It will be a purebasic 4.0 version for mac os x??

mskuma · Post by **mskuma** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:32 pm

Fred wrote:What's the point of so much sad smileys ? Did you read somewhere something which leads to that ?

My guess would be your comment (in the next post answering a similar theme) dated Apr 30, 2006 saying "It's not started for now.. " might trigger that..

I've just strayed into this thread since I've recently become reacquainted with my Mac, and thought I'd sus out the scene in this corner of the board..

My 2c about a Mac version - there's been a lot of renewed interest in the Mac due to the Intel Macs having been released. I'd agree about the potential interest from RB people - their exes are huge, and their group seems to be always grumbling about something

So I'd at least put it on equal consideration to the Linux version.. but I guess you'd have to decide based on market share, team member resource prioritises etc.. Good luck, and thanks for your excellent development environment.

Post by **Fred** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:36 pm

We just can't do all the things at once. "It's not started for now" means it will be started once day.

SEO: I didn't understood the gadgets problems, as we use the API for all. BTW, the IDE is coded in PB and quite a big piece of software, so i wonder why it's not possible to develop Mac apps, at least 'basic' one.

mskuma · Post by **mskuma** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Fred wrote:We just can't do all the things at once.

Yes I can understand - your small vibrant team has done a fantastic job with the version 4 release for Windows. I guess you guys would be pleased to have a break at the very least before regrouping and reconsidering the next task.

SEO · Post by **SEO** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:02 pm

Fred wrote: SEO: I didn't understood the gadgets problems, as we use the API for all. BTW, the IDE is coded in PB and quite a big piece of software, so i wonder why it's not possible to develop Mac apps, at least 'basic' one.

1 - 'Basic Mac app' : You can't open/read a text file with Mac Line endings.
2 - The Editor Gadget is NOT Mac like, there is a frame 4px wide.
3 - And there are more Gadget that is NOT Mac like ... And with Mac like I mean what XCode generate (Carbon or Cocoa).. I think you are using some tkl or what the name is... It is very easy to see when you compare ....

4 - There is NO Text Encoding, you can't open a text file that is encoded in MacRoman or UTF8 (as mostly files on Mac is)

5 - You can't write a 'compatible' text file, because the lacks of encoding.

6 - IDE, yes it is written in PB, but also have some 'features' that is NOT Mac like and I have reported before (The problem with Mac menu)...

Regards,
Sven E

Post by **Fred** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:11 pm

SEO wrote:I think you are using some tkl or what the name is... It is very easy to see when you compare ....

Here you're plain wrong, we are using Carbon calls. About all the encoding thing, PB4 should solve it. What is the menu issue, i tough we solved it ? BTW, when i look at the bug forums, there is no problem about that, so don't hesitate to open a topic and post all that so we can easily remember.

SEO · Post by **SEO** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:17 pm

Fred wrote:
SEO wrote:I think you are using some tkl or what the name is... It is very easy to see when you compare ....
Here you're plain wrong, we are using Carbon calls. About all the encoding thing, PB4 should solve it. What is the menu issue, i tough we solved it ? BTW, when i look at the bug forums, there is no problem about that, so don't hesitate to open a topic and post all that so we can easily remember.

Ok, I should Install PB Mac again, and show you the difference using screen shoots..

Regards,
Sven E

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sat May 13, 2006 2:16 pm

That are all minor problems and especially encoding will be gone with version 4 and thats just the point why Version 4 will rock the mac like hell. And don't undersetimate Fred, he can do it in 2006 I'm sure. These one Pixel thingies are probably 1 minute solveable and bigger menu Icons are deffinitley up to the developer not to the programming language. Surely PB will not beat XCode but Fred can beat Realbasic for sure, especially when carbon calls are as easy as winAPI is on windows.

SEO · Post by **SEO** » Sat May 13, 2006 3:24 pm

Nik wrote:That are all minor problems and especially encoding will be gone with version 4 and thats just the point why Version 4 will rock the mac like hell. And don't undersetimate Fred, he can do it in 2006 I'm sure. These one Pixel thingies are probably 1 minute solveable and bigger menu Icons are deffinitley up to the developer not to the programming language. Surely PB will not beat XCode but Fred can beat Realbasic for sure, especially when carbon calls are as easy as winAPI is on windows.

1 - Sorry I have to fix an PPC Mac i think, I can't compile on my Intel Mac
http://www.xhtmlsoft.com/pb/downloads/PBerror.png But I should fix it.

2 - That are all minor problems... Nice to hear!
3 - Version 4 for Mac 2006... Nice to hear to... (Intel/Cocoa/Carbon ?)
4 - And don't undersetimate Fred ... Have I ?
5 - Beat REALbasic, I hope I don't say he not could, but the question was why should they emigrate to PB... If so then PB need Intel, Cocoa and lot more..

Regards,
Sven E

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:46 pm

The problem for Fred will not be supporting Intel as PB 4.0 Already produces x86 but the problem will be to do PPC! Fred could do a PB 4.0 for intel macs much easier than for power pc based computers. The problem comes when he want's to support both. Since he will be forced to do the quad and double code for ppc, and that's very hard and bug extensive as we saw on x86.
Don't know about carbon/coccoa but it I don't think there should be a problem in supporting them only the object oriented parts are very difficult, as I don't have a mac yet I don't know how much of it is oop style.

LESTROSO · Post by **LESTROSO** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:19 pm

SEO you're right.... but i think fred will develop as soon as possible purebasic for mac os x , yes i know we have paid for a compiler tool, not for now stable, but i think fred know that mac os is a powerful platform to develop our own software, we must have trust to him.

Purebasic in my opinion is the best idea's compiler crossplatform low cost.

it doen't exist a "basic compiler " simple and powerful like this!!!!

Thank you in advance fred ,we will wait for you for an early upgrade to 4.0 (stable(like windows)).........

dracflamloc · Post by **dracflamloc** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:18 am

PB4 on a mac will take longer. Making it for Linux should be relatively simple and more people that are actively using pb use it in linux than mac.

The whole linux + free software thing really doesn't hold up. Just because some software is free doesnt mean someone won't buy software for linux. A developer who wants to use a BASIC-like programming language on linux has very few if any choices. I bought pb for linux + windows.

Theres nothing in these new macs but hype. Sorry to any who fell for it but its all just a bunch of marketing. Sure more people than normal are using it, but these people are either journalists, myspacers (meaning thats pretty much all they do on a computer), or graphic designers who still haven't caught onto the fact that PC gfx chips are better or equal to macs these days.

Am I generalizing and skipping out on the occasional hobbyist developer who might use PB to make something on a mac? Sure. But as far as massive sales go its not going to make or break Purebasic. While linux itself wouldn't make or break Purebasic either its a major reason why people here went with pb over other languages which might better suit their needs otherwise.

Since essentially 2 versions of PB4 for Mac will need to be made and time it will take to do it and get it stable, it would be wise to finish the linux version up and then move on to mac, especially if Fred will implement the universal binaries since that will take even more time on top of that.

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun May 14, 2006 11:29 am

If you are able to build a closed source software wich runs on any common Linux distro good luck, but Linux and closed source just doesn't work nicely together.
If you look closely at Mac OS X you will see that it's idealy even for andvanced users, it has Unix under the hood, hardware rendered gui (Tigers is a lot faster than Panthers, since they utilise the graphics processor better).
And it supports Linux users best friend bash and nearly all commandline utilities, thats what I need and Cygwin on Windows is really no alternative.
Even though I will need to use a third party terminal to get a better inteface to bash, it's still years ahead of Windows.

PS: Since 2 months I work mostly on Linux and not 1000 horses would get me back to this crappy windows junk, for fulltime, it's only useable for watching movies and stuff like that. And that's the point why I want Mac it's based on both worlds, you can watch movies with ease and do the commandline stuff just beside it in another window.

JoRo · Post by **JoRo** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:17 am

the software I am talking about:
http://www.cajomi.de/Geocontrol/geocontrol.htm

Why I need a Mac version:
I have written a Terrain generator. For Mac users, it will be the first and only standalone terrain generator. They need it. And it is true, mac users are used to pay for software, in opposite to Linux users.

Intel versus power mac:
If a PB version only for the new intel mac would be not so time expensive, as mentioned here, I think, just gooing ahead with such a version, may be a good decesion. The imac and minimac are offered here in Germany as intel versions, the old versions are gone. So, spending much time in an evironment that is defenintly soon gone, seems not very attractive. I think, the new intel will conquer the market very soon.
And for the between, I can well imagine, to offer mac applications seperated into new intel and old mac.
And yes, I have bought the new intel version, and so not able to compile a simple "Hello World".

garretthylltun · Post by **garretthylltun** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:11 pm

While much emphasis is being put on the Intel/Mac, the fact is that most
Intel/Mac users are new users and not exactly a swarm of previous Mac
users. It will be a long time before the PPC machines leave the scene,
and a long time before Intel/Mac outnumbers PPC Mac.

-Garret

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:34 pm

Yeah that's probably true. But it's definitely needed, on the other hand the PPC code can be emulated on the Intel Macs while the opposite is not working at the moment. I thnik though that Fred will be able to support both, the advantage is that since all librarys are now written in c instead of in ASM he doesn't need differnet libs for the different processors, he only needs to recompile them. The problem will be the changes in the complier, I hope though that since the PB Compiler for PPC is newer he already wrote it with the upcoming changes in mind.
So lets see and wait.
(Could somone owning an Intel Mac test wether the current version can produce a Commented ASM on intel Macs, if this is the case it could be linked manually (or by a small tool) by telling the Assembler that it is PPC Code, then Liniking should be possible too)