Front end to PB3.5 ?? 
Author Message
 Front end to PB3.5 ??

>But that pales in comparison to what happened when we actually started shipping
>our 32-bit PB/DLL compiler.  I will never forget those first few days as long as
>I live.  All of our manufacturing is done in house (we have disk duplication
>machines, shrink wrap tunnels, conveyors, etc.) and Bob was grabbing people out
>of tech support, R&D, sales, even his wife pitched in because the demand was so

>Why?  It's actually pretty simple.  DOS programmers already have a 'pretty good'
>product in QuickBasic.  It's not as technically full-featured as powerbasic (in
>my opinion), but it can be used to get the job done, particularly with all of
>the available third-party (freeware, shareware and commercial) libraries and
>addons available to it.  Getting a QuickBasic programmer to spend $100 to leave
>it isn't a real easy sell.  They have to be talked into it (or bribed since they
>all have "conditions" under which they'll buy PowerBASIC).

>Visual Basic programmers have been fed up with VB for years, however.  It
>doesn't take much to attract their attention.  A true 32-bit BASIC compiler that
>can create "Hello, World!" in 5k, supports pointers, native C data-types, can
>access the entire Win32 API, etc. is a no brainer.  Heck, even if all you do
>with it is write a single DLL to speed up one VB app by 500% you've covered the
>cost of the product.  And of course, if you believe Microsoft's figures that
>they've sold millions of copies of Visual Basic that pretty much blows the doors
>off of QuickBasic which never even reached a million copies.

>And look at comparitive costs...  Visual Basic sells for around $399 retail
>(more if you wan't their "Enterprise" edition).  And we've never sold a product
>for more than $179 retail.  So PB/DLL is a steal compared to the cost of Visual
>Basic, Delphi, or Visual Studio.  Heck, I'd love to talk Bob into raising the
>price to $300 where it belongs.  Then I'd be able to talk him into a huge raise
>and get a Porsche or a Sailboat.

>Oh, and let me tell you about PB/CC...  A product created entirely out of
>customer demand.  Hundreds of thousands of DOS BASIC programmers yelling,
>kicking, screaming because their only migration to Windows was through Visual
>Basic.  Imagine having to completely re-write your code because VB's only about
>15% compatible with QuickBasic and PowerBASIC.

>And then, you get your app ported to Visual Basic with a GUI interface and half
>your sales team is screaming because using Visual Basic forms for data entry is
>half as fast as the simple text interface in the old DOS programs.  (Say that
>three times fast! <s>)  A 32-bit console application gives you all of the
>advantages of a simple text mode application and none of the baggage.

>For example, we have a custom written order-entry system that our sales people
>use to take orders.  It was originally written in PB/DOS.  It works well, does
>everything it was designed to do, but we wanted to add some features to it that
>were difficult to do in a DOS app.  Such as sending an email message to a
>customer from within the order-entry system (before, we had to write the
>customer's email address down and the type it into Outlook Express or Eudora).  
>You can't access the Windows TCP/IP stack from a DOS program and we didn't want
>to switch from Windows 95 to Caldera DOS just to send email.  We actually did a
>partial port of the order entry module itself to PB/DLL using dialogs for all
>the data fields.  That's when the complaints started rolling in.  How come we
>couldn't make it work exactly like the original DOS version?  How come it was so
>slow? (If you were a decent typist you could be 30 or 40 keystrokes ahead of

>When we started alpha testing PB/CC in house, the first thing we did was port
>the order-entry module over to it.  Man what a difference.  The interface was
>**EXACTLY** like that of the original DOS program so there was zero (none nada)
>retraining.  And using a third-party DLL, we easily added that email feature
>that the Sales manager had been crabbing about.

>Personally, when we started up the "Windows path" I was totally against it. I
>don't like Windows, I don't like GUI programs (except for some games like Quake
>II) and I think all this stuff with the mouse is just a fad that will pass.  
>However, without completely reversing myself, I must say that I enjoy
>programming in PB/CC more than I do in PB/DOS.  I love creating 10 megabyte
>strings and 200 megabyte arrays.  I love adding the ability to check my email
>box for mail into almost every utility I've written for myself (what can I say,
>I'm a kid at heart).  And I've having a blast playing with all of the stuff
>buried deep in the Win32 API.  It's the best library I've ever gotten for free.

>This message turned out to be way too much of a commercial, and I apologize.  I
>honestly didn't meanf or it to.  But after typing all of it, I'm too tired to
>re-do it.  I'll just put a warning at the top.

How compatible is Power Basic with QB45 ? How much will I need to
learn? Is it truly a basic, not an object oriented GUI system (Like CA

I've tried both CA-Realizer and VBasic and neither does what I can do
in QB45 the way I want to be able to do it or in ways that an old time
programmer like myself can grasp (I'm not object oriented).

If Power Basic is compatible (or reasonably so) then you've got
another customer coming soon.


           The Fantasy Realms Journal Online

Shadow Bindings RPG v4.0 (FREE TO DOWNLOAD & USE) is on This Same Site

Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Front end to PB3.5 ??
Hi Joe,


>How compatible is Power Basic with QB45 ? How much will I need to
>learn? Is it truly a basic, not an object oriented GUI system (Like CA

PowerBASIC for DOS is about 98% compaitible with QBASIC and QB.   In
your are looking at the Console Compiler, than it is probably about
80% compatible (due to the way Win32 forces the way some tasks are
performed), but it is so much more capable: imagine strings up to 2Gb
lin length or using string arrays that size!

>I've tried both CA-Realizer and VBasic and neither does what I can do
>in QB45 the way I want to be able to do it or in ways that an old time
>programmer like myself can grasp (I'm not object oriented).

PB/DOS will fit your bill exactly in that case... if you know QB then
the learning curve is not steep at all.  PB/DOS is not an OOP product.
Likewise PB/CC is not OOP either... as long as you wrap all your code
inside sub/function blocks, and provide a WinMain() or PBMAIN()
function, you can be of and running in a few minutes...  I've
personally  converted some of my old DOS code to PB/CC in less than 10

If you want GUI, then PB/DLL is what you need.  This is the least
compatible with DOS code as all user interface must be done through
the Windows API.  It's a powerful compiler for producing compact and
fast EXE's and DLL's for Windows.  There are 16-bit and 32-bit
versions available.

>If Power Basic is compatible (or reasonably so) then you've got
>another customer coming soon.

I hope we can welcome you aboard... Whether your choose PB/DOS, PB/CC
or PB/DLL  I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Did you know that can even purchase PowerBASIC across the web and
receive the product via email... check it out at
http://www.*-*-*.com/ and check the Products link...

There is a "lite" version of PB3.2 for DOS  (current is PB3.5)
available for download from the site
(TRYPB32.ZIP).  There is currently no demo available for PB/CC.

Also, check into the Peer Discussion forums at
This is a place where many many PB programmers discuss PB and share
source code, tips, problems and solutions... it's a friendly community
right in the heart of {*filter*}space.

I'm looking forward to meeting you in the peer forums!

PowerBASIC Support

PowerBASIC, Inc.      | 800-780-7707 Sales | "We put the Power in Basic!"
316 Mid Valley Center | 831-659-8000 Voice | http://www.*-*-*.com/

Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 [ 3 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 


2. CAD Engineer *** Front-End and Back-End Tool *** for Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA


4. Visual Basic front end and Cobol back end

5. web front-end, Python back end?

6. Browser front-end, python back-end

7. WebToolkit : Using Front-End HTTP Servers

8. Front-ending the CMS command interpreter

9. Front-ending the CMS command interpreter

10. windows front end to AWK

11. Any interest in an AWK Front End?

12. Is VisualWork a good front-end tools?


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software