We are allways "in the mood"!Fred wrote:We won't change the license model (which is attractive IMHO), but feel free to donate if you feel in mood.
Some thoughts about the future of Pure Basic
-
techjunkie
- Addict
- Posts: 1126
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:40 am
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
-
Mike Stefanik
- User
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: California, United States
- Contact:
PureBasic certainly is appealing to the independent developer. But as pointed out, it runs counter to corporate culture.
That's because corporate culture revolves around issues like productivity, time-to-market and ultimately profits. Independent developers who don't depend on their software they write for the ability to eat, when considering the price of something, don't assign any value to their time. They don't tend to think of the amount of time that it would take to implement the kind of functionality they're interested in themselves, or the productivity that upgrading to the latest version with new features would offer them. There's also a strong streak of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome with indepenedent developers -- if they didn't write it themselves, it's not any good.
Corporate developers, which have managers who hold them responsible for timelines and overall productivity milestones, have a completely different outlook. If buying a component, library, tool or compiler will save X amount of hours of coding, or bring them N days closer to a milestone, then it's often worth every penny and then some. In that environment, the developer's time is not "free" -- it's the greatest project expense there is. Think about a developer who goes to his manager and says "It would take 80 hours to research, write and debug the code for this option, or we could purchase a library which would reduce the amount of time to 10 hours; however, that library costs $500 so I think we should write it ourselves." Unless that programmer is being paid less than about $15,000 per year, it makes absolutely no sense from a monetary viewpoint.
The bottom line, the value of a piece of software isn't just it's cost out of pocket, it's also in the amount of time that it saves you towards meeting your development goals. If that's not an important consideration, then you're essentially saying that your time is valueless -- which I suppose may be the case in terms of programming as a hobby, just for fun -- but certainly isn't the situation with professional corporate developers.
That's because corporate culture revolves around issues like productivity, time-to-market and ultimately profits. Independent developers who don't depend on their software they write for the ability to eat, when considering the price of something, don't assign any value to their time. They don't tend to think of the amount of time that it would take to implement the kind of functionality they're interested in themselves, or the productivity that upgrading to the latest version with new features would offer them. There's also a strong streak of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome with indepenedent developers -- if they didn't write it themselves, it's not any good.
Corporate developers, which have managers who hold them responsible for timelines and overall productivity milestones, have a completely different outlook. If buying a component, library, tool or compiler will save X amount of hours of coding, or bring them N days closer to a milestone, then it's often worth every penny and then some. In that environment, the developer's time is not "free" -- it's the greatest project expense there is. Think about a developer who goes to his manager and says "It would take 80 hours to research, write and debug the code for this option, or we could purchase a library which would reduce the amount of time to 10 hours; however, that library costs $500 so I think we should write it ourselves." Unless that programmer is being paid less than about $15,000 per year, it makes absolutely no sense from a monetary viewpoint.
The bottom line, the value of a piece of software isn't just it's cost out of pocket, it's also in the amount of time that it saves you towards meeting your development goals. If that's not an important consideration, then you're essentially saying that your time is valueless -- which I suppose may be the case in terms of programming as a hobby, just for fun -- but certainly isn't the situation with professional corporate developers.
Mike Stefanik
sockettools.com
sockettools.com
I can't agree more . Now, we have to convince the companies they will actually gain some time by using PureBasic. Gathering a lot of third part libraries which uses different kind of API can take time and make the code difficult to maintain (nowaday, professional coding looks more like a big puzzle 
). PureBasic is probably not suitable to do all software, but it can greatly decrease the development time for sure, especially with a coder which is already experienced with PB.
. Now, we have to convince the companies they will actually gain some time by using PureBasic. Gathering a lot of third part libraries which uses different kind of API can take time and make the code difficult to maintain (nowaday, professional coding looks more like a big puzzle ). PureBasic is probably not suitable to do all software, but it can greatly decrease the development time for sure, especially with a coder which is already experienced with PB.
Correct. Purebasic is not yet suitable for all software (easy oopFred wrote: PureBasic is probably not suitable to do all software, but it can greatly decrease the development time for sure, especially with a coder which is already experienced with PB.
), however its definently suitable for much. I dont think i could find a language i could have made the current commercial app i did quicker in, and the program is very fast too.But, as also pointed out, corporations often define the terms under which a developer works. They could be big iron shops, centered around mainframes, or committed to .Net, or use any number of different integrated development tools. They hire developers that have positioned themselves to fit into that framework by their education and experience.
The only value in putting things like PureBasic, PowerBasic, BlitzBasic, Liberty Basic, or any other Basic besides VB or VBA on your resume, is to point out to some small organization that you are not in the corporate mindset when it comes to doing development work. I am a systems engineer, and I use it im my resume because I support my argument that I have tools in hand for doing incidental programming - programming that plugs holes in processes and helps the user community do their job better and more efficiently. And I also indicate that I do not program full time, rather I use my experience to first determine if existing programs can first be applied to the problem, and only program when the problem is either simple to address or no other solution is available.
But you still find the occasional offer for someone who knows VB and PowerBasic to rewrite an application from PowerBasic back into VB, because their PB developer moved on, and they can't find anyone who will or is able to support it. You can believe that in the future, that shop will insist on having code written in a language that they can find support for.
You have to look at it from a management viewpoint. If you are heading up a development effort, and you interview people who name all these oddball development languages that they prefer over what your shop is going to use, why hire them? You want everyone on board and able to move right into the project phase, and not have to argue with a code that this or that might be so much easier if he could do it this way or that way.
It isn't about how much easier it would be for the developer, it is about building teamwork and getting people to do their part, and if anything is going to be done as part of the product, management will decide which language, libraries, or tools to employ. You can have your imput, but everybody's reputation hangs on getting it right the first time. It's like they use to say, that nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. At that time it was the giant in the computer field. In the software industry, you can now say that nobody is at risk if they go with Microsoft.
The problem often is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Nobody trusts the opinion of a developer in a corporate setting that is limited to one language or diisipline. If you are the type to insist that this one language can do anything and everything, you are obviously out of step with everyone else, who would rather argue the merits of one language over another or specific roles.
The only value in putting things like PureBasic, PowerBasic, BlitzBasic, Liberty Basic, or any other Basic besides VB or VBA on your resume, is to point out to some small organization that you are not in the corporate mindset when it comes to doing development work. I am a systems engineer, and I use it im my resume because I support my argument that I have tools in hand for doing incidental programming - programming that plugs holes in processes and helps the user community do their job better and more efficiently. And I also indicate that I do not program full time, rather I use my experience to first determine if existing programs can first be applied to the problem, and only program when the problem is either simple to address or no other solution is available.
But you still find the occasional offer for someone who knows VB and PowerBasic to rewrite an application from PowerBasic back into VB, because their PB developer moved on, and they can't find anyone who will or is able to support it. You can believe that in the future, that shop will insist on having code written in a language that they can find support for.
You have to look at it from a management viewpoint. If you are heading up a development effort, and you interview people who name all these oddball development languages that they prefer over what your shop is going to use, why hire them? You want everyone on board and able to move right into the project phase, and not have to argue with a code that this or that might be so much easier if he could do it this way or that way.
It isn't about how much easier it would be for the developer, it is about building teamwork and getting people to do their part, and if anything is going to be done as part of the product, management will decide which language, libraries, or tools to employ. You can have your imput, but everybody's reputation hangs on getting it right the first time. It's like they use to say, that nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. At that time it was the giant in the computer field. In the software industry, you can now say that nobody is at risk if they go with Microsoft.
The problem often is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Nobody trusts the opinion of a developer in a corporate setting that is limited to one language or diisipline. If you are the type to insist that this one language can do anything and everything, you are obviously out of step with everyone else, who would rather argue the merits of one language over another or specific roles.
has-been wanna-be (You may not agree with what I say, but it will make you think).
Fred should be commended for taking his innovative 'free updates for life model'. Clearly it is working since he has been able to give up his day job.
What Fred has achieved (perhaps deliberately / perhaps accidentally) with PB is that he has earned the good will of the PB community - something money can't buy. Personally, I think he should stay with this model - its clearly working, he should avoid the mistakes of competitors by offering paid *Gold-level* support since it detracts from his prime role as chief developer and Navigator of the future of PB.
Perhaps Fred might offer a PB shop where users/developers of PB can sell their Apps (developed in PB) through the official PB site - using PBs Secure Payments facility. Obviously a %% fee for each sale would be paid to Fred.
Perhaps Fred could offer some *Value-Add* Additional Specialist Libraries for an extra (but reasonable) charge.
The core product of PB + IDE + VD should stay as it is with free updates for life - the model works, PBs customers have a bargain, they know it and (I think) are grateful...
What Fred has achieved (perhaps deliberately / perhaps accidentally) with PB is that he has earned the good will of the PB community - something money can't buy. Personally, I think he should stay with this model - its clearly working, he should avoid the mistakes of competitors by offering paid *Gold-level* support since it detracts from his prime role as chief developer and Navigator of the future of PB.
Perhaps Fred might offer a PB shop where users/developers of PB can sell their Apps (developed in PB) through the official PB site - using PBs Secure Payments facility. Obviously a %% fee for each sale would be paid to Fred.
Perhaps Fred could offer some *Value-Add* Additional Specialist Libraries for an extra (but reasonable) charge.
The core product of PB + IDE + VD should stay as it is with free updates for life - the model works, PBs customers have a bargain, they know it and (I think) are grateful...
Ta - N
I want to pay for the licence to print myself a PB T-Shirt like Freds one
Visit www.sceneproject.org
I like your idea naw.
A official PB shop, (wether Fred does this himself or if he uses a e-shop solution does not matter).
Fred takes a cut of each sale to cover costs, and a small profit in addition to that.
Should make a nice side income for Fred, great idea naw
And a great all in one solution for programmers.
Buy PB, program, and sell it via the PB Shop. I like that idea!
I'd definetly be interested in selling my software through a PB shop.
A official PB shop, (wether Fred does this himself or if he uses a e-shop solution does not matter).
Fred takes a cut of each sale to cover costs, and a small profit in addition to that.
Should make a nice side income for Fred, great idea naw
And a great all in one solution for programmers.
Buy PB, program, and sell it via the PB Shop. I like that idea!
I'd definetly be interested in selling my software through a PB shop.
It's odd how many people in the PB community nose into Fred's business
Let Fred do what Fred will with Fred's company. Pay your 60 bucks and use PB. Realize what it is *before* you pay your 60 bucks, and don't pay expecting to get on the inside and change *anything*. Like most things in life - what you see is what you get.
Will PB ever compete with Delphi, Microsoft and the other "big boys"? Nope. But it was never meant to, and that's not A Bad Thing(TM). Every BASIC-ish language you mentioned has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect programming language, or at least not yet!
Use the right tool for the job and realize there are *many* tools out there and you're all set.
Let Fred do what Fred will with Fred's company. Pay your 60 bucks and use PB. Realize what it is *before* you pay your 60 bucks, and don't pay expecting to get on the inside and change *anything*. Like most things in life - what you see is what you get.
Will PB ever compete with Delphi, Microsoft and the other "big boys"? Nope. But it was never meant to, and that's not A Bad Thing(TM). Every BASIC-ish language you mentioned has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect programming language, or at least not yet!
Use the right tool for the job and realize there are *many* tools out there and you're all set.
-Mitchell
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
-
utopiomania
- Addict
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:00 pm
- Location: Norway
Fred wrote
money to register other programs and pay for upgrades to them instead.
I wrote a simulation some time ago to help me better understand this, and the free upgrade alternative
almost scared me to death!
One result was for example that if I had, say 100 000 users, and my sales dropped towards zero, I would be
out of business very soon if I offered free upgrades.
If I charged for upgrades however, It would provide me with either a steady income in that case, or
exponential growth if I managed to continue to sell copies!
I don't mean to offend anyone, but software companies that asks a fair price for their continued work
has a much better chance at surviving than those who don't.
And I don't nose int Fred's business. If I use this language for anything else than one stupid program, It will
cost money if they fold, so this is out of self interest
I know you won't do that, but I never donate, because it won't change anything. I prefer to use my 'donate'We won't change the license model (which is attractive IMHO), but feel free to donate if you feel in mood
money to register other programs and pay for upgrades to them instead.
I wrote a simulation some time ago to help me better understand this, and the free upgrade alternative
almost scared me to death!
One result was for example that if I had, say 100 000 users, and my sales dropped towards zero, I would be
out of business very soon if I offered free upgrades.
If I charged for upgrades however, It would provide me with either a steady income in that case, or
exponential growth if I managed to continue to sell copies!
I don't mean to offend anyone, but software companies that asks a fair price for their continued work
has a much better chance at surviving than those who don't.
And I don't nose int Fred's business. If I use this language for anything else than one stupid program, It will
cost money if they fold, so this is out of self interest
Last edited by utopiomania on Mon May 15, 2006 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You have a point there utopiomania. I would like to see updates charged for, simply to better secure PB's future.
Still, none of my business really. I'm just happy that Purebasic happened to cross my path whilst I was out searching for a nice alternative to VB. I haven't looked back since.
Still, none of my business really. I'm just happy that Purebasic happened to cross my path whilst I was out searching for a nice alternative to VB. I haven't looked back since.
I may look like a mule, but I'm not a complete ass.
-
SimpleMind
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:40 pm
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Some thoughts about the future of Pure Basic
Hi RichardL,RichardL wrote:....
How can we help Fred and his gifted team move Pure Basic forward and upwards and gain a critical mass that ensures its long term success?
Thoughts anyone?
Buy more licences...
I use 1 licence private at home and one on my pc at my employer. To keep things straight and clean I bought a second licence.
The market
If a programmer switches job the employer want as soon as possible a new one. He wants to pull open a tin can and choose from a 1000 .Net programmers the best with a payment as low as possible. Niche market programmers are more expensive. Just a case of labour supply.
As long as the employers and programmers endorse the hyped languages as C#, C++, Visual Basisic .Net and other so called 'Industrial' standards, 'better' languages as PureBasic will be still used in niche markets. Therefore we have to convince them to the contrary.
As you already did we have to trumpet the success stories.
Hype
On the other hand we must look at the marketing strategie for the whole .NET hype. Is the story they tell us right? Is .NET necessary to connect everything together in a very easy way. IMHO no, it all got too complex and a programmer doesn't know anymore what the compiler is doing. It is just a very complex code generator. There is nothing wrong with code generators but too much abstraction - the object boys- will do more harm than good.
If you read the story why Microsoft came with .NET you'll see that it nothing had to do with programming but all with its marketing strategie and money.
The next 15 years we will see that the concept of the big programming systems as Visual Studio will collapse and deteriorate because programmers can't keep abreast of the developments and that the simple embedded microcontrolling will stand up. Just a case of Devide and Conquer. People just want simple things even programmers.
Problem
It depends also on the problem where you want to use the language. Purebasic is a very clean, lean and mean language. IMOH it looks like Fort. The distance to assembler is very thin and a candidate for lean programming. Lean programming needs a very good architecture and structure if you want to build large applications.
New possibilities
The last few weeks I looked at some embedded controllers for some simple data collect tasks. I see most of the time that they use C or C++ http://www.embeddedartists.com and there is one that uses a rom based Basic http://www.parallax.com
I think that Purebasic could do a fin job in this market. However I haven't the slightest idea what it Fred would take to support another processor.
See:
http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm
http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net
You might find similarities....
Regards,
Simplemind
Give me books, fruit, french wine, fine weather and a little music.
John Keats
John Keats
-
dracflamloc
- Addict
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:52 pm
- Contact: