My apologies

Chris Boss · Post by **Chris Boss** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:08 pm

I would like to apologize if my post in another thread was offensive to some. I was not attempting to hijack the thread.

I simply noticed one unhappy user of my software (which will remain unnamed) which complained that the software license would not allow him to sell it to another party, so as to recoup costs. I just wanted anyone who felt that way to know they the license does allow transfering to another party if they really want to.

Another complaint made was the price of upgrades and I simply wanted to explain the reasoning for that.

I recognize that everyone has different tastes in programming languages and they may like one over the other (as well as other programming tools). Thats fine and quite understandable.

I browse a number of programming forums, simply because I am interested in different programming languages. I have probably downloaded dozens of different programming languages to try out.

Purebasic looks quite interesting!

It appears to have a very strong user base as well.

Again my apologies.

netmaestro · Post by **netmaestro** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:16 pm

Absolutely no sweat, Chris. I've learned a lot from your posts on the PowerBasic forums and from what I've seen your product is excellent. It isn't a sin to talk about it. We'd love to have you around here and if you give PureBasic a try I know you'll find a lot to love about it. I wouldn't lose much sleep over offending someone who's edited all his posts out of the thread and removed the title as well.

Chris Boss · Post by **Chris Boss** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:23 pm

I am curious about the level of the current Visual Designer for PureBasic.

From the online docs, I couldn't tell how it well it worked. It is obviously not integrated, but is an external tool.

Now that I am developing Visual Designers for 100% source code generation (not related to my main product) for the other PB compiler (I have a feeling thats a bad word on this forum), it could be ported to other Basic programming languages.

Would it be worth the effort to do this for Purebasic ?

Or is the current Visual Designer already at a high level.

BriceManuel · Post by **BriceManuel** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:31 pm

It depends on the platform. PB supports four platforms, one of which is deprecated (Amiga).

For Windows the VD is fairly complete (see the latest beta in the Visual Designer thread). There are two third-party VDs for Windows (One free, one shareware).

AFAIK, there is still not a VD for OSX. And the Linux VD has just appeared as a beta.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:40 am

That is the one area that PureBasic is kind of weak in is that other than Edwin's PBDev which is now only being worked on to fix bugs, there is nothing like FireFly, Phoenix or EZGUI available for it.

If it wasn't for it's reliance on Visual Basic/PowerBasic BSTRs, EZGUI would probably be a great addition to PureBasic, especially if it was distributed as a user library which makes all it's commands a part of PureBasic rather than external DLL function calls.

That and a visual designer to go with it would be totally awesome!

BriceManuel · Post by **BriceManuel** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:53 am

Tipperton wrote: is that other than Edwin's PBDev

Oops, I forgot one, that would be the third third-party VD and the worst IMHO.

For third-party VDs:

PureVision XP is the best
PureForm is the second best

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:05 am

BriceManuel wrote:
Tipperton wrote: is that other than Edwin's PBDev
Oops, I forgot one, that would be the third third-party VD and the worst IMHO.

Really, I thought it was the best. At least until Edwin ceased all new development on it, now it's getting rather stale and I have quit using it in favor of PureBasic's built in designer, it's not great but its easy to use and it works.

BriceManuel · Post by **BriceManuel** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:14 am

I was merely naming the third-party ones so Chris would be aware of them. Personally, I use the official VD, although I am not thrilled with it.

I believe Chris's new line of streamlined VDs generate code only (no DLL or other dependencies), which would be ideal for a PureB version. In theory, the generated code "should" compile under Linux or Mac, just as PB's VD's code does.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:21 am

BriceManuel wrote:I was merely naming the third-party ones so Chris would be aware of them. Personally, I use the official VD, although I am not thrilled with it.

Sorry

BriceManuel wrote:I believe Chris's new line of streamlined VDs generate code only (no DLL or other dependencies), which would be ideal for a PureB version. In theory, the generated code "should" compile under Linux or Mac, just as PB's VD's code does.

It will as long as he sticks to PureBasic's built-in commands and avoids windows API calls. IIRC PBDev used API calls so the code you generated with it only worked for Windows. However AFAIK all the other languages he mentioned writing designers for rely on Windows API calls for handling GUIs so it's likely that anything he did for PureBasic would as well.

BriceManuel · Post by **BriceManuel** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:24 am

Tipperton wrote:IIRC PBDev used API calls so the code you generated with it only worked for Windows.

Ack, yeppers, that would be true and would also explain the state PBDev is in. "Windows only" rarely passes muster in the PB community

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:28 am

BriceManuel wrote:Ack, yeppers, that would be true and would also explain the state PBDev is in. "Windows only" rarely passes muster in the PB community

Yup, even though right now I'm only interested in writing for Windows, I prefer to use the built-in commands because they're easier to understand and don't close the door on other platforms should the day come that I need to write something for them.

Chris Boss · Post by **Chris Boss** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:36 am

My new line of Visual Designers are 100% source code designers (no runtimes). They generate code based on the compiler supported (currently only the other PB). As long as a compiler supports a standard Basic language syntax (for things like subs/functions and the core basic statements like SELECT CASE, GOSUB, IF THEN) and has its own GUI command set, it would not be too difficult to port the designer over.

The new Designers use a different approach for code generation. The Designer acts like a front end to the compilers code editor and it generates the source code for an entire project and then generates a disk file and then runs the compilers code editor so it autoloads the file.

There are certain routines which are considered "protected", meaning that only the deisgner can make changes to them, while the others (ie. event routines) can be edited to add your own code.

When you exit the code editor, you are brought back to the Designer. You can then make changes to the forms/controls. Now when you regenerate the code, the proprietary "Smart Parser" takes over. It literally rewrites all your code to make the GUI changes while leaving alone the parts you edit. All protected routines will get rewritten.

You can move seamlessly between the designer and your compilers code editor.

The Smart Parser technology is what makes it all work, so the Designer feels integrated with the compilers code editor.

I may consider porting it to other programming languages. The only thing is that I am a BASIC only programmer and have a long history with Microsoft compatible compilers. When BASIC compilers deviate from the standard syntax of Microsoft Basic (the core command set dating back to DOS Basics), it makes it difficult for me to work with that compiler.

Chris Boss · Post by **Chris Boss** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:02 am

I can say this, the richer a compilers command set is as far as GUI commands, the more I have to work with. The less I have to call the Windows API and can use only built in commands, the better, IMO.

Here are a few screenshots of the 100% code Designers:

http://cwsof.com/pdlg1.png

http://cwsof.com/pdlg2.png

http://cwsof.com/pdlg3.png

http://cwsof.com/pdlg4.png

http://cwsof.com/pdlg5.png

BriceManuel · Post by **BriceManuel** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:04 am

Chris: PureB tends to be BASIC. Fred is quite outspoken about keeping it that way and not adding things like OOP.

Chris, one thing and this should be the first thing you ask yourself when considering supporting another language is what is its history, how long has it been around, how actively is it updated, and how long will it be around in the future.

IMHO, PureB would be a prime target for you. It has been around for many, many years. The PB team is an actual team, not just one person keeping the language updated. It is actively updated (read the history/change logs) to be kept current with modern technology and is always getting new features. Based on its history and all the work Fred and the team continue to pour into it, I think it has a bright future ahead of it. Being multiplatform, PB is not tied to the success of one particular OS.

There is a large and well-established userbase, and the support from the users is a big factor. This is a product the users believe in and they back it up by supporting it. There are more user-made libs, dlls, addons and expansions available for PB than any other indie programming language. A small sample is at http://www.purearea.net

Chris Boss · Post by **Chris Boss** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:46 am

The multi-platform development does interest me!

I have a number of PC's and I am adding more OS (operating systems) to my experience.

I have not only Windows PC's (95, XP, Vista), but I also have PC's with Linux (SUSE, Lycoris and other flavors). I also have a few Macs. Most of them are older Macs (Powermac 7100 and 7500) with Mac OS 7.53, but I also purchased a used IMac and plan to get OS 9.2 (and possibly OS X later) for it.

I am very interested in cross platform development.