Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96

Thread: thinBasic 2.x direction

  1. #11
    thinBasic MVPs kryton9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Naples, Florida & Duluth, Georgia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,869
    Rep Power
    404

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    You guys know my feeling as I harped about it for a few years now, so I won't repeat any of that.

    There are 5 options from all of the tests I have done.
    1. .net using mono and monodevelop
    2. java
    3. freepascal/lazarus
    4. oxygen
    5. c++

    Java is already outdated if you ask me and nowhere as fun to work in as .net or lazarus.
    But Google selected it and it means it will be here for some more time. But I can see the signs on the wall that this will not be number one much longer. More and more blogs are pointing out frustrations with Java and how it is falling behind and getting too complicated trying to keep up with current programming methodologies.

    Mono is growing by leaps and bounds. It has really surprised me. Monodevelop is a wonderful IDE. Mono is appearing on mobile devices on top of the popular OS platforms. The only drawback is if Microsoft one day puts it foot down on mono's throat. Many say if they wanted to do that, they would have done it already and that it is not a concern. But when you see mono work as well as it does... I don't know and trust Microsoft.
    If you want to see an incredible Mono application look at the free trial of Unity. It allows you to compile your games to any platform and soon Android too, this all because of the incredible mono team and all that the unity team has brought to mono also.
    Mono supports all of these languages too at this time:
    http://www.mono-project.com/Languages
    So this way tb2 development can grow a lot quicker with developers coming from different language backgrounds righting modules for .net.
    One last thing... Mono uses GTK which is a really sweet looking cross platform GUI that looks modern and fresh.
    But Mono does have Visual Basic support, so does making another basic makes sense, tough call?

    freepascal /lazarus... incredible package. But I did find developing on windows and going to other platforms does not work well. You have to develop in Linux and then you can compile to windows and mac osx. There are people getting it running on Android devices, but not a mainstream feature right now and easy to do. So to do true cross platform development means working in linux as your main development environment to make sure you can cross compile without pulling your hair out.

    Oxygen - Can be cross platform, but not yet. Doesn't have an editor as nice as any of the other mentioned platforms.
    Java, Mono and Free Pascal already have incredible IDE options. But I think Oxygen can be the core to a new way of programming, all the power without the scary syntax. The core and tb2 on top can be a truly unique looking and feeling powerful OOP language. But as Petr mentioned... it is up to you and Charles to evaluate its foundational strengths and if it is ready.

    If you feel that Mono is safe from death by Microsoft, I would say that would be what I see as a platform right now with a bright future and ready to use right now. It has grown by leaps and bounds and surprised me so much. I think you all will be shocked too if you look at it more closely.

    Of course there is the powerhouse c++, and if you want to see how good c++ code can be written and the type of modules you could create, I highly recommend looking at SFML and its source files. The nicest code to highlight how c++ can be not bad to work with.
    http://www.sfml-dev.org/download.php

    But cross platform and getting different cross platform libraries to work is not easy. Also you have different coding styles to deal with according to what the developers of those libraries chose to use with c++.

    But c++ is very flexible and has grown on me. String handling is still a joke. You need to use Boost as well as the STL string libraries. Boost has what is called Lexical-Cast, that allows you to do all of the type conversions.

    If you want to write once and compile anywhere, then I would recommend freepascal/lazarus. The windows version has many more components than the linux version and that is why I think Remmer did not cross compile. If you load up the linux version, you see there is a lot less installed and the platform I would use to develop in to be safe.


    Acer Notebook: Win 10 Home 64 Bit, Core i7-4702MQ @ 2.2Ghz, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 760M and Intel HD 4600
    Raspberry Pi 3: Raspbian OS use for Home Samba Server and Test HTTP Server

  2. #12
    thinBasic MVPs kryton9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Naples, Florida & Duluth, Georgia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,869
    Rep Power
    404

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    The last one got long, so I thought I would post this one.
    One thing to do perhaps before making a decision is to write like a string module in each of the listed systems to see what working in each is like. See how well you can get it to cross compile and run in windows, osx and linux. Probably the only way to really make a decision and to get a feel for what feels right for you Eros.

    Code::Blocks is a really nice IDE for c++. Available in 3 major OS platforms. Uses gcc compiler, but can be set to use others.
    Has intellisense, which once you get used to it, hard to live without. Lazarus has this too for freePascal.

    To keep thinBasic2 really unique, if Charles can make oxygen run on osx, linux, then that might be worth working on. I think Oxygen from the start is so fresh and neatly well thought out, that it would be a neat core to build a new cross platform (oop optional) true compiled BASIC such as TB2.


    Acer Notebook: Win 10 Home 64 Bit, Core i7-4702MQ @ 2.2Ghz, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 760M and Intel HD 4600
    Raspberry Pi 3: Raspbian OS use for Home Samba Server and Test HTTP Server

  3. #13

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    1.0 stays the way it is with minor additions while 2.0 becomes the oop/crossplatform version with no need to follow any of the 1.0 format?
    James
    last night i came on with approximately this same idea, this is the same strange case of perl development, there are 2 production lines, v5.x which depends on C compiler, and v6 which depends on Parrot compiler, most users of v5.x will never use v6 but v6 considered the future and a new vision, every 3 months there are a new fraction added to the oldy v5.x edition and there are infinity between number 5 and 6,
    so the same can be for thinbasic, 2 production lines, the normal one which are currently used, we can't get rid of the amazing recent RichEdit additions developed in one long night, and the visionary flavour which may developed independently of the normal edition and slowly without pressure. the two editions can benefit from each other like neighbors.

