Run Executable

[Michael Stefanik]

This isn't a huge thing, but when you make a change to a form or your code, and then select Run Executable (Shift+F5), it runs the last successful build (i.e.: the previous version without the changes made) without any kind of warning. I think that ideally it should display a message box to the developer saying something like "You have changed your program, do you want to rebuild the project?" and if they select yes, then act as though they've selected Compile and Execute. What do you think?

[Haakon Birkeland]

I vote no unless it's optional to be presented with such dialog.

[Michael Stefanik]

Is there a specifc reason that you would want to run an old version of the executable from the IDE? Options are always a good thing of course, but when I was thinking about this, I really couldn't come up with any kind of practical scenario in which I've a) just made changes to the code, and b) want to then run a previous version that doesn't have those changes. I'm honestly curious as to what situation you think that would be desirable?

99.9% of the time, if someone has just made a change to their program and they select Run Executable, don't you think it's a fairly safe bet that they want to run the current version with the changes they've just made and simply clicked the wrong button?

But sure, an option like "Warn when executing an older version of the program" would be fine with me. It's just a suggestion.

[Bruce Atkinson]

To be fair the icons are clearly labeled.   It's always bugged me that I have to compile in order to run something from PowerBasic's editor, so I like the option. 

I agree that I would expect an  IDE to run what's already there if you haven't made any changes and to prompt you if you have made changes.  Nothing worse then testing a program that doesn't contain the changes that you think are there.

[Paul Squires]

I'm not sure how I feel about this feature suggestion.... I will have to let it sink deeper into my subconscience.

My initial reaction is that the "Run Executable" should run whatever is already on disk. If the programmer wants to incorporate any current changes then the "F5" Compile and Execute route is the way to go.

There are often times when I am coding new forms for an existing application that I want to look at the existing application to check something here or there. I think that I would be annoyed if the designer always prompted me saying "hey dude, don't you know that you have made changes to the project so why are you wanting to run a version of the exe that does not have those changes?"  My answer to FF3 would be "because I hit the button that specifically tells you to run the exe"

[Michael Stefanik]

Spending most of my time inside Visual Studio's IDE, I'm just used to the behavior where you tell the IDE to run the program, if there's been changes made, it compiles the new code and then runs. If there's been no changes made, it just runs. If it attempts to compile and fails, then it displays a message saying something to the effect of "I couldn't compile the program, do you want to run last version that was built?" I let the IDE worry about when it's appropriate to build something or not, it knows based on the modification timestamps of the source files (of course, there's also the "Rebuild All", "Clean Project" options that can force complete rebuilds if desired).

[Haakon Birkeland]

As pointed out, we have a Compile and Run and a (re)Run button to serve those purposes, and as developers on the rise to world domination 8o) we ought to now if the code needs a compilation or can just be re-executed.

More important, we possess both the knowledge and decision power to make an educated decision on what to do â€" hitting only F5 versus Shift +F5 is anyway easier and quicker than mixing in artificial intelligence. Leaning towards a more cumbersome shortcut as default, and then being nagged by FF if you're sure of what you're doing, doesn't quite make sense to me.

Anyway, my reason for being in opposition on this one is as Paul stated, the desire and need to restart whats there for reference to looks/behavior â€" before implementing additional code changes.

[Nathan Durland]

I vote no unless it's optional to be presented with such dialog.

Seconded.

[Barry Marks]

The option to run the already compiled version was one of the first things I noticed and I like it.  I use the compile and execute more but when I'm changing the look of something I'll often run the old one for reference, maybe to get a feel for how much to move that control over or how much to expand something.  I find that very handy.

In PB programming I've sometimes made a copy of the executable before I start editing so I can look at it while I edit.  This eliminates the need to do that.

We have it both ways so it seems like everyone should be happy.

Barry

[Gary Stout]

I always use F5, but I have also been using Jpro for many moons, and this is the way it worked.

Thanks for keeping things the same in that regard 

Gary

[Robert Eaton]

How about something to just flag that there are pending changes that haven't been compiled, such as changing the background color of the "compile", and "compile and run" buttons?

[Rolf Brandt]

I like the extra "RUN" button, And I like it the way it is. I would not like an extra message box to click away.

[Haakon Birkeland]

How about something to just flag that there are pending changes ...

Most applications I recall indicating changes being made to the document, does this by simply adding an asterisk at the end of the document name in the titlebar. That should suffice, if any indication is to be implemented â€" I think.

[Richard Marchessault]

I'm happy with the way this is setup in FF3.