aka. from Walmart). It displays STL models faster than most STL model viewers I have tried.

Gaming engines (aka. Direct-X) often cater to low polygon count models using texture maps for realism.

EZGUI, using OpenGL and STL format, caters to extremely high polygon count models with no texture maps needed for realism (except for color though). The details of such high polygon count models is amazing. I have tried it with some STL models with 2 million polygons and it loads/display them in a few seconds on a low end PC.

EZGUI also has a unique hook command which allows one to define objects and draw them with other 3D drawing engines or even pure OpenGL. Petr Schreiber's MD2 3D model engine works great with EZGUI's 3D Canvas control using this hook feature. His engine displays the kind of realistic texture mapped models one may often sees in games.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 02, 2018, 12:56:37 PM
Thanks for the input Chris,

Please have a look here (http://www.objreader.com/index.php?topic=22.msg65#msg65) for what multi-million polygon count, multi-texturing, multi-lighting, and modern 3D in general are all about. :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Chris Boss on March 02, 2018, 01:13:09 PM
Mike, not so fast.

Follow the links for the 3D model (Biped Robot) on SketchFab and it says"

Quote
Less than 17k tris

Less than 17,000 triangles (polygons).

I have loaded STL files with over 2,000,000 (117 times more triangles than robot model).

Like I said, most gaming style 3D models use low polygon counts (in the thousands at most) but gain realism from texture mapping and shading. To get the kind performance most 3D games require, polygon count is crucial. A few thousand polygons (triangles) is not a lot for a 3D model.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 02, 2018, 01:24:16 PM
yeah,  if your Ezgui can work in 64bits then you probably can compile programs to multi-million polygon count

hence it is best to convert your Ezgui visual designer to generate O2 64bits codes
best to use O2

the problem with alternative basic languages can be summarized as follows

Freebasic is now similar to PB -- dead in the water and no further development, probably many folks will
be abandoning it

Purebasic does not have basic language syntax, making it difficult to covert powebasic code to it

Xojo is a glorified basic interpreter, it is slow and its executables are huge as it needs
Xojo distributable to execute its embeded pcodes. it does not support dll and inline assembly

GlBasic is also dead






Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 02, 2018, 01:31:14 PM
Mike, not so fast.

Of course Chris,

I'll hold my horses. Indeed it takes time to register on the forum and download the actual models ObjReader deals with. :)

In the meantime, here's the exact mesh data as seen in my dev version of ObjReader for the Event Horizon model my link takes you to:
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Chris Boss on March 02, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Mike you can download the Event Horizon model here:  http://www.digitawn.co.uk/3d-downloads.html (http://www.digitawn.co.uk/3d-downloads.html)

The site is the models authors site.

Download it and see if you can see how many polygons in the model.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 02, 2018, 08:21:17 PM
Hi Chris,

We don't have static libraries yet. But one possibility, I am investigating, is to generate mapping files when dlls are created. These can be used for statically embedding code from the dlls.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 03, 2018, 03:15:34 AM
Chris,

Sorry for a delayed response (more on the reason why a little further on below).

I don't really need to download the model again. It was done years ago. And BTW ObjReader was prototyped on this very site. There must still be some remnants of that effort here somewhere... Oh, those were the times! My personal message count used to be almost twice higher than it reads now, and the site daily unique visitor count was probably ten times higher than it is today. :D

Quote
... see if you can see how many polygons in the model

Actually I can. Can you? :)

Seriously, no. The LightWave modeller doesn't yield the model file statistics that easily. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark..."* and every bloody "pro" vendor on the market are falling over themselves to obscure their proprietary model file format as much as possible -- well, almost as much as e.g. .SLL files are in PowerBASIC. ;)

But using the LW "official" OBJ file exporter (see picture 1 below) we can obtain a 455 MB large (!) event_horizon_007_v001.obj version and a "matching" event_horizon_007_v001.mtl material library of the original .LWO model to try and import them in a 3rd party viewer to verify my ability to put two and two together in OpenGL and count the number of model polygons correctly (see picture 2 below). Needless to say that most "pro" OBJ viewers and "editors" would merely choke and crash with insufficient memory at an attempt to do just that.

Chris, if you're not sure who I am or what Freestyle BASIC Script Language is then just ask and I'll answer, and my crown isn't going to fall off my head. I am just another one of very rare, almost defunct species of indie BASIC developers pretty much like Bob Zale was or Charles Pegge or Eros Olmi or James Fuller or Richard Russel or ... uhm ... Zlatko "Aurel" Vidlanović are (I hope I spelled the name correctly, pal).

I am proficient in ANSI C and several modern BASIC dialects, pretty good at C++, and good at 32 bit assembly. Apart from my real life duties irrelevant here, I have a ca. 15 years experience in developing BASIC translators and interpreters, C compilers, and 32 bit assemblers. My long-term pet project used to be Freestyle BASIC Script Language (FBSL, now infinitely suspended in favor of more visually pleasing and satisfying hobbies). I am familiar with the Borland products -- Turbo C, Turbo Pascal, Turbo Assembler and Turbo Basic -- that used to be very popular on my side of the infamous Iron Curtain since the days when Intel and IBM compatibles were still very scarce here due to the COCOM restrictions. And yes, our Sputnik and Laika and Youri Gagarin all went into outer space mounted on top of raw intercontinental ballistic missiles. I am retired now and actually I am exactly 62 years old as of today.

Seriously again, if you really wonder why Patrice Terrier's OBJ models are so special and good looking compared to their crude and raw prototypes, you are welcome to register on the objreader dot com site and address all your questions directly to him. Once registered and still wondering how come huge, HUGE, HUGE Wavefront OBJ model files that take minutes and hours to load (if at all) and render, respectively, in a single frame in "professional" 3D modellers can be loaded, re-triangulated and re-normalized in seconds, and rendered at 30 (typically 60) frames per second (a.k.a. FPS) at superior quality settings (see picture 3 below), you will be able to not only load the models proper but also get a full set of ObjReader sources and resources (my contribution included) -- open and free.

Now, can we expect, just as a matter of reciprocal courtesy, a heads up on why exactly should Oxygen Basic (or its PB oriented clone) be tailored especially to commercial Ezgui (I gather that must be some sort of PB-dependent windowing framework) rather than any other well developed and free, 64-bit OOTB capable and multi-platform GUI library such as e.g. IUP, wxWidgets, libui and the like?

_______________________________________
* William Shakespeare, "The Tragedy Of Hamlet Prince Of Denmark"
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 03, 2018, 04:28:12 AM
Mike delivers robust critique  ;D
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 03, 2018, 08:57:16 AM
Quote
We don't have static libraries yet. But one possibility, I am investigating, is to generate mapping files when dlls are created. These can be used for statically embedding code from the dlls.

Charles has dynamic DLL creation working in DLLC. Having O2 as a Script BASIC extension module is the best of both worlds.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 03, 2018, 11:21:27 AM
by the way PAL...
FBSL have very good FORM DESIGNER.... right?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Chris Boss on March 03, 2018, 04:51:02 PM
My EZGUI engine does return back the number of triangles in a model, so I can always tell. Sadly it only works with STL 3D models.

My comments about BASIC and the need for a better GUI are simple. Having been a BASIC programmer for close to 30 years, I have lived the transition from CPM, to DOS, to Windows 3.1 and finally WIN32 Windows. I wrote customer software business in the beginning and it was more than just a hobby for me. My EZGUI was designed not for the hobby programmer, but for the professional writing commercial quality software. The problem with BASIC has been that it straddled the hobby world and the commercial world. Commercial developers have much great needs and being able to produce a high end GUI is vital. This is where Bob Zale lacked. He was probably one of the best compiler developers around, but he came late into the GUI world. For example for years, when PB should have been a standalone development tool, he catered to the Visual Basic world as an addon to VB. I remember the ads in the magazines. He couldn't get past the DLL stuff into building full blow GUI apps. Only an advanced WIN32 programmer would have been able to write a GUI app using early PB DLL versions. Bob had enough on his plate just writing the compiler. He really needed to have some inhouse WIN32 experts in the early years to help with the GUI stuff. I only developed the predecessor to EZGUI because of shear need when I was using PB 5.0, since there was no easy way to write a GUI app back then. My inhouse work eventually became a product which I began selling. Even with EZGUI being far more advanced than Bob's later early DDT, my work was still only rudimentary. I was still learning. There was so much to learn it seemed like it would take a life time. There is a good reason Microsoft got away from WIN32 development. It just was too hard and too time consuming. They developed MFC and ATL, but that was only a bandaid on the problem. Microsoft wasn't expecting the success with classic Visual Basic they eventually had. GUI development became easy and now programmers could write apps at lightning speeds. In time MS moved to dot.net, but still the idea of drag and drop development was obvious.

This is why the best thing that ever happened to Powerbasic was those third party developers who started creating drag and drop visual designers. Bob had no choice but to play catch up and create PB Forms, but it paled in comparison to what third party developers were doing. The most successful was like Paul Squires Firefly, because it emulated classic Visual Basic. I chose a different route concentrating on the GUI framework and less on the designer experience because I felt that the front end depended ultimately on the back end. I had less users, but I likely had more users writing higher end commercial software with better GUIs.

The GUI framework makes or breaks a compiler today. Windows is all about a graphic experience. In the old DOS days this did not matter so much (except for games). Most apps were simpler UI's which were only text based. Todays demands are much greater.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 03, 2018, 09:18:49 PM
Chris,

If you offer EZGUI as a DLL, why can't it be called from OxygenBasic? What makes it so special to PowerBASIC?

Do you have a eval version of the EZGUI DLL we can play with?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 04, 2018, 06:06:07 AM
Chris
Perhaps you should make a dialog visual designer for OxygenBasic, since PowerBasic has already died.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 04, 2018, 07:08:20 AM
I really don't know why u PB people call everything DIALOG
It is called VISUAL FORM DESIGNER..
In win api gui programming there are two types of standard gui forms and they are
WINDOW and DIALOG
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 04, 2018, 08:33:39 AM
I'm new 'round here, so hello everyone!

We don't really use any forms designers to their full potential, mainly because none of them do what we need -- or more truthfully, what _I_ want :). What we do use is really for pixel placement and we manually code the rest.

My utopian view of a forms designer would simply be that, a forms _designer_. Canvas, window/dialog, common objects (fields, selects, buttons, checkboxes).

Where a designer would get my attention was if after the design phase, it gave me the option to pick the emitter, which would probably match a DLL name.

Now that you've separated the designer from the emitter, I could care less what you wrote your designer in, keep it in PB32 for all I care. If you use  standard calls, no one cares what the actual emitter is written in either (do what makes you happy). Its simply a standard DLL.

OOTB, Chris might provide a PBEZGUI dll that generated all the code as he sees fit in PB to call his EZGui DLLs. He might just as well provide a CEZGUI which generated C WinAPI Code using null-terminated strings instead of BSTRs. John likes IUP, so maybe he writes his own DLL that generates ScriptBasic w/ IUP routines. I might be doing a web project so I create a DLL that emits HTML/CSS/JS forms and nothing for the back end.

To use EZGui as an example. During the generation process, ChrisB might invoke individual routines in the emitter like gen_canvas, gen_window, gen_object, gen_field... He might also call a single routine 'generate' which had all the object definions in one big bucket and the DLL author breaks it down.

Now, Paul Squires Firefly had a novel way to write custom code at all kinds of events on objects. If you took Firefly (similar to the old VB designer) as the example, every event would have separate code block per emitter. For example Event:'On Focus' might allow you to pick from the list of registered emmitters (Paul's case PBWinAPI or FBWinAPI) and enter your code in the appropriate 'final' language (PowerBasic WinAPI, PB DDT, FreeBasic, Oxygen, IUP, JavaScript, whatever) as appropriate.

Now to me, that's a designer I'd have to have. OOTB it wouldn't do what I needed/wanted, but it probably would after I wrote my own emitter.

That's just my opinions on a designer. YMMV
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 04, 2018, 10:56:32 AM
Raymond

A visual designer like Firefly and Ezgui will save programmer's time to build a dialog
and helps O2 beginners like us to learn coding in O2.   It is a rapid way of generating codes
it is the modern way.  It will attract more coders to come to O2

Anyway, with zero development in FreeBasic and PowerBasic, these languages are destined
to go extinct.  Only O2 has a viable forward looking platform.  We beginners would love to have
something like Ezgui to do rapid program code generation for O2. 

I believe it is pointless to stick to PowerBasic when there is no progress in their compiler development,
 either jump ship or die with the sinking ship!   64bits is here to stay and 32bits will fade away
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 04, 2018, 11:05:36 AM
Sorry Aurel, 

We PB coders always talk in Dialog ways ( perhaps due to the lack of Dialogs with other language programmers)
 :D

Yes, we would prefer to have a Visual Designer so as to ease our beginners' programming in O2
perhaps you could come out with something like this? 
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 04, 2018, 11:18:15 AM
Sorry to you
but what kind of programmers start with Visual Designer?
Are you sure that you will learn o2 better with GUI builder...
I think no...
I do programs in PureBasic and never use designer  built in editor why?
simply because that is slow for me....
I underst to use of designer if you build GUI program with 200 controls and more
but with few controls ...hmmm

for 64 bit ,,, well 32 bit programs are still dominant on Windows and used by many developers.
by the way u use 32 bit with Power basic and now you need 64 bit...
I understand that 64 bit is next step but real advantage is only in amount of memory..right?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 04, 2018, 12:26:52 PM
Hello Ray,

Welcome to our forum.

I have never seriously attempted to use a GUI designer, though I did look at Firefly many years ago. To me, programs are like lego - to be dismantled for their desirable components, which might be made to do something interesting when rearranged. :)

But I would like to understand more about the GUI design process, - program design from the outside in, so to speak.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 04, 2018, 01:11:40 PM
WOW! :D

@Raymond:

Quote
Paul Squires Firefly had a novel way...