  4. #14
    thinBasic MVPs kryton9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Naples, Florida & Duluth, Georgia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,869
    Rep Power
    404

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    One thing also to consider for c++... for instance Irrlicht which is cross platform for major OS's... it's gcc irrlicht.dll is three times the size of the dedicated MSWindows irrlicht.dll.

    Another thing to mention, if Java is being thought of... that is try to get the Monkey Game Engine(jME) running with Java, if you have any doubts of how crazy Java development is. After 15 years, you would think they would have found an easier way! But java has Jabaco as .net/mono has VisualBasic, can the new TB2 be so different than those on those platforms?

    This leaves, c++, freepascal and oxygen if you look at it like that. It will be a tough decision but an exciting time to be thinking about the future of TB2.

    Acer Notebook: Win 10 Home 64 Bit, Core i7-4702MQ @ 2.2Ghz, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 760M and Intel HD 4600
    Raspberry Pi 3: Raspbian OS use for Home Samba Server and Test HTTP Server

  5. #15

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    I can't imagine Eros starting from scratch using C/C++ for 2.0 thinBASIC. A good way to get there is to use BCX to translate the PB thinBASIC code to C and then maintain the code for thinBASIC in C/C++ going forward. BCX started off as a PowerBASIC clone attempt way back when but has evolved beyond the limitations in PB.
    ScriptBasic Project Manager
    Project Site
    support@scriptbasic.org

  6. #16
    thinBasic author ErosOlmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Milan - Italy
    Age
    57
    Posts
    8,777
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    Great ideas and informations. Thanks.

    In any case this is what will happen soon (before I will leave for holidays):
    • as I stated above, version 1.x (I think it will be 1.9.0) will have a natural end very soon because it will sign the last thinBasic version able to be executed under Windows 9x, Windows 2K environments.
      This version will remain always available in download section for those that needs backward compatibility.
      I will continue to work on this version only in case of important bugs and help material but I will not add or improve any feature
    • I will in any case start a new thinBasic development line 2.x always under my beloved compiler Power Basic.
      thinBasic 2.x will be compatible only under OSs from Windows XP or above.
      This will immediately open the possibility to thinBasic module developers to work on features not present till now due too Windows 9x limitations like GDI+ and other options available only in Windows XP or above OSs


    That said, the idea to open an additional experimental development line is not bad at all.
    Before been able to get any decision about other directions, I need to test the basis of thinBasic Core engine in other environment so it is necessary to experiment good strings lib, replicate or create internal Core structures used by thinBasic engine (mainly hash tables), learn different languages (I think I can understand many different languages even if I've never programmed with them but writing serious code is a different matter), check possible UI direction (I do not want thinBasic be only a console script language in other OS).

    So, thanks again for already expressed ideas info reported here and thanks in advance for the others that will come.

    Ciao
    Eros
    www.thinbasic.com | www.thinbasic.com/community/ | help.thinbasic.com
    Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 64bit - 32 GB - Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-10855M CPU @ 2.80GHz - NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000

  7. #17
    Super Moderator Petr Schreiber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brno - Czech Republic
    Posts
    7,128
    Rep Power
    732

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    Add 9B
    Maybe one more idea we discussed earlier - "extract" the DLLs and EXE in memory instead of hard drive.
    It could be slightly faster, but in the first place it would avoid confusion of users which sometimes get scared when they launch bundled EXE and it starts populating the directory with "odd files".


    Petr
    Learn 3D graphics with ThinBASIC, learn TBGL!
    Windows 10 64bit - Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.1GHz - 16 GB RAM - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

  8. #18

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    Quote Originally Posted by Eros
    I will in any case start a new thinBasic development line 2.x always under my beloved compiler Power Basic.


    Great, another round of limitations and no future with the tools you use to build thinBASIC.

    How many times does it take getting stung before you no longer feel the sting?

    ScriptBasic Project Manager
    Project Site
    support@scriptbasic.org

  9. #19
    thinBasic author ErosOlmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Milan - Italy
    Age
    57
    Posts
    8,777
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    John, this is a brain storming thread. No negative reply please only neutral or positive. If not so, please do not post in this thread

    There will be time for making a change. As I stated in my first post here: "All can change and/or nothing will change."

    Consider the following:
    • moving from 1.x to 2.x with the same compiler is 1 hour job for me and the whole thinBasic community can immediately move on and be operative with new possibilities. It is a natural option for not having a gap of months in development, it is easy and well known path
    • moving into another development environment will be a long process of experimenting and experiencing. I do not want to have such a big black hole timing for thinBasic users. I'm not that kind of programmer that move from one environment to the other every week. I tend to spend much more time on software selection valuating all possible pro and cons but once the choice is done I stay there.


    Ciao
    Eros
    www.thinbasic.com | www.thinbasic.com/community/ | help.thinbasic.com
    Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 64bit - 32 GB - Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-10855M CPU @ 2.80GHz - NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000

  10. #20

    Re: thinBasic 2.x direction

    Quote Originally Posted by Eros
    John, this is a brain storming thread. No negative reply please only neutral or positive. If not so, please do not post in this thread
    So references that the king has no clothes is OT? Please be open minded and and hear all possibilities. PowerBASIC has generated enough cash that they don't need your unpaid protection. Censorship creates limitations.
    ScriptBasic Project Manager
    Project Site
    support@scriptbasic.org

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •