I am still in shock over this: http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showthread.php?t=51887
Please take the time to respond to that thread. Bob Zale is the reason FireFly exists and why we are together here as a community. He will certainly be missed.
I have been struggling with this all day. It will be interesting to see where PB goes from here. Bob passed away 3 weeks ago so I assume that in that time frame the company has followed through on some type of succession plan. It will be critical for all of us to see what direction the compiler goes in now or if this is the end of it.
I am comforted by this quote from Jim Bailey, PB employee:
Quote
Development is continuing in multiple projects by competent programmers in R&D. We still have many, many projects that Bob had proposed that still need to be implemented.
I just worry about the "still need to be implemented" part - who is actually going to do that implementation? I imagine that the compiler itself was closely guarded and coded by Bob himself. I hope that someone there is able to continue on with it. I remember years ago that there was a push within PB to convert the compiler itself into PB code however in the end that they stuck with assembly language. I wonder if that conversion will now happen. I guess that I am wondering about many things.....
I have the same concerns. It looks like Bob's wife, Vivian, is in her early 70's and I would guess that a likely scenario would be for her to sell the company. I imagine Bob was nearly 100% of the PowerBasic energy and though I have no way to know, I would be very surprised if it is business as usual. I suppose it is possible she would keep the company for sentimental reasons but very few people in their 70's can carry on a business, much less one that you did not create. I never heard of Bob having kids that were involved with the company. Powerbasic was written by a skilled assembly language programmer. I can not imagine that will be easy for someone else to maintain much less rewrite Powerbasic in a major way for something like a 64 bit compiler. I can see the current employees being able to add a few commands here and there and clean up things where needed but I see the current version as probably the last meaningfull version. We will see though.
Assumptions:
1- The technical staff at PowerBasic are able to carry on with powerbasic ..
If this be the case then technically there is no reason the compiler will not continue on..
Perhaps Mrs. Zale will allow the current staff to ' buy ' powerbasic ' .. or maybe all of the owners of licenses could buy in on it.
If Mr. Zale was anything near the age of his wife I can't imagine he never gave thought as to what to do with 'powerbasic' as a company.. perhaps time will tell..
Bob was 66 when he passed away. Personally, given Bob's personality, I can't imagine that he shared too much of the compiler code with anyone else. Hopefully I am wrong about that. It is nice to see Steve Rossell post again. I had feared that he had left the company because he used to post regularly and then all of sudden nothing. We saw that happen to others like Lance and Tom. Not sure what job this Jim Bailey guy holds with the company. Sales? Marketing? Programmer? I would be surprised if there are more than 5 or 6 employees in the whole company.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a 64 bit compiler.
I am now worried that true ActiveX support for visual controls may not happen anytime soon.
I plan to hedge my bets over the next couple of months. I have already downloaded SharpDevelop and am learning C# (rather than vb.net). We'll see how all this plays out between now and after Christmas. Not trying to be pessimistic... rather more like realistic. The PowerBasic team could use the talents of the likes of Jose and Dominic to help get the compiler to the next level. I'm sure that Mrs. Zale is a very nice person but I am not putting all my programming future into her hands just yet.
Personally, I want to see a published roadmap of where PB plans to head over the next year or two. Time to let go of the no vaporware policy and give us developers real insight into the product's direction.
I really want to stick with PB but I have seen it happen way too many times when the lead person of a product leaves then the product eventually just becomes irrelevant way too quickly.
I hope that PB proves me 100% wrong.
I have always wondered if the Powerbasic compiler was just a small part Powerbasic Inc. It has never seemed like software sales could not generate enough cash flow for even 4 employees. If you sold 1000 compilers a year that is only $150,000 to $200,000 per year gross. I have a feeling that is high side. If the address was a real address and not a PO box, then you have rent. With major updates only once every 3 years, I have to assume consulting was a big part of the cash generation. With Bob gone, that is gone. If Jim Bailey, Steve Rossell or Jeff Daniels leave Vivian probably would not know where to begin to look for replacements. She is probably nervous, especially if there is no office and everyone telecommutes. Powerbasic is a brilliant piece of software and only a brilliant , inspired and manically focus person can take it to the next level. Again, a long shot. I have a feeling none of the employees could come up with the coin that Vivian thinks the compiler is worth and employees do not have a piece of the action to stick around. Probably what will happen is the Turly route where the business is sold (second round) and the buyer will sell licenses on pretty much the old work.
I doubt there are many great ASM programmers out there that really understand how windows works. There are still many who program micro controllers in ASM but its not close to the same thing. It seems like it is too late now to port PB from ASM to PB. I wish I would have learned Delphi 20 years ago.
Anyway if they can add ActiveX support for visual controls then Pb would last me the rest of my programming years, the few I have left. I'm sure PB 10 will be just fine for my needs but ActiveX support for visual controls make it much better.
I truly hope PB can survive and grow. As said in the posts above it will take the right people in the right atmosphere.
Very sorry to see Bob leave us.
Doug
Quote
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a 64 bit compiler.
I am now worried that true ActiveX support for visual controls may not happen anytime soon.
Check this link on the PowerBasic forum http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=64 (http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
Seems like they intend business as usual
Julian
Thanks Julian - I have been following every word in those threads for the past week. I am interested in seeing what leadership emerges from this tough time for PB. Without Bob Zale steering the ship then I would like to know where the boat is headed. Updates to the compiler have always been traditionally slow. Without Bob will those updates now be even slower?
The comment about a 64 bit compiler is troubling. Everything in the industry is at the 64 bit stage now and PB is once again playing catch up (remember how it took to finally get COM cababilities and some sort of OOP?). From reading the post it seems like PB thoughts are that it will be a separate standalone product at some point much later? I have long argued that PB should have one compiler capable of producing Windows/GUI and Console EXE's/DLL's. Now there should only be one compiler cabable of producing 32/64 bit GUI and Console programs. Separate products is just a money grab. Internally the difference between producing a GUI and Console program are minimal other than an EXE header modification and runtime functions specifically geared for each platform.
I am very pessimistic, because since Bob has passed, everything gets hung.
I can't see anybody able to take up on his work.
I have asked Jim and the said "programming team" to present themselves, to tell us what their expertise(s) are, and the only answered i got, is that the thread, i have posted in, was closed.
...
Anyone has tried FreePascal? I'm tempted to try it using my SDK way of programming, that is without Lazarus, that adds a lot of bloat.
Quote
It's also important to note that the hello world Lazarus software already includes a huge amount of features. It includes:
XML handling library
Image handling library for png, xpm, bmp and ico files
Almost all widgets from the Lazarus Component Library
All of the Free Pascal Runtime Library
So it's very big, but it already includes almost everything a real world non-trivial app will need.
I am very sad about the death of Bob...I have no words...Who knows what will be hands compiler
I love working with Firefly and PowerBasic, but we do not know the future of PB for continuity ... anyone have any
experience with PureBasic?...PureBasic can be an alternative?...
There are good programmers as Jose Roca, Paul Squires, James Klutho, Dominic Mitchell, Michael Mattias who are very talented ... I think the staff should PowerBasic lean on them ... and many more of the forum would be a PB ...
shame that ended a great product here.
p.d. sorry for my bad English ... not sure if it was translated correctly
The reason why we are so anxoius, is because Bob Zale had such a strong personnality that he was controlling everything. He was not only the Boss, but also the core (if not the single) programmer of the compilers, working days and nights, 7/7 days, 365/365 days per year, on his life work of art.
Without knowing the profile of Jim and team, i think there are very little chance for them to take his place, except if they are themselves genious, and if they do not have any family life.
...
While I don't doubt Bob had a major influence in PB products... I can't imagine that he performed the ' grunt ' work of coding... I have to guess that his coding staff did the brunt of the work there.
My main concern at this stage is the unknown of ' PowerBasic ' as a company.
Hi James, maybe you're right although I am pretty sure that the compiler itself was coded pretty much exclusively by Bob. I believe that PBForms was contracted to Calvin Chipman and maybe Borje later on. The PB editor was written in PB and I think staffers such as Lance Edmonds did work on it.
Of course, I could be wrong. :)
Quotethe compiler itself was coded pretty much exclusively by Bob
The only exception, was at the time of PBDK, that was written by my friend Philippe Monteil in the early 90's, but since that time, Bob takes back everything in 16-bit TASM assembly, switching to 32-bit assembly only a few years ago.
The in-house team, has always been a very small structure, second hands working on subordinate tasks, like PBEdit, PBForm, include files, PowerTree, and direct contracting ...
The thing with issues like these for dummies like me, is WHAT NOW?
I have just started to get the basic hang of Firefly and Powerbasic and already I have to ask myself, NOW WHAT?
Should I stop now with the little I know and jump into Sharpdevelop on C#, but hell, that is like going from English to Arab in a week.
Especially guys like me that came with the Basic environment for centuries, learning a new language is hell. The clever bunch here like Paul, Jose and Patrice may not have an issue like me.
This is truly a worrying issue, lets hope someone buys the company.
Then again in Paul and Jose takes the company you will see spark fly and a new generation Powerbasic to match!
A very simple fact will help you:
Your PowerBasic is working. Its working now, it will be useful in 2 years already.
All you have (including FF) is very functional and ready to strike for you.
Actually, all politics aside, regarding the question "what should I do now?"... you might want to evaluate your market.
If you want to program for smart phones or tablets, you'd head one direction.
If you want to program corporately, you'd head another direction.
If you want to program as a hobby, etc. etc.
As for me PowerBasic, FireFly, and SQLitening will still do the work - even if PowerBasic would not be developed further. There are still quite a few using VB6, I myself am still keeping up a few projects that were written VB6. So I think I am good with it until Alzheimer knocks on my door.
BTW - I occasionally make an Alzheimer test. If I can still remember Professor Alzheimer's first name (Alois) then I am OK.
Rolf
I see this pragmatically as Theo.
My applications run on W7-32/64 and W8-64.
So I calmed down to wait for the development of PB.
Rudolf Fuerstauer
QuoteSo I calmed down to wait for the development of PB.
Then, wait for Robert Zale's parousia.
...
QuoteThen, wait for Robert Zale's parousia.
I've understood that you give PB no future.
For me, there is currently no reason to fall into panic.
When I see in a year that nothing developed in PB, I will start new projects using C # or QT.
There are many alternatives for a programmer.
Just stay calm. 8)
I know this thread has been running since last year but here is another, yet different, alternative to PowerBASIC.
I truly love PB and FF but it won't do Web stuff. I have been "tinkering" with RealStudio (previously RealBASIC) for a while. I have recently built a system using their Web Edition that creates compiled CGI code that is super fast (for the Web) and nearly un-hackable. I talked to a security consultant that does DoD work and he says he has not seen anything better.
You build the apps pretty much like a desktop and app and they even look like a desktop app. There are some quirks but the resulting product is a Web application that has the look and feel of a desktop app. It uses Ajax techniques and lots of Javascript but all of that is "under the hood" and you can pretty much code it just like a desktop app in the RealBASIC UI.
By the end of 2013 they will also be able to build iPhone apps with their product. I have seen demos running on a native device but it is still in the early stages. Sadly it will be another year before they can do Android.
I won't give up PowerBASIC and FF. Theo is right that is still works and will for sometime to come but if you want to do some Web stuff you should take a look at this product. It also looks like PB will live on for a while. RealSoftware is in the process of rebranding the company XOJO but for now you can find them at www.RealSoftware.com. They are pretty pricey compared to PB and FF but it makes a really nice Web app possible if you are not an expert in something like PHP and Ajax.
Now if we could only get Paul to do the same with FF. Web CGI apps built with PB and FF .... hummmmmm.
Mark
Where in the world did they come up with XOJO.... a 2yr old at the keyboard? LOL
I am sure it has some reasonable meaning, but I just thought I would ask.
Gary
The answer is here:
http://www.realsoftware.com/support/faq_xojo.php
Quote from: Mark Strickland on May 02, 2013, 05:52:34 PM
RealSoftware is in the process of rebranding the company XOJO but for now you can find them at www.RealSoftware.com. They are pretty pricey compared to PB and FF .....
It depends on how the comparison is made :)
I made my own comparison very recently:
----------
XoJo (Release date 4th June 2013)
Desktop Licence = $300 (Only required for application deployment, the IDE is FREE)
Compiles FOR and ON Windows, Linux and Mac (Cross-platform on a single licence).
Package includes (but not limited to) IDE, ability to build GUI apps and Console apps, SSL support.
http://www.realsoftwareblog.com/2013/04/coming-soon-new-pricing-recap.html
----------
PowerBasic
PBWin10 = $199 (Windows GUI compiler)
PBCC6 = $169 (Windows Console compiler)
FF 3.62 = $97 (IDE)
Total = $465
No Linux or Mac compiler.
No SSL support.
----------
No doubt others will make different comparisons and draw their own conclusions ;)
I had tried RealBasic in the early days. It used to make REAL Bloatware. Also the IDE was not very responsive. Is that still like that?
I find the ability to compile programs for Win, Linux, and Apple very interesting, but are the generated programs really 100% compatible?
Rolf
The current version of Real Studio still creates bloatware and the IDE is still very clunky but as for XoJo, I can't comment, as it hasn't been released yet. However, XoJo will have a brand spanking new IDE and if the comments of the beta testers are anything to go by, it's MUCH better than the current IDE. Best thing to do would be to have a look yourself when it's released (the IDE is FREE!) ;)
About your compatibilty question, I can't answer that but you may find this of interest: http://docs.realsoftware.com/index.php/Cross-Platform_Development
Thanks Martin.
I thought of it sometimes for some crossplatform tools. My bulk work concentrates on database programming around SQLitening - so for that I will stick to PB and FireFly.
Rolf
For me I will still write most of my desktop apps in PB and FF ..... but ..... for the Web the XOJO Web Edition (WE) does not have many tools that compare. It is pretty cool to develop like a desktop app and then deploy it to the Web. The resulting code from the XOJO WE is faster than PHP and more secure (binary). Because it uses Ajax type technology it responds to field level events quickly like a desktop app. It can output a Fast CGI app or a binary with a built in Web server. It can output Web code for Linux or Windows and IIS.
Also if you truly do require multi platform deployment across Windows, OSX, and Linux (and soon iOS) it also works pretty good ... but yes the code is a bit bloated. In general it seems to be able to create nearly identical apps across each OS within the limits of the OS. The new IDE is an improvement but it still is not as elegant as FF but it is trying to do more "stuff". IMHO there is not any better combo than FF and PB for desktop development. Thanks Paul and Bob Z.
I heard somebody once say "If everything was a nail then you would only need a hammer". Pick the right tool for the job.
I think that the actual PB's community will spread out into several directions.
I, for myself, made my choice, and i am currently debugging GDImage to the new platform i have selected. :)
...
That's just a tease statement Patrice!
...and what is your new platform, Patrice?
Rolf
No more exotic, i selected the same that the one used to write the core API itself..
As a matter of comparison:
The size of GDImage compiled with PB 9.05, is 353 Kb (I do not use PB 10.xx for production).
The size of GDImage, compiled with VS2010 C/C++ in 32-bit mode, is 237 Kb (saving 116 Kb hover PB, and running 30% faster).
The size of GDImage, compiled with VS2010 C/C++ in 64-bit mode, is only 387 Kb (i am checking the 64-bit version with WinDev, that is my current largest base of users).
And now i shall target the mass market of C/C++ programmers (for me it is like opening the gates of heaven).
Side note: while i learned C# more than 7 years ago, it couldn't be used to serve my purpose as i am writing only "unsafe" code.
:)
Hi Patrice
that is nice ...... but i think the Filesize is not realy important.
I agree with you, that the community for C programmers is the greatest worldwide.
So you have a very good support if you have a problem.
Joerg
I am speaking about the file size, because of the bloated moto of the PowerBASIC staff...
But you can also consider the speed gain. ;)