Re: PowerBasic & .NET

[Tomas]

Karl,


Bob is apparently working away on the next version of PowerBasic. How exactly
do you see Powerbasic fitting in?

You ask at the following:

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Ultimate.cgi


Tomas


"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>Hi Zane --
>
>> > You have got to be kidding! Do you really expect me to believe that
people
>> > in these forums need to provide you with a reason for being here.
>>
>> Of course not, but I do find it curious that Borland employees are hanging
>> around.
>
>What surprises me is that more alternative vendors *aren't* hanging around
here!
>Where's Bob Zale, fer instance? He's *never* gonna get another chance like
this one,
>and it appears he couldn't care less.
>
>Later... Karl
>--
>http://www.mvps.org/vb
>
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Tomas --

> Bob is apparently working away on the next version of PowerBasic.

He's the metaphor, of course, now that Dave is gone. Someone from PB oughta be
trying to capitalize on the commotion, I would think. It's really amazing to me that
that isn't happening.

> How exactly do you see Powerbasic fitting in?

You're kidding, right?

> You ask at the following:
>
> http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Ultimate.cgi

Sorry, no. I don't do web forums.

Later... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb

[Zane Thomas]

Karl,

> He's the metaphor, of course, now that Dave is gone. Someone from PB
oughta be
> trying to capitalize on the commotion, I would think. It's really amazing
to me that
> that isn't happening.

Well maybe you should do it then. You seem convinced that there's some
great market opportunity, wouldn't you like to get rich and give up your day
job?

Zane

[Larry Linson]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote:

> Well maybe you should do it then. You seem convinced that
> there's some great market opportunity, wouldn't you like
> to get rich and give up your day job?

Maybe somebody should do it. I had an e-mail exchange with Bob and he seemed
to think he had adequately covered, on his website, how easy it is to use
PB to create a whole Windows application -- which was what I suggested he
add to take advantage of whatever marketing opportunity this may have brought
about for him. But, then, maybe he's absorbed in creating the next version.

Maybe Borland should talk to him about marketing it as TurboBasic V2 or TurboBasic
for Windows. After all, Microsoft has already preempted the "Basic Builder"
scheme of things, haven't they?

I thought TurboBasic was a pretty good little compiler in the DOS world,
but Borland decided to get out of the business after just one release.

[Dan Barclay]

On 14 Jun 2001 16:11:20 -0700, "Larry Linson"
<larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote:

>
>Maybe Borland should talk to him about marketing it as TurboBasic V2 or TurboBasic
>for Windows. After all, Microsoft has already preempted the "Basic Builder"
>scheme of things, haven't they?

Actually, that would be a *really* cool move. One of the guys here
playing with Kylix and the new Delphi. He had some Kylix apps he'd
been tinkering with. Broght them over to Delphi and just recompiled.

Only problem, it's Pascal based <uuugggg>. But, even that's better
than Cx based.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Zane Thomas]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:08:11 -0500, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:

>But, even that's [Pascal] better than Cx based.

Bye Dan! (Pascal? Uuuuugh!)



---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Dan Barclay]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:42:31 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:08:11 -0500, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>
>>But, even that's [Pascal] better than Cx based.
>
>Bye Dan!

Not gone yet. I'll just stay put for now.

Other than the base language, they do seem to have some good views on
development tools. Read: tools for developers, as opposed to tools to
support the OS/Platform agenda.

OTOH, we have to choose from what's on the platter. It's *way* to
early to make some irrevocable choice in any direction. It certainly
is the right time to experiment though.

>> (Pascal? Uuuuugh!)

Back to the earlier topic, stacking Basic in the mix for core language
would make things a lot more interesting for Borland IMHO. There is a
*lot* of existing MS Basic code (complete with caretakers) that will
be shopping for a new home in the next 4 or 5 years. In addition to
the 32bit apps, there are tons of very ripe 16bit apps.

Now, if .Net took off it and they have their underpinnings right
Borland might even be able to bring the whole show over (covering
..Net/Win/Linux). Potential aside, it'll be a cold day in **** before
MS ports .NEt to Linux so they would tap into the crowd that wants the
flexibility.

FWIW, if I were IBM I'd be sniffing around Borland with Basic on my
mind. I doubt they are, but if I were over there I'd sure be working
on it. I have my doubts that Borland will do Basic without somebody
dragging them into it. ****, some of the *positives* about Basic are
considered negative by that crowd (just look at the editorial crap in
their VB-Delphi migration whitepaper).

This game has the potential to get way more interesting before it's
settled.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3b4459d3.763904765@news.devx.com>...

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:08:11 -0500, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>
> >But, even that's [Pascal] better than Cx based.
>
> Bye Dan! (Pascal? Uuuuugh!)

Why "bye"? Is disliking squinting at squiggles (not that I like Pascal
any better, mind you!) enough to get one banned from the "Visual Basic"
groups now? Or is "VB.NET" Beta 2 merely a set of macros to C#, making
slamming Cx equivalent to slamming the B# "compiler" as well?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Phil Weber]

> Is disliking squinting at squiggles...enough to get
> one banned from the "Visual Basic" groups now?

Joe: I understood Zane to be implying that Dan would be leaving us
voluntarily to go to some non-MS development tool, not that Dan was being
"banned."
---
Phil Weber

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:03:11 -0700, "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote:

>I understood Zane

Joe probably did too, but he likes to try to twist things around for the
fun of it. I don't know what he thinks that accomplishes, but there ya go.
:-)


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Dan Barclay]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:03:11 -0700, "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com>
wrote:

> > Is disliking squinting at squiggles...enough to get
> > one banned from the "Visual Basic" groups now?
>
>Joe: I understood Zane to be implying that Dan would be leaving us
>voluntarily to go to some non-MS development tool, not that Dan was being
>"banned."

That's the way I took it as well, but then ya don't hafta leave one
development tool to start using another <g>. It's *way* too early for
that, whether the new tool be .Net based, Borland, or all of the
above. Anyone making irrevocable moves is taking a high risk path.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message <news:fnckit05od4hil2hohf48ei7babe0oh0qa@4ax.com>...

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:03:11 -0700, "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Is disliking squinting at squiggles...enough to get
> > > one banned from the "Visual Basic" groups now?
> >
> >Joe: I understood Zane to be implying that Dan would be leaving us
> >voluntarily to go to some non-MS development tool, not that Dan was being
> >"banned."
>
> That's the way I took it as well, but then ya don't hafta leave one
> development tool to start using another <g>. It's *way* too early for
> that, whether the new tool be .Net based, Borland, or all of the
> above. Anyone making irrevocable moves is taking a high risk path.

But the clear implication is, if you start "stepping out" with some
other development tool, don't bother coming back. Would there be a
"next time" for MichKa had he mentioned a fling with Delphi?

Is embarking on any development project right now "taking a high risk
path"? Gotta pick an environment in order to even make estimates! Or
are we all supposed to do parallel development in both VB and B#? Or
in VC++?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Zane Thomas]

Joe,

>But the clear implication is, if you start "stepping out" with some
>other development tool, don't bother coming back.

There was no such implication. You're grasping at straws Joe - stay on
the off.ramp if you don't have anything else to contribute.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Larry Linson]

Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:

>FWIW, if I were IBM I'd be sniffing around Borland with Basic on my
>mind. I doubt they are, but if I were over there I'd sure be working
>on it. I have my doubts that Borland will do Basic without somebody
>dragging them into it. ****, some of the *positives* about Basic are
>considered negative by that crowd (just look at the editorial crap in
>their VB-Delphi migration whitepaper).

IBM taking over as the Basic king? Now there's a thought. Of course, they'd
have to be better at marketing decisions and marketing software now than
they were before I retired. They blew two chances to beat VB to market with
similar, both pretty good, application generators in the late 1980s and early
1990s.

<REMINISCENCE ON>

One actually got to market -- the PC component of a Decision Support product
called Application System (nothing to do with AS-400) with the ungainly name
of Personal Application System/2 for the Personal Computer/2. It had a programming
language, interpreted, and you could also build an application by moving
and connecting icons, something like I understand Softwire to do today. Unfortunately,
the IBM emphasis was on OS/2, so the first version was for OS/2. And, unfortunately,
it wasn't done by the division that did development tools, so was marketed
only as the PC component of that Decision Support software package. It also
had some database access and could front-end DB2 on the PC. They did, then,
do a Windows version, but by that time Microsoft had released VB and VB was
an instant success, partly because it used BASIC as the underlying language,
and BASIC had been free on every copy of DOS up to that point. (QBasic is
still in a folder somewhere on the Win 98 CD set.)

The other was an internal project, an application generator with C as the
underlying language. Version 1 was complete, or near complete, and ready
to go sometime in 1990, when IBM launched their program to invest in and
"affiliate with" every small/medium software house they could find. Out of
fear of alienating some potential affiliate somewhere, they arbitrarily trashcanned
this project. At least one of the programmers on that project (a fine one,
too) apparently was so disgusted over the situation that he quit and went
to work for a customer in some small city down in East Texas. I think he
was 'way too ethical to take a copy of the prototype / beta / release candidate
with him, but if he had, he'd easily have been the most productive C application
developer in the state, if not the nation. IMNSHO, it was easier to use than
Borland C++ Builder seems to be, viewing both from a distance.

The first, if it had been done for Windows and promoted, would have at least
grabbed part of the market vacuum that VB filled. The second would have had
a lot more appeal than VB to the rather large C user base (at that time,
far more than the professional developers using any version of Basic) and
could have been there _first_.

I worked on the mainframe version of Application System, and view it as something
like an Access 1.1 or maybe even 2.0 for the mainframe. It had point and
click forms, its own interpreted language, excellent reporting, graphics
if you were in the in-crowd because IBM had stopped support on the graphics
package it used (so information, etc., was "unofficial" word-of-mouth, seminars
for customers by the technical marketeers in the guise of demonstrations),
and had been used to create two applications that came with it: Project Management
(a really good PM tool, and easy to use, too) and Statistics. Again, the
official marketing could not be as a development tool, but we in the "underground"
sold it for that purpose and our customers told other customers, and even
at $60,000 a pop for most mainframe systems, there were over a thousand installations
in the US and even more outside (it was developed in the UK).

In their wisdom, IBM dumbed down the PC version, removed the programming
language, gave it another name, and pushed it only as the PC UI for the mainframe
Application System. Last I heard, neither the mainframe nor the PC version
were being marketed by IBM any longer, and I don't know if the last version
of each even gets tech support any more. One good thing: it earned Tony Temple,
the original inventor who managed the development group for its entire life,
an IBM Fellowship, not an inconsequential honor in the IBM of those days
-- essentially five years of unrestricted freedom to innovate and explore
with a reasonably-sized staff to support the Fellow's efforts. Another IBM
Fellow you might have heard of is Ed Codd, the father of relational database.

<REMINISCENCE OFF>

[Zane Thomas]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:21:12 -0700, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster"
<joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

>Yes, yes, we already know your declining ability to duck the question.

What we know is that you are zealously opposed to .net - I really have no
interest in discussing anything with you and if that makes you feel
triumphant in some way then congratulations. I've got .net programming
work to do, ta ta.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond