PureBasic Roadmap

[Fred]

To be honnest, all functions in OGRE have a meaning and are useful, but it's way too big to integrate them all (it's several times bigger than the whole PB package itself). So we do compromise, by exposing the one we think the most useful to get a quick grip on 3D. If you really want to do a very complex commercial game, I can only encourage you to learn C++ and use OGRE from it, so you will be able to leverage all its underlying power.

[marc_256]

I'm having the same limits with PB/OGRE,
and me to, I like to integrate more OGRE stuff for my 3D applications.

Is there room for a specialized forum , ideas, questions ?
I started some forum as an example ?
Some propositions ?
This is just some brainstorm idea.
Not only PB related, but independent 3D development.

please PM me for some reactions.

marc

[Samuel]

A one man massive online Game can't go with C++, it could but i would need many years instead of around 1 with PB, reinventing the wheel several times. You're right Ogre serves a huge library but i just list those which are more basic and fill the most possibilities, for the rest PB can easily master this.

In the last two years the 3D side of PureBasic has grown a lot. If Fred and Team continue working with it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some more major 3D growth in the next few years.
Maybe some or all of your requests will be taken care of, but it's also possible they might not be.
So, I'd consider the time in waiting for PB updates compared to the time of gaining full control of OGRE with C++.
Although I can see your reluctance to switch to C++ and I can't say I blame you, but it's something I would consider.

- Changing material scripts later at runtime

Have you tried ReloadMaterial(MaterialName$, ScriptFilename$, ParseScript)? Seems to work fine for me.

[USCode]

To be honnest, all functions in OGRE have a meaning and are useful, but it's way too big to integrate them all (it's several times bigger than the whole PB package itself). So we do compromise, by exposing the one we think the most useful to get a quick grip on 3D. If you really want to do a very complex commercial game, I can only encourage you to learn C++ and use OGRE from it, so you will be able to leverage all its underlying power.

This obviously won't be popular with 3D developers here but it seems to me that for this very reason I would prefer Fred spend all his valuable and limited time on other aspects of PB other than 3D. It just seems the 3D and gaming field has grown too large and complex for an all-around product like PB.

[Fred]

To me, there is a big difference between good 3D engine and commercial grade 3D engine. PB is currently in the good part IMHO, as you can do decent stuffs with high performances.

[marc_256]

To me, there is a big difference between good 3D engine and commercial grade 3D engine. PB is currently in the good part IMHO, as you can do decent stuffs with high performances.

Yes, I'm very pleased with the OGRE integration and PB.
Every upgrade (last one 5.20) is for me better and better.
I love using PB and OGRE.

With my last version of my industrial viewer, it looks very, very good.

But there is a need for DirectX and OpenGL.
There are to mush differences between these two.
Maybe I need more studdy

Marc,

[Samuel]

This obviously won't be popular with 3D developers here but it seems to me that for this very reason I would prefer Fred spend all his valuable and limited time on other aspects of PB other than 3D. It just seems the 3D and gaming field has grown too large and complex for an all-around product like PB.

Most 3D game developers wouldn't use OGRE3D in the first place. Reason being is it's more of a rendering engine and then a gaming engine.
Gaming engines usually have integrated collision, physics, networking, and sound built into them. OGRE3D is meant mainly for graphics.
One has to integrate these things externally for OGRE. Purebasic has added some of those things which is nice.
Also game engines generally include a world editor of some sort, but you could create your own with OGRE.

As you said the 3D field is massive and complex. I've worked a bit with Purebasic's 3D and I got to tell you they have done a very good job so far.
I'd like to see things like skeleton creation and vertex weighting, but if Fred stopped the 3D side of development
(which I don't think he ever will do). I'd be OK with the it because as it stands the 3D meets most requirements for development.

So, after users learn Purebasic's 3D system and they wish to progress further with gaming. I'd highly recommend learning about shaders.
Then use PB and OGRE to develop systems to make game creation simpler and make it more like a
gaming engine. Hard work yes, but worth it since you'll have your own personal game creator.

[AndrewM]

The most exciting part of PureBasic for me is that it connects to open source databases and makes everything simple. The only other product that makes database application development simple is ms-access, however ms-access does not support drag and drop, XML support and scores of other features which pb has and which would useful for business application development. I really hope that business use of PureBasic increases as that would bring more resources to the project.

I am not a full time developer (I am an environmental scientist who writes databases for environmental monitoring) but what I find locally is that there is no-one to talk to about application development. Two things have happened. Most developers have abandoned the field or have become web developers (probably easier) and that desktop application developers now mainly work in teams. The developers who work in teams specialize and most don't have all the skills needed to create an application on their own. Having to use web development adds security issues and you need to be a master of five languages (javascript, css, html, SQL and a server side language (python, perl, ruby or java etc.) and you have to be comfortable with database administration for a heavy duty database like postgreSQL. That is too hard for me or rather, I don't have time to do this and my day job. Desktop applications based on rapid application development are still king in many environments. When you don't have a clear idea of what you want to do and want to build up an application step by step, something like ms-access or purebasic is essential. I am a consultant so build new features into my existing applications whenever I need an new feature for a particular job. Based on my ms-access experience, I expect to have simple new features done in 15 minutes, complex forms in 1 hour and really complex processes done in 8 hours. PureBasic brings the complexity of app development back down to the point where people can get started and can get stuff done fast.

Ms-access has too many limitations as it is not a general purpose programming environment, so I am looking to PureBasic to fill the void. As ms-access can also connect to opensource databases, I can use PureBasic to do the hard stuff knowing that I can also do things in ms-access as the need arises. I work with large collections of geotagged photos and XML data like gpx files and kml files, which PureBasic may do better than ms-access. Everything I do needs data, XML and/or databases. If PB can make this simple then it is in a field of its own.

For the record here are some of my other experiences:
SharpDevelop and VisualStudio
Both are great IDEs but they are too hard to link to open source databases. They do not come with support for opensource databases (sqlite, postgresSQL and firebird) and support has to be installed afterwards via a complex process that often does not work anyway due to version creep. It is like they were purposely designed to keep people in the Microsoft fold. For me a MS backend has ceased to be an option as even SQL Server Express is a 2.5 GB download and a 30 minute install. Both Firebird and postgresSQL are 26 MB and install on windows in seconds and without grief. Even getting all the pieces set up so that you can start to develop is major battle that can take days. PB installs without fuss in seconds. MS-access is the only competition in this regard.

- with Visual Studio 2005-2013 it is too hard to link to databases (you have to set up connections, datasets, dataadapters, sqlcommands, bindingsources, bindingsourceNavigators, dataproviders - all this for a form that displays one database record at a time! I have read the book all 800 pages and still don't get it. I can understand it in principle but can't convert that into an ability to make applications. After developing sophisticated all code applications in ms-access for 20 years, it should be an evolutionary step to go to visual studio but it isn't. Things that are basic skills in ms-access like stepping through recordsets seem to be missing or at least there is no documentation on what an ms-access user should now do in VS. You need proof of the problem, most books on VS and dot net avoid covering database driven applications. With the few that try to do it, the broad concepts get swamped by details and after learning all the detail, I am still not sure if what I have learned does what I want. The entry barrier to designing data driven applications in dotnet is huge.

With both SharpDevelop and VS, it is common in my experience to do something to the event-handling code that prevents already designed forms from being regenerated in the forms designer - this is a killer as I can't figure out why the forms will not regenerate as the error messages are cryptic. I lose the form and have to start again. I don't edit the generated code either and try to play by the rules but I still kill forms and lose projects. VS with windows forms is not a forgiving environment.

I have also tried Qt Creator with Python. Qt Creator has a very nice forms designer and appears to be a very nice C++ IDE. Currently Qt can be used to design form GUIs without event handling code. The form spec which is saved as XML which is then compiled into Python. The Python is then edited the event handling code. That is similar to PureBasic, however in practice I have had lots of issues. Firstly just getting everything set up and working is still a major battle. When you download and install the full version of Qt Creator, there is no included compiler and debugger. After several hours of looking for these bits and finding out that I would have to compile the compiler before I could use it (!), I found pre-compiled binaries on QT project.org. These are good. However I am having lots of issues with Python related to path issues. Basically, I have several copies of python installed on my machine by applications which use Python as a scripting language. I can't seem to get the correct copy to run and as a result the applications I am writing can't find the essential Qt libraries. Trying to switch from ms-access to Qt with python is hard enough but the hassles with getting the environment right are killing me. I have only one shot left, reinstall windows and have another go. The attraction of python is that it is a scripting language used by many apps and that it required less lines of code. The downside for me is that I still find python (and ruby) very dense to read. Even C++ source code seems to make more sense. I will get over this with time. VB.net is easier to read and PureBasic even easier.

I am new to PureBasic but within hours, I have run scores of examples and had targeted most of the items on my better world after ms-access wishlist. Installing PureBasic is fast and without issues. Everything that I have tried is working. I am not confined to designing forms with a particular layout. The debugger works, the help file works (MS have lost the plot) and the compiler works. I am surprised about how robust it all is. The compiler is much faster than the others. There are no dependencies.

So for the road map. I would like to see the PureBasic web site cleaned up. I think that would have major dividends as it looks too retro (especially the PureBasic Area) and there are too many broken links to attract developers who expect to see a serious web site when they look for a serious development environment. I also think that there needs to be more attention given to highlighting the code examples and tutorials. The pb language and IDE are already good. If I do have a wish for the direction of the language and IDE, it is that making it easier to deal with databases and XML is or remains a priority. If I have a wish for a specific feature, it is commands or a library that reads exif data from photos.

Andrew M.

[USCode]

Great first post Andrew and welcome!

Some things you've probably already observed:
I think you'll find that getting a basic database app to a certain point might be a bit more involved with PB than MS-Access initially but eventually as the app evolves you'll find the features, power and flexibility of PB to be more than worth it.
PB has been around for a long time now and has been very consistent, even as new features are added.
PB is not Object-Oriented! (This is a good thing IMHO)
PB generates small/fast true native executables with most libraries statically linked, so no bloated external runtimes that need to be installed by your users as with MS-Access, Python, etc.
I personally find it easier to code my GUI's by hand and never use the form designer. PB 5.20 has a cool new Dialog library where you define your dialogs with XML, layout managers, etc.
Also check out the new BindEvent(), BindGadgetEvent(), etc. commands, they make dealing with events much easier and results in cleaner code as well.

Good luck and let us know how things go!

[RichAlgeni]

Great first post Andrew and welcome!

Seconded! I think you'll find that you'll fit in nicely here Andrew. We look forward to your questions and input.

I use PostgreSql with PureBasic and love them both dearly! If there's anything I can help you with, just give a yell.

Rich

[Joakim Christiansen]

Why not just separate the language and the libraries?
It would be awesome actually, one could make the basic language free while getting paid by users who wants rapid development by using the easy to use libraries for stuff like 3D and whatnot.

Then it would make more sense for the PB team to increase the development of the 3D library, since that is what many users would be willing to pay for! While the main language would start spreading in the open source community and be recognized as another big programming language. With a little change of how FASM is used one could use PureBasic for anything, even OS programming.

[USCode]

... Then it would make more sense for the PB team to increase the development of the 3D library ...

We all have our priorities but Fred usually keeps quiet about the features planned for new versions so if something doesn't work out he doesn't have folks here bugging him about it. Reasonable.
My personal current top-wish is SSL/TLS support for not just the network library but all network connections. For quite sometime the Mail library was useless due to the lack of authentication support and it has become less useful again as many of the email providers (e.g. Google, Yahoo) only support SSL/TLS connections to send email.
I guess we just have to wait and see what Fred has up his sleeve for the next version!

[the.weavster]

@AndrewM
For web development try node.js + Qooxdoo then it's just one language (JavaScript) all the way.

For Python you could try wxPython rather than PyQt, that way you're using the native widgets for each platform rather than third party widgets that need installing like Qt. There's also a free open source visual form designer called wxGlade that generates a Python Class from your design and you can then just subclass that to add your event handling, etc...

[AndrewM]

I wonder if there is any kind of release timetable? It would be nice to know when to expect the next version even in approximate terms.

[Lebostein]

Is there anywhere a roadmap of the PB development? How is the future? Is it worth to stick to this language? Are there any specific goals for the future planned?