PureBasic 5.11 is out !

[MachineCode]

If you only use a subset of the language without encountering bugs and you are happy with that, good for you. Knowing that it's irrelevant for the rest of us though.

I agree with you, which is why I said nobody is wrong for using the full set of the language.

I prefer a software author who fix bugs instead of dumb down his software to have less bugs.

I know, I know... I wasn't being overly serious about it, hence my "shrug shoulders" comment. But there are examples in the past where software (not PureBasic) has rolled back to previous versions due to bugs introduced with newer features. Can't think of them right now, but I have seen it before. It's not an uncommon thing to do if the bugs can't be fixed.

[BorisTheOld]

An interesting conversation!

We've been using PB for almost 3 years and it's doing more than we ever expected of it. Sure, some of the syntax is a little strange, and the documentation is written in a unique English dialect, but with few exceptions it works exactly as advertised. We're even rewriting all our code using OOP, which of course can't be done with PB!!

In 52 years of programming I've used, maybe, 10 to 20 languages, and they've all had their shortcomings. A good programmer works around the problems. And if the language can't be made to do the job, then use one that can.

I would suggest that the complainers get over themselves. PB is what it is - if you don't like it, don't use it.

[skywalk]

The larger question for me is one of continuous improvement.
Each version is improving the language and the release rate is quite rapid of late.
What I would like to see is a higher priority for bug fixes that have no published workarounds.
But, even that demands more dynamic bug reporting.

[Danilo]

I would suggest that the complainers get over themselves. PB is what it is - if you don't like it, don't use it.

I just want PB to become even better as it is now. How can we, as users/customers, make a change to some of the problem areas?

To the people that use PB for business: Would it be a problem for you if Fantaisie Software makes a business license available?
Would you accept to pay a yearly subscription fee? In my opinion it would help FS, and with the additional resources they
could do better. Fix bugs ASAP and not years later. It is true, money can be a motivating factor. The goal of any business is
to make money. I just don't like the idea to pay for every bug I want to get fixed. It feels wrong to me to pay for a bug fix,
otherwise I need to wait an unknown amount of time for the fix. It can take 2 weeks, 6 month, or 5 years.

On the other side, I don't have a problem with paying yearly subscription fee for some of the products I use. It is a general
support and service fee. Paying customers get bug fixes ASAP from such companies, user wishes are implemented depending
on the demand for it. Those companies provide a service to the paying customers. They work for the paying customers.
The customer is king in this case.

Would a business license for PureBasic help to make the product even better? It would give Fantaisie Software the
resources and motivation to give us customers what we want, IMO. The current business model of "pay once, get
everything free for the next 50 years" does not seem to work very well. It leads to statements like "all updates are free,
you can't expect any thing" and such a like.

I just would like to see some changes, some improvements. It seems to work for other companies, where many
customers pay for the support and service. The customers get what they want and the company has the
resources to provide this service.
I understand that not every user here likes this idea. My hope is that at least business users understand it, and that they
would accept such a change. We would all benefit from it. The company and the customers.

The donation thing does not help here. If I would donate 100 Euro every year, it would not change any thing.

Providing a business license could make a difference in my opinion. The question is, would the business users here
accept such a change? If so, would Fantaisie Software accept it too and actually make the change?

It works for all other companies, so it seems to be the right way of doing it. Customers pay, companies provide the support
and service to the paying customers.

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

I must admit, I would have no problem whatsoever paying for yearly updates/business model myself.

[IdeasVacuum]

The question is, would the business users here accept such a change?

Most likely they would - they already are for just about everything else they use.

If so, would Fantaisie Software accept it too and actually make the change?

I think Fred already sort of answered this question before? http://www.purearea.net/pb/english/index.htm [News]

It would be good to hear Fred's definitive opinion.

[MachineCode]

To the people that use PB for business: Would it be a problem for you if Fantaisie Software makes a business license available?

There already is one:

1 company site license (unlimited license for one company site) € 499

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

MC a site licence is a little bit different to what Danilo meant, as well you know

[MachineCode]

Actually, I don't know. Doesn't it mean a license to use it in business? How does that differ?

[Danilo]

Actually, I don't know. Doesn't it mean a license to use it in business? How does that differ?

PB is licensed per developer. The site license is for many developers.

Other companies do provide a support subscription. You pay an annual fee for getting
priority support, so support for paying subscribers is higher in priority.
For example, bug fixes would be made available as soon as possible to those paying customers.

Companies that do that, work for their paying customers. It is a paid service.

Good thing is, costs are shared by the subscribers.

Just as an example:
Let's say I need 5 bugs fixed ASAP. Next week. I can contact FS and ask for a priority fix.
Cost for the 5 fixes depends on the time it takes (work hours), so let's say it will be 1,500 Euro
or 2,000 Euro (just example numbers) to get the 5 bugs fixed within a few days.
In this case, 1 customer pays the price for the fix, and all users benefit from the fix.

With the paid support subscription, the costs are shared between all subscribers.
You pay only 50 or 100 Euro (just examples) every year and get the same priority bug fix.
Means, most important bugs are worked on as soon as possible and fix is provided to the
paying customers. No need to wait some month for fix or new version.
Again, all subscribers benefit from the bug fix, so it is good the costs are shared.

If you find enough people that pay for support and service subscription every year,
the annual cost can be kept low. With many subscribers it can make a big difference
to the income of the company. It is what drives businesses. Go to work and know you
don't have to worry about money. You have paying subscribers and you provide the
service and support for them.
Sounds more motivating to me as "pay once, get all future updates for free".

If the income is high enough, it could enable the company to grow. Hire another
developer or technical writer, without worrying about the cost all time.
It's hardly possible IMO to provide such services and support for many years
if the customers pay only 79,-Euro once in lifetime.
79,-Euro is usually what companies take for 1 hour development time, not 20+ years.


So what do you think about an "Annual Support & Service Subscription"? Optional, so it
does not collide with the "free updates forever". Nobody is forced to pay the annual fee.
If enough people would use such services by choice, cost for everybody could be kept low,
so it is affordable for everybody. Price could be different for independent developers and
companies with a site license. Of course this works only if enough people here agree.

[Oliver13]

I fully agree with Danilo -it should be in interest of all PB users, that Fred/FS will keep on developing and do fix bugs asap.
So it seems to be vital, that there is a reliable annual revenue with the product, allowing to stay focussed on PB..

I understand, that Fred might not want to break the promise of "free updates".
But inmho, Fred did not promise to deliver always the full set of new functionalities..

So it might be a good idea to provide bug fixing updates for free (and thus to keep the promise), but restrict any new functionality to subscribing customers only.

BTW, this should be quite easy to implement: they only have to store an addition date with every new command or functionality. The IDE/compiler then need to compare this date with the end of subscription period (that might be coded in a serial key).

Best regards
Oliver

[applePi]

don't forget that purebasic are used every where on the earth globe as a pirated version and literally by thousands, all new purebasic versions are posted to the warez sites exactly after 2 months of its release, but i have just now checked that the commercial 5.11 are available every where and for all OS's. in fact there is a traitor who are posting purebasic for the public access every release.
a serial number will not work and since purebasic are too famous the crackers will be happy to release keyGen or a crack.
But and But and But, there is a virtue to the pirated versions in that it promotes purebasic to the whole earth . as a half proof look wolfram mathematica they use the same password generator from version 1 up to version 9. they want their product to be used illegally because this is the only way it will spread more and more, i can see exactly Dr wolfram are looking proudly to his product downloaded by millions of people through torrents from all over the world including USA, a percentage from those will pay eventually to him.
now to the suggestions:
1- i suggest every versions of purebasic downloaded by specific user are marked with a hidden number specific for that user and enciphered inside the exe. and he apply for the download in the download page and the download link sent to his email after marking it during 24 hours. now any warez version can be traced ...from whom its source . the mark can be done as an enciphered mark and the exe can't run without checking that mark. (but again the crackers are ready, but not less than a year , too much time.
2- there may be different versions of purebasic such as enterprise version for companies not for me, i will never use spreadsheets or a financial programs
3- all in all purebasic is the finest product ever and in practic it is the only basic which have a future. i don't like VC++2008 because i don't like the hard disk leds blinking on/off for 30 seconds until i get the answer, in PureBasic we get the answer instantaneously.

[SFSxOI]

Just pointing out its not as simple as what everyone wants to think.

You seem to be the one who thinks it's as "simple" as Fred telling you what changed. If that's the "certification", it's a sham.

You want to know what libraries changed? Look at build dates and file fingerprints. Fred can't tell you what changed. He doesn't know. No one does. How many instances have we already seen of new bugs being introduced in 5.11? Even with a file fingerprint confirming a library is the same, who can say it hasn't been used in a way it was never used before? New bugs come up in "libraries" all the time - look at sqlite.

The only "certification" is an accepted set of regression tests which stresses the environment utilizing a predetermined and approved methodology. You can't "take someone's word" as to what's the same and what's changed.

No, you don't understand period. Our certifications are much more than simply software testing. We need to meet several certifications, legally, aside from software testing to maintain our facility status and meet contract specifications.

For our world, each certification in some cases has multiple certifications involved; Infosec (5 certifications - all code), ISO(2 certifications - all code), Contracting (2 certifications plus certification specific per contract - all code), Operating system (two certifications per each OS as determined by the application - all code), Government Export certifications (when applies, 3 certifications but 1 all the time for all code exported or not), Legal (1 certification - all code), Government usage (where applicapable 2 certifications), Law Enforcement (where applicapable depending on application, 2 certifications), Networking (1 main certification then 1 certification for the specific network use - all code), Documentation (where applicapable 1 certification all code), Industry sector specific (where applicapable - usually 1 certification but can be more depending on application). These are in addition to software testing certification, and only when the item passes all those certification hurdles is it considered certified. In addition to those, any person who has worked on the code during its development signs a sworn affidavit certifying they meet all requirements and then their credentials are supplied with their affidavit, then in addition to that the department head signs off on it with their certification.

In our world its a package type of thing, if one certification is affected they are all affected and retesting/recoding and going back through the certification process is required. Its a world you are not familiar with, and know nothing about so do not pretend like you do because you do not. We are not talking simply about software testing here, and its not a thing where we can simply put some code together like you see posted here in the forum.

Each use of each function/procedure has to meet all certifications, for example the function 'OpenLibrary(#Library, Filename$)' its Ok for most people to use (as an example) 'OpenLibrary(#PB_Any, "Kernel32.dll")' but that can't be certified for us for two reasons (dealing with the legal and infosec certifications) because its #PB_Any use description in the help is ambiguous and amounts to no description in relation to OpenLibrary and the path is not included to the .dll. So to have the use of the function certified we have to do (for example) 'OpenLibrary(1, "C:\Windows\System32\Kernel32.dll")'. The use of 'OpenLibrary(#PB_Any, "Kernel32.dll")' may pass software testing but it does not matter if one of the other certifications are affected in some way because all the certifications have to pass for the item to be and remain certified.

Now, on to the bugs list which you are so fond of saying that our certification is a sham simply for asking what bugs were fixed. You know nothing of our needs, period. Knowing the bugs fixed will enable us to target specific deployments of code, not knowing the bugs fixed means we don't know whats affected which means that all of our code may contain unknowns (in terms of the bugs fixed not being known). To maintain our facility certifications and to meet contract specifications (which require the items to be as free as possible of known defects upon delivery and remain so and certified for the life of the contract, its a common thing in our world for all contracts to include language like this and for certifications as I've outlined above) it means, since we know 'legally' defects may exist in our deployed code (because we can't show otherwise for certification purposes because we don't know the bugs that were fixed) (due to the help, the line in the PB help of '...and libraries related bugs' was caught by our legal section and told us that legally it creates a known defect for our already deployed code) that to maintain the certification for those items without knowing the bugs fixed that all the code will need to be recalled and re-tested/recoded to be recertified (all of those certifications). Each item we produce is unique, no two are exactly alike, and each and every item is application specific and targeted for a specific purpose, each and every item is contract obligated. It is not simply a matter of regression testing for software, and we are not using, as you like to refer to it, a 'sham' process and what you posted is highly offensive to imply such and it is a lie. I never said our certification was as simple as Fred telling us the bugs fixed or that our certification was based upon Fred telling us the bugs fixed, that's a lie, but telling us the bugs fixed will help us target specific deployments of code (if they are affected) instead of a broad spectrum recall which will cost us thousands of $$$$. If we don't do this it leaves us legally liable and affects our facility certification and without that certification it means people are out of work and everything we have deployed, PureBasic code or not, will be decertified which in turn affects the end users.

So no, don't talk down to me and attempt to belittle or diminish our needs by throwing your "regression testing" thing out there like you know about our world because you don't know what you are talking about when it comes our needs. Regression testing may be a 'certification' method to you, but its the only one you know about and there are lots more out there of which you are not even aware. I wish it were as simple as regression testing but its not.

[Danilo]

1- i suggest every versions of purebasic downloaded by specific user are marked with a hidden number specific for that user and enciphered inside the exe. and he apply for the download in the download page and the download link sent to his email after marking it during 24 hours. now any warez version can be traced ...from whom its source .

If the guys have access to 2 versions, they can easily compare it and crack the marked versions.
Any protection is a provocation to crack it for those guys. No protection, nothing to crack.

I think you can't stop that. You can just believe in good people that pay for the stuff they use, and I think this is still the majority.

2- there may be different versions of purebasic such as enterprise version for companies not for me, i will never use spreadsheets or a financial programs

PureBasic Pro/Enterprise with support & service subscription for 1 year. Get updates free with active subscriptions.

In this case the Pro/Enterprise version must have some useful things added.

[rsts]

OK SFSxOI, your world is certainly more complexly regulated than Pharmaceuticals or nuclear power plants.

It's also the first such regulated area I've ever heard of which permits the use of software like PureBasic and undoubtedly the first which attempts to "stay current" with releases of such a tool. I can't imagine how it was ever approved for such an environment.

You certainly have your work cut out for you. But given the circumstances, it is your work, not Fred's.