PureBasic Forums - English

It's already two products

It is, and it isn't.
Fred said

SpiderBasic is based on the current PB compiler (with a separate backend which output javascript instead of assembly code)

.....so, SpiderBasic does not have to be a completely separate product, which is how the discussion came about with regards to the possibility of having a SuperPB instead.

I think the separation of SB and PB is somewhat artificial, because Fred wants to honour the notion of free PB updates for life. I certainly respect that. Ultimately though, the future of SP and PB depends entirely on Fantaisie Software's profits. Brilliant though he undoubtedly is, Fred cannot survive on enthusiasm and complimentary encouragement from us, what he needs at the end of the day is money. I think others here recognise this too, and there is no harm in expressing concern - Fred deserves success, he is successful -it doesn't mean he always knows better than everyone else on every subject. Throwing ideas his way is constructive, even if at the end of the day they help Fred to confirm that his first strategy is the right strategy.

Ultimately though, the future of SP and PB depends entirely on Fantaisie Software's profits. Brilliant though he undoubtedly is, Fred cannot survive on enthusiasm and complimentary encouragement from us, what he needs at the end of the day is money. I think others here recognise this too, and there is no harm in expressing concern -

It's exactely what i try to say with my english like a spanish cow , since several posts....but in true and nice english

I'm sorry Fred, it's because of the way the SpiderBasic announcement came about. It was always going to generate a huge discussion amongst the faithful. Perhaps the Forum Board Index needs some additions to accommodate SpiderBasic? If you are not happy to see the PB crowd discuss SB, just delete the discussion, we will get the message

love is much talk

Please stop talking about my survival, I'm fine don't worry .

About the program split, we though a lot about it as it would be indeed easier for us to have only one product, but it just won't work. These are really two differents things, you can't just do PureBasic for Web. It won't work, it's just not possible as the web plateform is much more limited. So what would be the point to have PureBasic for Web when no program (and I really mean it) would run out of the box ? Remember, there is no hardware access, no pointer, no memory access, very limited file access, no database, no "up to bottom" program workflow. It's just a different product and it has to be a different product, which will provide custom workflow trough callbacks.. The fact it borrows a lot to PureBasic commandset is a good things as it makes the programming easier, but don't be fooled, it will grows on it own and will provides commands which will not be available on PureBasic. It couldn't be possible if we had to stick to one product. Everyone which already know a bit about web development already know that, for the other it's time to learn if you want to .

IdeasVacuum wrote: http://qt.digia.com/

Ahh, that QT. Not a competitor to PureBasic in any way. QT is a library not a programming language.

So, I will use whatever I think is the best spanner that I can afford to undo those pesky nuts. Sir Clive Sinclair once tried to explain a data recorder spec to Sir Alan Sugar. "I don't care if they have rubber bands in them" replied Sugar, "as long as they work".

I agree 100%. And what tool may work best for one person doing a job, may not work best for another person doing the same job. I use a lot of different tools, depending on the project.

Nevertheless, if something came along from another company that was clearly far better for my purposes, then I would jump ship -and so I think would everybody else.

I agree 100%.

For many folks, Fred just gave them yet another tool for their toolbox.

Fred wrote:Please stop talking about my survival, I'm fine don't worry ..

I don't know... Based on the pictures of you, we should be sending over some care packages of food...

Kuron wrote:

Fred wrote:Please stop talking about my survival, I'm fine don't worry ..

I don't know... Based on the pictures of you, we should be sending over some care packages of food...

> Based on the pictures of you, we should be sending over some care packages of food

No, otherwise he'll end up like the fat guy in KCC's post!

Fred wrote:It won't work, it's just not possible as the web plateform is much more limited. So what would be the point to have PureBasic for Web when no program (and I really mean it) would run out of the box ? Remember, there is no hardware access, no pointer, no memory access, very limited file access, no database, no "up to bottom" program workflow.

Fred, I hope I won't get slapped for prolonging this discussion. But... With everything you said above, can I ask you why did you decide to go with web development instead of native Android/iOS support in the first place? I personally don't know much about developing websites but if it is so limited in many ways wouldn't you as a company have wider market audience (thus income) by supporting more native platforms? Don't get me wrong, I have seen quite a few nifty pure-web applications (and have been working on one indirectly) but non the less they all stop (brick-wall) when you have to do more trivial tasks which, again, takes us back to native level software application development. Perhaps you might want to share your thoughts on the future of SB: what kind of functionality you plan on adding and what kind of web applications we will be able to build once it hits a certain point of maturity?

> why did you decide to go with web development instead
> of native Android/iOS support in the first place?

My guess is because then the apps wouldn't work everywhere.
Android and iOS apps mean you can't run the apps anywhere;
you need one of those devices to run them. With web apps,
you can run them in any modern browser on any device with
internet access (Android/iOS/PC/Mac/Linux/etc).

PB wrote:> why did you decide to go with web development instead
> of native Android/iOS support in the first place?

My guess is because then the apps wouldn't work everywhere.
Android and iOS apps mean you can't run the apps anywhere;
you need one of those devices to run them. With web apps,
you can run them in any modern browser on any device.

Well, yes, the question was whether the restrictions imposed by 'sand-boxed' browser web application format will not limit the full potential of the product.

The plan is to bring web apps to iOS/Android trough native JS containers, but more on this when SpiderBasic will be up and running

Is there a command to change the skin of the SpiderBasic windows and gadgets at runtime?

To get the fixed sprite lib, do I just have to download SpiderBasic again, or will
Alpha updates always get announced somewhere in the middle of this long thread here?
Alpha 1.00 2nd upload is latest, or did I miss an update already?

You can't change the skin at runtime for now, but you can change it in the HTML (look for 'class="claro"').

I will change the topic name to identify new alpha, don't worry. It will be probably released on sunday, with tons of improvements.