PureBasic Forums - English

It would be nice to get a clear idea of what future plans are for PureBasic. Even if it's not broken down into specific version numbers, a simple list of goals would could alleviate repetitive feature requests for things which will be implemented at some point in a future release.

Nice idea, it would be fine to see which of my, eh, wrong, the "most wanted" things may be included into the next releases...

see in the blog: http://www.purebasic.fr/blog/
Data Breakpoints and Multiple Compiler Support.

We did that by the past, and seriously it doesn't work. At every new release we got several guys which were commenting with "Man, still not this promised xxxxxx feature " and it does a very bad feeling around the whole announcement thread. We could talk about possible features (currently in work) but it means there are not far away in the future, so we keep them 'secret', so you got surprised when the beta is out .

Interpretation: We implement what we feel like and then surprise ourselves!

For me, a roadmap would be comforting.
Not so much on the tiny details of every feature coming, but more Macro in scope.
This makes for less of a letdown at release time.
However, I am never one to be disappointed by a small team's output.
I am gladdened in fact, by what has been achieved by so few.

examples:
- List new processors / os to be "Purified".
Palm, iPhone, Droid, etc. (The world is going mobile and so are their apps.)

- Visual Designer to include RAD capability.
read and execute from one unified IDE.
(this coming from jaVB2PB, just another VB to PureBasic user)

- Shortening the Release cycle to 6 months

- Error Handling to include Try / Catch

- Type casting

So, I am not sure if these are micro or macro, but dialog is the point.

skywalk wrote:For me, a roadmap would be comforting.

I agree with this.

Palm, iPhone, Droid, etc. (The world is going mobile and so are their apps.)

Absolutely.

I can wait for a surprise...

I don't think the PB team would be able to support 'n' languages... but if someone would volunteer to write a PureBasic -> Java compiler so I could develop some crap for my BlackBerry, that would be nice indeed

blueznl wrote:...PureBasic -> Java compiler...

Not exactly PB->Java, but Jabaco compiles Java Bytecode from something that looks a lot like VB

For iPhone you can forget it.
I recently started developing apps for iPhone and apple is very restrictive. You are only allowed to develop your applications with objective C plus ASM and have to use the compiler included in the iPhone SDK, which runs only on Mac OS X.

I am afraid the only way to get PB to iPhone is to let it generate objective C code that is compilable by the iPhone SDK compiler.

Hey, Thorium, completely OT, but is that the "Monkey Island" monkey in your avatar? I love it! (I wish they'd do another monkey Island....)

Anyway, I think it would be difficult to make PB able to compile for iPhone, etc because of their specific natures and the OS specific nature of PB (It's not as OS neutral as it could be). But, I could see a new leaner, meaner version of PB designed specifically for these devices. Truth be told, I wouldn't mind seeing a leaner/meaner version of PB in general: It's gotten so huge and unwieldy that a ground up rewrite might do it some good <Dodges flying food>. That's just my opinion, mind you!

Russell

The only people who NEED a roadMap are the developers of the language, Because it could take xxx days / months / years to impliment things if they even eventuate. Many times I have seen roadmaps for languages and the members / users of that language has turned around anmd stated to the Authors .. "but you said xxxxx feature would be availiable" and even somtimes even stating a time frame. .. This sort of thing does nothing but fill users/ members minds with DREAMS of whats comming..

eg: some author could state that they are working on features like TRUE 3d holographic style , virtual input just by waving or moving your hand (or eyes) and the input would appear on the screen .. True they all seem far fetched now (to those that don't know that such research is actually going on now in the real world) and it may be true that they are working on it. but it doesn't mean that it will actually eventuate.. so its all just a DREAM / wish list TILL it actually happens. I know i've stated extream things.. but even stating that they are going to optomise existing routines (or at least try to) means nothing except to the developers. Members and users of languages are ALWAYS let down when such developement lists are published as a lot never actually eventuate (not untill some one else does it first).

The best way to get things added (if the Author is good enough.. ) is to make up wishlists where YOU tell them WHAT you'd like to see added or changed .. NOT the other way around. then it tells the author what their users are actually after and then they can prioritise things that they can work on.. and learn to do things that are harder to impliment without building up false hopes

If you don't tell the Author what your actually after then they don't know and they could (and quite often do) go off on other tangents.

To me the main thing is to get exsisting stuff working first.. then as time permits add new features and optomizations.. NOT the other way round. Its no use having languages that state they can do something when they really can't and having the users getting all frustrated because the manual states that i should be able to do this but its not working.

Amiga5k wrote:Hey, Thorium, completely OT, but is that the "Monkey Island" monkey in your avatar? I love it! (I wish they'd do another monkey Island....)

Yes it is.