Nothing novel really. VB6 IDE was and still is an ultimate example of an event driven RAD tool.

PB Inc. had to compete with MS Corp. for paying customers (and that's dead frost by definition, actually) so anything likewise "event-driven" was not, uhm, kosher. But since there is simply no alternative way to design a competitive visual, er, designer, Bob just preferred to keep himself aloof. If he really saw any other way to get out of this stalemate, both Paul and Chris would have been eliminated from the PB scene one way or another long before their respective projects took off.

That's why my eyes just bleed every time I look into PB's stock tool set.

Thanks for joining our discussion so substantively and welcome to the ranks! :)


@Chris:

Thank you very much for the feedback and welcome to the forum! In fact, your "CV" generated a strong dejavu I was reading my own. :)

So, EZGUI is a visual designer/skinning engine framework written in PB for use in PowerBASIC programs? Does it emit any actual PB code? If yes then why not make its code emitter extremely limited, or partial, or selective (or disable it altogether in the last resort) and have a demo version to let customers evaluate the actual look and feel of your product under "field conditions"? If that's feasible for you in principle then I would second John's request to let us have something to "play" with. I think we will all need some time to think things over again and see if somebody else has anything to suggest or offer.

Re. STL, that's a very primitive 3D CAD data exchange format. Alias Wavefront OBJ format is a universal, albeit rather basic (pun not intended), vendor-insensitive format to exchange creative content between different 3D SW packages. Every 3D modeler supports (to a certain extent) at least an OBJ format exporter as a limited alternative to its own proprietary output.

If I knew more about the actual code you're using to draw your STL data in your OpenGL canvas, I could probably help you out with getting a basic (this time, in both senses of the word) OBJ importer up and running to make your OpenGL feature actually useful to people. And no, I am not seeking compensation or employment or something in exchange. :)


@Aurel:

No, nothing special. FBSL currently has a very basic form designer (FMFD) written in FBSL and built around Public Domain code freely available on the net. (see picture 1)

It's a little buggy as was its prototype, but usable. I lost interest in fixing someone else's code when John the then "BASIC land collector" backed by a couple of BCX eggheads attacked me with accusations of abusing sacred GNU GPL property. Licensing legalities were not his strongest point at those times and now he knows better, but sort of an aftertaste remained, and I dropped the project there and then.

I had another project in mind called FBSL Script Factory, FSF. (see picture 2) But I also dropped it because
i) I had to write it in OOP-ed FBSL (the FSF code highlighter object required concurrent instantiation in multiple code windows) and I don't like OOP in my own code; and
ii) I had been planning to use portions of FMFD code in it but later felt kinda squeamish to.

So I concentrated on Eclecta, FBSL stock code highlighting editor written in FBSL and designed in its own environment from ground up. (see picture 3)

It has a typical multiple-document tabbed editor interface, is user configurable, is capable of highlighting and formatting properly three different FBSL language syntaxes simultaneously, and provides easy access to a number of FBSL own and 3rd party tools I used to find helpful in my day to day dev work.

-- Yes, FBSL has two skinning engines and can unify the looks of both FBSL process windows and 3rd party windows on the fly in real time.

-- Yes, FBSL can skin W'10 kiddies-first-gadget windows with Win'7-like adjustable semi-transparent colorful blurrable decorations.

-- No, FBSL cannot skin the console window. Nobody can.

-- No, FBSL v3.5 RC3 or Stable will never be available for download. I lost interest in native or WoW64 32-bit compiler development.

-- Yes, FBSL v4.0 might appear but if and only if:

i) Drake Software would not come up with 64-bit PB vXX.X by the end of the 2-year period that's required for a sole indie developer to release at least a beta version of competitive product. This period expires this year; AND (no C-style short circuiting here, both conditions must be met as per BASIC tradition)
ii) Charles refuses to lead the project under the Oxygen Basic banners.

-- No, I am not planning to R.I.P. before the deadline or in the foreseeable future.


Dixi.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 04, 2018, 02:03:24 PM
Hey Mike
new Eclecta really looking nice!
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 04, 2018, 05:21:20 PM
PB Inc. had to compete with MS Corp. for paying customers

I'm sure Bob 'felt' that way then, but wayback then the playing field was much different. The number of quality 3rd party designers was, shall we say, lacking! E.g., anyone remember the initial release of PowerBuilder? Oh, the memories!

But with the number of descent designers today, to me it doesn't make sense for the compiler writer to focus on designers and DDT-like language extensions.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 04, 2018, 05:30:06 PM
I would rather have core BASIC functionality and useful documentation then a GUI extension taking precidence.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 04, 2018, 05:46:46 PM
Anyway, with zero development in FreeBasic and PowerBasic, these languages are destined
to go extinct.  ...  either jump ship or die with the sinking ship!

We still get at least three requests a year to migrate some 'mission critical' app from VB6, which hasn't had an update since 1998! Using that math, there could be PB apps running beyond 2032 :-o 

In business, the world rarely ends because the compiler wasn't updated in 3 years.

So does that mean you should start new projects in PB in 2028? No.   Does that mean we should throw away 10+ years of work because Drake didn't provide a new compiler by Dec 31? Also no.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 04, 2018, 06:43:29 PM
Quote
Does that mean we should throw away 10+ years of work ...

The problem with compilers frozen in time is Microsoft at any moment could deprecate a function or API and your software becomes unusable in current OS versions.

Drake would be foolish investing any money in PowerBASIC. There is no market for a 32 BASIC compiler with deep roots to its DOS predecessor. They are moving to the cloud and a web browser interface with their tax software. They are already selling subscriptions to it.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 04, 2018, 08:11:37 PM
I would rather have core BASIC functionality and useful documentation then a GUI extension taking precidence.

What a linuxoid calls an "extension" is "core functionality" for a windozer. We couldn't care less also for what sudo or kernel are. That's why MS practically owns the business market while Linux is within the limits of statistical error together with its rudimentary and multiply incompatible "GUI extensions".

Quote
... foolish investing any money in PowerBASIC ...

Again, what you're calling "foolish investment" is effectively called "investment protection expenses" covering a much more substantial venture on cloud technology. They don't want to arm anybody with an industrial grade weapon of competitive efficiency but alternative nature.

Quote from: Raymond
... Does that mean we should throw away 10+ years of work because Drake didn't provide a new compiler by Dec 31?

I am not advocating an alternative to 32-bit PB. You can still buy it from Drake (no charity any more though). I am advocating an alternative 64-bit implementation semantically and functionally compatible with, if not equal to, the 32-bit prototype. Superior functionality can wait. People have already been waiting for years for anything to happen at all. ;)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 04, 2018, 08:13:11 PM
The problem with compilers frozen in time is Microsoft at any moment could deprecate a function or API and your software becomes unusable in current OS versions.
Last year I helped a client migrate a 16-bit application that was created with a version of a compiler that hadn't been updated since 1992/93 to a 32-bit version of the same compiler! The 16-bit running under Win7/32 still worked perfectly, but they needed to make the upgrade before deploying Win764 machines. While anything is possible, its just highly unlikely from experience that MS just starts randomly hacking off their core-api.

Drake would be foolish investing any money in PowerBASIC.
Well they obviously already did, they bought the whole thing (fire sale or not).  I hardly think it would have been a worthwhile investment as 'insurance' (as many speculate) if they were already planning to terminate all their PB-produced products anyway. Doesn't add up.

They are moving to the cloud and a web browser interface with their tax software. They are already selling subscriptions to it.
I'm aware of that for several years now, I have clients that use their software both Windows and Web.  But what does that have to do with anything?  Are you saying you know they created their web platform with some other tool (which I've never heard before you said it earlier in this thread)?  I'm interested where you got that information, or if it was just speculation.

The majority of our revenue comes from three larger apps which have web front-ends. That of itself doesn't indicate we used or did not use PB. I wouldn't read to much into 'they created a web app' unless I actually knew first-hand the underlying technology changed.

Interesting that there is no reference to PowerBASIC on the Drake Software site.
Why would you think that was relevant web content for a tax processor? Last time I looked, Intuit didn't list their compiler of choice on the TurboTax site.

Bottom line: PB wouldn't be the first tool we bought that went 5 years without an update but didn't end up dying. It also wouldn't be our first abandon-ware purchase either.

Basically, software's not like bread and milk. It has a longer shelf life than you like to give credit (more like a canned good). It just doesn't suddenly go bad if it wasn't bad to begin with.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 04, 2018, 08:36:18 PM
I am not advocating an alternative to 32-bit PB. ... I am advocating an alternative 64-bit implementation semantically and functionally compatible with, if not equal to, the 32-bit prototype.

And I'm obviously willing to investigate those kind of ideas or I wouldn't have come here. I hope you understood my question was rhetorical.

Something that is at least close to source code level compatible is what originally sparked my interest. It would sure minimize the next migration if it can be pulled off.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 04, 2018, 10:33:34 PM
@Ray
if You gonna do what you like then tell ur customers to fly kite and see how ur customers reactions, they will make
way to ur competitors within a month. if you intend to keep to ur 16bits then stick to that until ur business becomes
irrelevant. 16bits is dead and 32bits dying maybe ur business is dying too then go along with it
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 06:51:36 AM
@Ray
if You gonna do what you like then tell ur customers to fly kite and see how ur customers reactions, they will make
way to ur competitors within a month. if you intend to keep to ur 16bits then stick to that until ur business becomes
irrelevant. 16bits is dead and 32bits dying maybe ur business is dying too then go along with it

ChrisC, no offense but 'swing and a miss'!
- In the example cited, we were the consultant. In our country, consultants usually do what the CLIENT wants, or more specifically, the task for which the client will PAY.  How does it work where you're from?
- It wasn't my 16bits, we migrated the client's 16bits app AWAY from 16bits
- One purpose of mentioning the 16bits app was to point out none of the mythical disappearing API FUD ever materialized in the 30 years since the app was written, its simply an irrational statement given history. When they DID disappear (e.g., no 16bit in 64bit), it was widely published, a HUGE lead time while the 32bit os retained support. The APIs didn't "unexpectedly disappear", they "retired gracefully".
- The second purpose of the mention was to point out the real world doesn't stop because a compiler wasn't updated. That client is one example, and I could list at least a half-dozen more if not a full dozen! Just so you don't misinterpret that statement, let me be more clear: I don't recommend anyone use a 30yo compiler for production, we don't use any 30yo compilers in our products, when we find them we counsel those clients to stop using 30yo compilers, and we get paid very well to help them move on to something less archaic.   
- If you could point me to a Windows 32bit or 64bit application written between 1988 and 1991, then I think I would use that example in the future.  The point of the core APIs still working would be the same without the 16bit distraction.
- Thanks for your concern over our relevance and dying, but I assure you we'll be just fine :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 07:09:34 AM
@ChrisC
All that said, I'm always open to hearing other ideas and maybe learning something new. So I'll ask, given a 500k+ line COBOL application written between 1988 and 1991 in a 16bit compiler, how would you have migrated it to a Win64 platform in 60 days? If you have a better idea, I'm all ears!
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 05, 2018, 07:33:58 AM
Raymond

So you are saying that we ought to stick to an ancient compiler like PowerBasic despite the fact that
there weren't any development for the last 6 years. Perhaps sinking with it when PowerBasic finally
closes down!

Perhaps you are passionate with PowerBasic, or perhaps that you have a leash on from your master
tying  you down to PowerBasic Inc.  Can't blame you for that!

Perhaps, you should be more forward looking when you are in OxygenBasic forum, embracing 64bits
and dropping 32bits are the things that you ought to do.  Past glamour and past achievements are
just that, they are all in the past and have past their primes so to speak.



Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 05, 2018, 07:58:17 AM
Raymond

Just for sake of clarification, do you know what's the difference between animals and humans?
The answer is that animals do not have the tools while humans have the tools and able to invent
new tools to do the job.

PowerBasic being an ancient tool, is way past its prime. A business is  liken to going into an ocean
full of sharks, if you are not armed with good tools you will be eaten within seconds and that the
Drakes are not doing anything about it.  No new product announcement and no road map, so
genuine business operations like ours cannot accommodate these kinds of inaction. 

Perhaps you are just a CON man who con others ?


Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 05, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Ray must have come from undevelop country, i once went to an asian country where people wore no shoes and eat with fingers
Ray maybe lives in a country like that which is stagnant in time and still working in 16bits. By the way, i'm from Canada i doubt we
have apps that still runs in 16bits?  Ur 500K lines cobol prog should be tossed out and need to do a total rewrite and migrate its database to a newer database, maybe need a year to do this
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 05, 2018, 08:53:34 AM
This thread has turned into the best PowerBASIC Forum on the web. No thugs censoring everything they don't like and honest conversations about the reality of BASIC compilers and 64 bits.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 08:54:47 AM
So you are saying that we ought to stick to an ancient compiler like PowerBasic despite the fact that
there weren't any development for the last 6 years.

I actually never suggested that.  Your emotional overreaction, did not change the veracity of my statements.

Perhaps sinking with it when PowerBasic finally closes down!

I actually didn't come here to discuss PB (as expressed by my two examples, neither of which were PB), but I'll entertain you. Your assumptions that we've done and intend to continue doing nothing are factless, but I'll not hold that against you.

In specifics, exactly why would I sink with PB.  IF (big if) PB announced today to chuck it all in, close the forums and cease to exist, exactly and in detail which part of my businesses fail tomorrow? Next month? Next year? Take your time and present logical facts, not FUD. And keep the imaginary 32-bit is dead, APIs are going missing to a minimum. Unsubstantiated claims don't constitute an intellectual discussion.

Perhaps you are passionate with PowerBasic, or perhaps that you have a leash on from your master
tying  you down to PowerBasic Inc.  Can't blame you for that!

Please don't confuse passion with calm, logical, well-reasoned and well-planned decisions. Oh, and in the real world, we all wear a master's leash, including you.  At least when you're getting paid by someone else.

Perhaps, you should be more forward looking when you are in OxygenBasic forum

Perhaps you should read better and see that I said exactly that, just not in my response to your comment, which wouldn't have been relevant to the point.

Past glamour and past achievements are just that, they are all in the past and have past their primes so to speak.

None of my comments were about glamor or achievements. If you look around the chip on your shoulder, you'll see that past experience has proven your unqualified statement wrong, nothing more and nothing less. The world did not stop and that's the only point I made.

Now after you settle down a little, if you'd like to discuss how you're migrating code from PB to Oxygen, which APIs you know are going away, share some official docs from Intel/MS on the elimination of x32 from the chips or OS, or anything else 'useful', I'd love to continue the discussion. I just don't consider assumptions, emotional overreactions, irrational fears, or mythical 'could happens' to be very constructive.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 09:24:21 AM
Ur 500K lines cobol prog should be tossed out and need to do a total rewrite and migrate its database to a newer database, maybe need a year to do this

So you sidestepped my question. Exactly how would YOU have accomplished the task in 60 days. I'm not that good with math, but a year is 6 times longer than the timeframe.

Have you ever tried to modernize an app that old and large. Your one-year guess is WAY off unless you know something I don't.  Again, I'm always open to ideas.

In complete seriousness, if you actually could put your money where your mouth is and do a half-million loc/year, I know someone personally who would love to meet you ... gig listed at $300k+ (I know for a fact they have made offers 30% above that), and nice performance bonuses!  If you're the real deal, pm me with some background, qualifications and contact info and we'll talk!  I passed because at least in my own experience, the gig is impossible, even if I doubled staff.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 05, 2018, 09:51:39 AM
@Ray
that's my estimate time of 1 year, it could be more or less. betcha you can't find anymore cobol programmers to do this kinda of
migration. cobol is long dead, i never heard of it until i check the internet. haha you must be an old guy living in some poor
asian country? well look at the bright side, doing business there can be relaxing as there is no rush to use any trendy new methods.... still operating at 8 or 16bits  hahaha
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 10:07:49 AM
cobol is long dead, i never heard of it until i check the internet.

As I suspected, all talk. Continued sidestep, deflect to 'Asian country', no constructive ideas, just bluster. Thanks for the confirmation :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 05, 2018, 01:50:11 PM
As I suspected, all talk. Continued sidestep, deflect to 'Asian country', no constructive ideas, just bluster. Thanks for the confirmation :)

And what is it you expected to find on an open forum, Raymond, talking to a beginner programmer?!

Here we are far far away from that stiff, smug, and bumptious backyard you're calling "PB Peer Support Community forum" -- out in the open and free world where end users can freely talk directly to language developers knowing they are not going to be ignored or banned for their naive why's but rather taught and guided along the shortest routes towards the best practices regarding their simple needs.

Charles giveth where Bob took.

And one more thing.

What I'm seeing in the two topmost entries on the PB forum board where hundreds if not thousands of people used to come to expressing their sympathy and condolences, are two messages from that Adam (who?!) guy, the new PB "owner", and two big iron padlocks. If you can read messages like those, you should understand that your former merits before the PB Faterland don't count before the Drake Neue Ordnung. Your PB forum registration is not going to count in on the new Drake Software board.

So what I'd do if I were a PBer, would be rush back and make a web spider copy of the entire PB forum board and its priceless BASIC code base heritage that in fact belongs to the entire humankind rather than that character alone.

For remember my word, next thing that man is going to do will be declare a sudden PB Peer Support Community forum server failure and that will be where the history of PowerBASIC ends.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Raymond Leech on March 05, 2018, 06:30:37 PM
and that will be where the history of PowerBASIC ends.

As I said, wouldn't be the first to go extended period without updates, probably wont be the last.  Won't be the first abandonware, probably not the last either. Wouldn't be the first phoenix to rise from the ashes, won't hold my breath waiting. Bottom line, move forward in a logical non-emotional manor and things usually work out fine.

So what I'd do if I were a PBer, would be rush back and make a web spider copy of the entire PB forum board
Way ahead of you Mike, although the nuggets are few enough these days I don't bother to download the whole repository, I just save the new ones of interest.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 06, 2018, 06:03:46 AM
Raymond
Putting your head into the sand and hope that everything is goody dory in respect of PowerBasic Inc
won't be practical in the long run. With more than 6 years of zero development and collapsing
forum memberships and very little sales, are you anticipating a revival of PowerBasic in the near
future?  Stop dreaming

Talking of mythology, this mythical bird of phoenix will never ever appear except in fairy tales where
you tell stories to your grand child.  Sleep tight and wait for this bird to appear and have a good dream
which ultimately becomes your nightmare. Powerbasic is already 6 foot under and all your need to have
some soil to cover it, it is technically an abandonware.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 06, 2018, 09:38:22 AM
It would be great if folks make a commitment to help Charles and the O2 project rather than giving advice. We can do this if we all work together.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 07, 2018, 05:34:35 AM
Yup, we must move on and give our full support to Charles, his contribution to this forum is immense. we don't need the underhand tactics employed by the Drake as in the PB forum. We don't need a fake user like "Bob Carver"
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 07, 2018, 02:30:52 PM
Charles invested a huge amount of time with the Script BASIC project and the resulting DLLC extension module he created, (SuperFFI) I will be forever thankful.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 08, 2018, 12:04:18 AM
It's amazingp to see the interest in 64 bit but no mention of .NET now that COM is no longer supported.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on March 08, 2018, 12:17:51 AM
COM is no longer supported? FAKE NEWS!, as Donald Trump would say :)

If COM was not longer supported, .NET would cease to exist, since its runtime is written with COM.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 08, 2018, 08:55:17 AM
.NET platform isn't good for commercial computing because

1.  It is insecure, its assemblies are in clear text and easily hackable. Your source code is not protected
   
2.  Its .NET framework is changeable and requires regular updates and sometimes your program would stop
    working as a result of these updates which make it no longer incompatible.

3. Each distributable of your program require that the user updates their .NET framework , so the user
   can become frustrated as he has to do additional updates manually

The above issues are solved by having native codes generated by O2 or C++ , that is why O2 64bits is ideal.


Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 08, 2018, 09:09:13 AM
Welcome Jose Roca,
Thank you for joining the O2 forum.  Your expertise as shown in PowerBasic and FreeBasic forums will make O2 forum
very interesting and can promote it to a higher level.

Warm Regards
Karen

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 08, 2018, 05:26:31 PM
Can someone show an example of 64 bit COM automation?

Can VB.Net generate 64 bit COM based code rather than depending on the .Net framework?

This looks promising.

COM Server Development using .NET (http://www.la-solutions.co.uk/content/DotNet/DotNet-ComServerGuide.htm)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 18, 2018, 08:00:13 PM
Adam Drake has a lot of nerve moderating topics on a peer support forum when he hasn't delivered on anything promised or perceived with the purchase of PowerBASIC.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 19, 2018, 02:19:10 AM
You bet!  ;D

While we are at it, I think that weird character that prefers to identify sheself as Anne Wilson is in fact a fake, a multiple entity, or a bot. Sometimes that character, while going by an Anglo-Saxon name, would speak such broken English and come up with such goofy questions that I wonder how the Windows Parental Control would ever let shim through and get registered on the forum. Some other times shhe pretends to be working for a serious business company that's preoccupied with their SW security, and would challenge the audience with some crappy copy protection solutions that nonetheless would get invariably cracked by someone from the forum within a few minutes upon posting. Yet other times, shhe would respond with answers and code solutions to someone else's questions in such a way that you can't really understand how that entity could have asked all those trivialities you're still seeing in a parallel or earlier threads. ;)

My guess is Anne Wilson might well be sorta family account for a bunch of amateur PC/PB geeks. ;D


[UPD]


Re.  jumping to some silly conclusions

OMFG! To be able to code a perspective view gizmo (that funky yellow boxlike thingy in the top right corner of AW's "screenshots") that rotates the 3D model in the viewport by mouse drag, and not to be able to load a BMP from a resource without a 3rd party's assistance and advice?!!

Dear PBers, my condolences: you're being screwed!  :D


Re. detective work, hair-brained schemes

Well, OxygenBasic might look kinda harebrained to someone who's never seen or tasted anything sweeter than a carrot.

But mind you,  he laughs best who laughs last. ;)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 19, 2018, 05:59:19 AM
@John
this is expected when he tried to distract PB members from his inability to come up with a new compiler
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 19, 2018, 08:57:08 AM
POWERBASIC should be renamed to GhostBASIC and continue scaring and shocking people.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on March 19, 2018, 09:57:12 AM
I can't understand your obsession with PowerBasic. It is not normal.

Do you really believe that if PB is abandoned the PBer's will come here in masse? Or it doesn't matter to you as long as PB disappears...
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on March 19, 2018, 12:14:24 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure if your "you" is singular or plural, Jose?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on March 19, 2018, 12:43:27 PM
I should have added @John at the beginning.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 19, 2018, 02:11:14 PM
I can't understand your obsession with PowerBasic. It is not normal.

Do you really believe that if PB is abandoned the PBer's will come here in masse? Or it doesn't matter to you as long as PB disappears...

I hate seeing good people being played for suckers. Zale was dishonest and cheap.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on March 19, 2018, 03:31:38 PM
I don't agree and, anyway, he is dead. You can't do him any harm, but you can do harm to this forum.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 19, 2018, 04:24:58 PM
This forum is about an open source BASIC compiler and the brilliant author behind it. PB isn't even in the same class.

The forum isn't moderated and members are free to express their views without retribution.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: KarenZ on March 19, 2018, 08:23:20 PM
PowerBasic is already an abandonware,  there is little need to talk about it.   :'(
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on March 20, 2018, 12:47:18 AM
Quote
I can't understand your obsession with PowerBasic. It is not normal.

Heh Jose
that is our John superSpikowski  :D

alright John  ;D
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Arnold on March 20, 2018, 03:27:55 AM
As a hobby programmer I do not care much about special programming languages. After I retired I used OxygenBasic to learn the principles of programming and thanks to the patience of Charles and Mike I think I already learned some of the basics. But this happened by chance. Perhaps I could also have started using Freebasic, FBSL, Powerbasic, ThinBasic, PellesC or another programming language.
Searching in Internet I learned that Bob Zale was a businessman who tried to market a product which he developed. I do not see anything wrong with this. I can also not see that he did harm to anybody. And there are many PB users who are happy to use the language.
So I do not really understand this (personel) confrontation.

Quote
Zale was dishonest and cheap.

This is a serious accusation. Can this statement be proven? Or should I consider this as fake news?

Roland
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 20, 2018, 05:53:11 AM
All Bob Zale left Vivian was debit and a hacked DOS BASIC compiler that only Bob could compile. He cheated Eric and others out of their royalty payments and was too cheap to give the beta testers a free copy. Zale would rather cut off a finger than give a copy of his BASIC away.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on March 20, 2018, 06:24:32 AM
I was a beta tester for the 9 and 10 versions and I got free copies. What happens is that not everybody that participated deserved them, since they did very little or nothing.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 20, 2018, 06:55:23 AM
The only reason I stuck around as long as I did was because of the amazing effort you put into your includes to make PowerBASIC usable. Sad PB users didn't support your efforts.

I think you would have better luck with O2 and working with Charles. If I haven't said it recently, thank you for the time and effort you invested making COM and SDK programming understandable.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: chrisc on March 20, 2018, 07:19:07 AM
I'm a begiiner programmer, so when i join the PB forum, i was hounded and abuse by some dogs users
who couldn't stand me for asking simple questions.  how am i to learn the language when these PB users
started to abuse me for nothing and out of nowhere. so instead of friendly advice they did the opposite

How is PB going to survive if these users attack beginners, and without beginners there would be little sales!

That's why i came to O2 and my boss was very supportive as he wants to convert his PB 32bit programs to
O2 64 bits, he has given up on PB not bcos of PB is not a good compiler but bcos of the current PB users
who are not supportive but instead abuse new members and beginners like myself.  additionally the
32 bit  is near the end of the road and dying
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: AnthonCom on March 20, 2018, 10:14:48 AM
 Look at it this way, PB users, if you want to fry an egg you would need to break its shell.
 Of course there would be some collateral  damage in the advancement process,  if PB
 doesn't evolve  or  doesn't move forward,   it is  as good as dead.

There is an African proverb "When you are drowning, you must swim faster to get to the shore" 
which means that if you are in hard times, then you must work harder, let others sleep while
you work, by the time they get up you will be on the shore.

PB must work harder if it wants to survive.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on March 20, 2018, 10:56:02 PM
Hi Anthon,

Welcome to our forum, which as you can see, gets occasionally boisterous :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on March 24, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
In summation, PowerBASIC's legacy is an author with an enormous ego consumed by greed.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 03, 2018, 07:58:55 AM
Will the world wait for PowerBASIC to catch up? Single person closed source legacy products aren't in high demand. Zale syndrome.

Quote from: Adam Drake
Without getting into quoting many pieces of prior posts, I will try to address most everything here.

I don't mind sharing the roadmap that I am on - because I think I can do that and still hold to what Bob used to describe as "no vapourware".

I absolutely believe in what Bob's vision about the compiler, in fact I found out my plan prior to our acquiring the products actually lines up with part of what Bob wanted to do, according to conversations with Vivian.

Step 1 is to translate the compiler into PowerBASIC itself. After that, I plan to do what I would call a "maintenance release" - in other words, when we get there, fix any and all issues I can find, and make that available to users.

Once that is complete, move forward with future development, which we all know I would be foolish to think that 64 bit doesn't need to be the next step.

I have hit speed bumps along the way - one of which was getting a stomach bug twice (or possibly flu once) in March and missing 3 weeks of work. All is good now, but that makes it hard to even keep up with support emails. The other simply with the sake of being transparent is the translation is a much bigger task than I envisioned it being from the outset.

My near future plans don't really include trying to add much to the compiler - but simply to do what I have described above.

I actually have acquired a URL and had started work on creating a blog prior to getting sick in March and that just fell by the wayside for a bit, and I'm now trying to circle back around to it. It probably won't be WordPress - as I have almost completed a bit of a blogging CMS in PB that will generate the output file(s) for upload. I won't really have a commenting feature on it because I don't want to try to manage the security issues related to that - but I will be pushing that content to social media when I get it launched and can facilitate discussion there, and I may be able to get the forum to pull in the RSS feed here so it would be easy to follow, and talk about.

Adam Drake
Drake Software
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 03, 2018, 11:51:53 AM
Where does that one come from? I'd like to see the original if I may.

Unless it's at least a year old, I'd call it one of the most discouraging "roadmaps" I've ever seen. One does not simply develop a language between two takes of one's morning coffee. Especially when one is years behind one's competitors.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 03, 2018, 12:26:19 PM
ORIGINAL (https://forum.powerbasic.com/forum/user-to-user-discussions/powerbasic-console-compiler/42004-powerbasic-you-speak-powerbasic-listens?p=772069#post772069) - Yesterday, 08:34 PM
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 03, 2018, 03:04:26 PM
OMG! I find it extraordinary to attribute more-than-a-year-overdue idling with PB to the recent spells of bad weather. In my perception, it translates into a loud and clear message that nothing has been done at all the year before.

No wonder there are still no comments from the PBers there. If I were one, I would probably find no words to adequately describe my feelings about having been treated like that.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 03, 2018, 03:23:22 PM
It is what it is and hasn't changed since the last time I said it.

I think Charles and Josť Roca's effort using his PB related forum with the O2 board to attract PB users like ChrisC is a wonderful idea. My vote is keeping the O2 forum an open source BASIC compiler development site attracting other developers to contribute.

The fact is O2 isn't a production stable compiler and is in flux.There isn't any value in frustrating a BASIC user that really only cares about compiling their BASIC application without too big of a learning curve. There will be plenty of time in the future to enjoy the spoils.

Aurel is a good example of an application developer that will lock himself into a release to keep development going and gets frustrated when shit breaks trying to upgrade to a more current release.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Aurel on May 03, 2018, 08:47:29 PM
Quote
Aurel is a good example of an application developer that will lock himself into a release

Yes John , you have a right...and what to do else?
It is not problem with tiny examples but when you have larger programs and then you must fight with
fundamental things like strings, types and strange quirks.
On the other side i like o2 very much and syntax anarchy.. ;D 
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 03, 2018, 09:22:21 PM
Charles was right when he said enter with protective head gear. (or enter medicated)  :P

With O2 you're chewing on raw BASIC.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 04, 2018, 12:00:18 AM
Why hasn't someone started a pb64.inc file for O2?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Patrice Terrier on May 04, 2018, 12:47:12 AM
Quote
OMG! I find it extraordinary to attribute more-than-a-year-overdue idling with PB to the recent spells of bad weather. In my perception, it translates into a loud and clear message that nothing has been done at all the year before.

People who did not understood that PB goes to oblivion with the passing of ZALE, are lost in time for ever ;)

Amen
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 04, 2018, 01:00:57 AM
Why would anyone buy a reconstituted QuickBASIC wannabe that morphed into a DLL builder for VB6 before claiming to be a Windows BASIC?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 04, 2018, 02:11:38 AM
Yes, deliberate de-capitalization of sentences and mis-spelling of words tend to blur the purpose and meaning of a message on a technical forum.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 04, 2018, 02:19:31 AM
Why hasn't someone started a pb64.inc file for O2?

I suppose it won't be as simple as just an include file. It will certainly need a matching library and a parser. Ask Brian. :)

People are evidently waiting for O2 feature completeness (beta stage) so as not to change horses midstream every now and then.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 04, 2018, 02:35:23 AM
Patrice,

I seem to be one of the youngest members here and I'm still hoping to outlive y'all. ;)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on May 04, 2018, 05:54:59 AM

I'm all for free speech but I'm getting serious complaints about personal insults to forum members. We don't want to put people off by toxifying the forum.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on May 04, 2018, 07:29:23 AM
Charles,

I did my best to correct my messages and express myself in a milder tone that others are unlikely to interpret as undeservedly offensive. Henceforth, please do not hesitate to exercise your administrative rights and directly edit or delete those of my posts and/or comments that you may find unwelcome or detrimental to OxygenBasic's public image.

Yet I reserve the right to my own judgement about the world I live in.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on May 04, 2018, 10:15:44 AM
As these complaints come from 3rd party senior members of our programming community, we must take them seriously.

So, after a short period, I will quietly remove any offending remarks, so they will not linger to cause further damage.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 04, 2018, 10:33:37 AM
I removed my post that may have been over the line.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Brian Alvarez on May 04, 2018, 01:21:26 PM
  I guess adam is trying to do exactly what i started few years ago.
I hope they get it done quicker, being a team and everything.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 04, 2018, 01:51:49 PM
If they were to release a 10.05 free update addressing issuses discovered since Bob died, it would be a huge boost to Drake's credibility.

PB actually gives me hope that BASIC is still alive. If you have users believing PowerBASIC has a future, projects like O2 that are actively supported have a chance at restoring interest in language. I don't think people look at BASIC and see COBOL. (yet)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 07, 2018, 12:08:16 AM
PowerBASIC is like Frank Sinatra and Oxygen Basic is like Elton John.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 07, 2018, 12:26:03 PM
Nice to see the JRS forum alive again with the help of recent interest in O2. For awhile there, I thought JRS died with Bob.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 30, 2018, 02:13:35 PM
Quote from: J Roca
Anyway, I believe that almost all the DDTer's will continue to use PB for ever.

Forever may be as soon as current Windows breaks PB.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on May 31, 2018, 03:00:23 AM
Quote from: Mary Jo Folley
There may be some more movement as part of today's reorg. Microsoft seems to be interested in distancing itself from the Microsoft Windows-first legacy which has been in place for years.

Forever is getting nearer.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on June 02, 2018, 11:05:50 PM
Is there some tradition I missed that developers feel a need to ignore dead BASIC languages and continue on as if they are supported and active projects?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Mike Lobanovsky on June 02, 2018, 11:45:05 PM
With reference to PowerBASIC, my feeling about the language can best be described by the English word undead that comes from the Anglo-Saxon horror movie subculture and has no direct synonym in Slavonic languages. :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC - DDT
Post by: John on August 04, 2018, 03:45:47 AM
Playing around with IUP got me to thinking that a PowerBasic DDT emulation could be done (and extended) with an IUP wrapper include.

Create
    DIALOG NEW - create new dialog (does not display)
    DIALOG SHOW MODAL - display/activate dialog (modal)
    DIALOG SHOW MODELESS - display/activate dialog (modeless)
    DIALOG END - close and destroy a dialog

Set Properties
    DIALOG SET CLIENT - set width/height of dialog client area
    DIALOG SET LOC - set upper/left position of dialog
    DIALOG SET SIZE - set width/hight of dialog
    DIALOG SET TEXT - set dialog caption
    DIALOG SET USER - set 1 of 8 user dialog values
    DIALOG SET COLOR - set dialog background color (RGB)
    DIALOG SET ICON - change dialog icon
    DIALOG STATE - change visible state of dialog

Get Properties
    DIALOG GET CLIENT - get width/height of dialog client area
    DIALOG GET LOC - get upper/left location of dialog
    DIALOG GET SIZE - get width/height of dialog
    DIALOG GET TEXT - get dialog caption
    DIALOG GET USER - get 1 of 8 user data dialog values
    DIALOG UNITS - convert dialog units to pixels
    DIALOG PIXELS - convert pixels to dialog units

Run-Time Management
    DIALOG DISABLE - disable dialog (cannot receive mouse/keyboard messages)
    DIALOG DOEVENTS - process messages, sleep, relinquish time slice
    DIALOG POST - send message to dialog, continue without waiting
    DIALOG SEND - send message to dialog, wait until complete
    DIALOG REDRAW - direct dialog/child controls to redraw

What do you think Charles?

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Charles Pegge on August 04, 2018, 05:59:19 AM
Hi John,

I've never used DDT, or created dialogs for that matter, which explains why OxIde is a bit austere. Has anyone else here used DDT, who might have an opinion?
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Arnold on August 04, 2018, 08:35:42 AM
During my professional life, I did not need programming skills and so I never used Powerbasic - unfortunately, because in the meantime I see that it is a powerful language and that there are many brilliant users which contributed a lot of useful code and apps.

In my understanding, one can achieve similar results with Dialogs.inc as with DDT. The difference is that Dialogs.inc is more based on the "Resource Definition Statements"
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/menurc/dialog-resource

which should simplify using the results of a resource editor like e.g. Resed.exe. Some of the DDT statements can be done in the associated dlgproc callback functions.

Of course Oxygen can handle IUP very well and it would be easy to create Dialogs via IupDialog(). For me the problem is that using iup.dll you can do only basic things. Eleborating a little bit more you will need a lot more dlls, iupcontrols.dll alone is not sufficient. You will also need different dlls for 32-bit and 64-bit. All this was the reason why I finished my experiments with IUP. In Windows I would use IUP only for really sophisticated applications. On the other hand, with Linux it would make sense to use IUP.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on August 04, 2018, 10:06:50 PM
The IUP DLL / SO count is the price you pay for a modular cross platform GUI API.

IUP may be a good candidate for UPX.

For Script BASIC, IUP is its default dialog based UI and SDL_gfx is the default graphics primitive UI. SB also supports a BBC GUI emulation using SDL.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on August 07, 2018, 02:09:56 PM
I have started a thread on the AllBASIC.info forum as an effort to promote IUP and LED as a GUI framework, I hope James Fuller will chime in and share his knowledge about LED. The docs seem a bit lite for this tool.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on September 13, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: Brian Alvares
I believe the PowerBASIC market is big, but most of its fans are holding back because of the storm around it.
I think you are right for the moment though. I believe the people can return to PowerBASIC, but it takes a man
with enough funds to make it great again.

You're dreaming if you think there is money to be made selling a BASIC language these days. Keeping the free open source projects alive is tough enough.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC - Olive
Post by: John on October 18, 2018, 08:20:24 AM
There is hope for PowerBasic holdouts.

Carnegie Mellon is Saving Old Software from Oblivion (https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/carnegie-mellon-is-saving-old-software-from-oblivion)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Brian Alvarez on October 18, 2018, 09:38:55 AM
 John, with PluriBASIC you can also code in C++ (limited but expanding), and it compiles with (among others) PowerBASIC.

 There is something for everybody, you know? Even for Charles, because PluriBASIC can catch syntax errors not captured
by Oxygen right now, so, maybe if we team up he can focus on compiling code assuming it has no syntax erros and focus
on adding features.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on October 18, 2018, 10:34:13 AM
Quote
... with PluriBASIC you can also code in C++ (limited but expanding), ...

Brian,

If you want to make some money doing this, focus your efforts on C++ and everything else secondary.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Brian Alvarez on October 19, 2018, 09:45:19 AM
 Although for me money is a necessity, not a priority I agree that I might end up needing
to do that if i want this to to get completed. I work on PluriBASIC because i enjoy doing
it, but there has to be a price to pay, yes.

 It is strange to me that even experienced programmers believe that the quality of the
compiled executable relies in the language in which it was programmed. The language is
merely the interface between the human programmer and the machine code.

 A language should be simple to learn and easy to debug. Intuitive and enjoyable. And the
language can be expanded to increase the quality of the generated executable. This said,
even a BASIC language could output high quality executables. While i am still not at that
point, thats what i would like to do. But it seems like im rowing up a waterfall of programmers
that believe otherwise. :)


Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on October 19, 2018, 10:03:02 AM
Quote
I work on PluriBASIC because i enjoy doing
it, but there has to be a price to pay, yes.

There are two paths to take. Invest in your legacy for when you are gone or ask for money now while you can still spend it.

You may also want to take a peek at C# as it's now open source, written in itself and runs cross platform. If you can get something put together, you can promote it in Microsoft's App store.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on October 23, 2018, 10:52:10 PM
O2 uses the Microsoft OLE string engine, so it must compare to PB.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on October 23, 2018, 11:15:10 PM
Try it yourself.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on October 23, 2018, 11:54:17 PM
Anything but to use O2 by yourself :)
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on October 24, 2018, 10:22:58 PM
The only O2 code I have time to write is related to DLLC. I already have a BASIC project I manage and the primary developer for it. I also facilitate and contribute to the All BASIC forum in my spare time.i also have a company to run in real life.

Oh, I also give Charles a hand facilitating his forum.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: Josť Roca on October 25, 2018, 01:02:50 AM
I'm not married but I recommend marriage very much... to others.

I didn't need your confirmation that you don't code with O2. It is self evident.

Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on October 25, 2018, 07:24:37 AM
I don't need to prove anything to you. Getting you interested O2 took a major effort on my part. Let's not turn this into another pissing contest.
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on November 21, 2018, 09:10:29 PM
This deserves repeating.

Quote from: Josť Roca
With PowerBasic you can't define it as a pointer because it doesn't allow to pass a pointer variable by reference, but this limitation does not exist in FreeBasic.

If you want to write applications that work both with 32 and 64 bit, forget using dword/long for pointers, handles, etc. Better use the C++ aliases, such HWND for window handle, HBITMAP for bitmap handles, etc.

66 today. Anyone have a spare 6 to append and make my day?  :-*
Title: Re: PowerBASIC
Post by: John on April 19, 2019, 05:37:01 PM
I always wondered if Drake bought PowerBASIC never seeing how a build is done. I think Zale took it with him to the grave.