RetroBASIC
Basicprogramming(.org) => Community news and announcements => Topic started by: jcfuller on November 03, 2016, 12:13:03 PM
-
Scroll down the page to find free versions of PowerBASIC
http://shop.powerbasic.com/pages/powerbasic-product-catalog
James
-
You will be required to fill out "Billing Information" (which I bet will require CC#, I didn't get that far) and give email for your "free" PB9 for Windows version compiler. Does it come with docs? Doesn't say what exactly you do get.
So as added bonus (at least) you will probably get free spam!
-
Zale had a hard time selling his BASIC and screwed a lot of people on unpaid royalties. Trying to keep that patched DOS to Windows frozenware alive is a joke.
There is no blood left in that rock.
-
PowerBASIC is an amazing professional grade tool and it's great to hear you can now obtain the entire PB9/CC5/PBF1.5 bundle for free, even if it isn't the top notch.
I highly recommend everyone who's interested in contemporary top quality BASICs to include that tool in their arsenal.
For free!
-
One can easily find the latest PB in the wild. (torrents) :-X
For free!
It's a TRIAL VERSION. 30 days like with the other free trial versions from them?
-
Far as I know, there weren't any trial versions from them -- ever! So, even if it's only a trial, I assure you it is very well worth trying. :)
-
It looks like you may be right with this being free offers of previous versions with the hope of an upgrade to where Zale left off.
Future of PowerBASIC thread (https://forum.powerbasic.com/forum/announcements-articles-and-support-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/753825-when-can-we-purchase-the-next-version-of-pb-win)
-
Well since it is highly recommended and no CC# is needed and the forum looks active, I got it and started checking it out.
It does have an IDE and Windows 10 hasn't ruined the connection to Help files as it has in Just Basic.
Help files look very well written, though most of the stuff is over my head, explanations seem easy to follow.
-
While PowerBASIC's official Peer Support Forum may look somewhat stand-offish as many pro forums do to a beginner, I'd also suggest any newcomer interested in PB to register with José Roca's Software forum (http://www.jose.it-berater.org/smfforum/index.php) that's effectively a mirror of everything that's happening in the PB world, is as densely populated, active, and rich in PB content as the PB forum itself, and is friendly to beginners and also liberal and tolerant to non-PB related stuff.
Please note that it's customary to go under your real name in the PB world, and it is a must for successful registration on the both forums.
Do not get disoriented by the JRS logo on José's forum; it's a pure coincidence rather than what you might think at a first sight. :)
-
register with José Roca's Software forum (http://www.jose.it-berater.org/smfforum/index.php)
Indeed an excellent resource. I've learned a lot there, especially on GDI+ (http://www.jose.it-berater.org/smfforum/index.php?board=417.0)
-
Do not get disoriented by the JRS logo on José's forum;
I've been going by JRS for 64 years. José Roca's Software (JRS) is an uncanny coincidence.
-
Looks like PowerBASIC is going up for sale
https://forum.powerbasic.com/forum/announcements-articles-and-support-faqs/product-announcements/754174-status-of-powerbasic-inc
-
Q. What do you think PowerBASIC will sell for?
I think Eric should take over the company in exchange for the back receivables Zale never paid him and then open source it.
-
Maybe Eros Olmi can take PowerBasic because he like this compiler and
also he made thinBasic in Powerbasic..
simply....it looks that time eat powerBasic compiler
-
A. This depends entirely on what there is effectively for sale. In my opinion, if there's only a trademark (a brand name, a franchise) to be sold behind PowerBASIC Inc., then the face value of such a deal should be close to nil. Granted, Mrs Zale's opinion may differ because she would naturally regard such a transaction from the perspective of her husband's heritage, the cause he'd dedicated the larger part of his life to, etc etc etc. Yet the expedience of the deal should account for how difficult/cost effective it would be to
1. maintain the scope of company's obligations to the creditors and current user base;
2. invest in R&D to re-create and/or upgrade the compiler's existing code base; and
3. further promote the renovated product to ensure a compos return on investment time frame.
There were rumours that
1. PB compiler sources might have been forfeited together with the deceased Mr Zale, which would explain why the PB Inc. deal has de facto been at a dead stall for several years now: there's effectively nothing else to sell but a heavily indebted operation;
2. PB compiler is in fact a 16-bit assembly cross-compiler capable of generating 32-bit executables and as such, is too cryptic or not promising enough for further development by potential buyers who would withdraw from the transaction as soon as they are allowed to get acquainted with what in fact they are supposed to pay for.
In either case, I'd estimate a feasible time frame to re-create the existing 32-bit PBCC/PBWin functionality from scratch in a suitable development environment (C would be candidate #1) under "clean-room" conditions by a dedicated and well-paid dev team of four or five persons proficient in compiler development, to be on the order of 2.5 to 3 years before the new product reaches its beta testing stage.
Judging by the number of PB users registered on the PB Peer Support Forums and the average per-package prices alone, PB Inc. could have earned $1.5 to $2 mln or so in a couple dozen years of its existence.
If the sources (regardless of bitness) are available, and taking the above estimates into account, I'm inclined to think that PB Inc. is being quoted -- to carefully selected potential buyers -- at up to some $200,000. If not, and/or the quotation is larger than that, then it will be sorta trading donut holes and waistcoat sleeves because these days, getting a return on investment in any BASIC would be mere wishful thinking.
-
getting a return on investment in any BASIC would be mere wishful thinking.
If it weren't for IoT and scripting languages like JavaScript in the forefront and Script BASIC already used in commercial embedded controller solutions, I would be have given up on BASIC as a main stream development tool years ago.
-
The 200K bucks I voiced would probably be an expected annual salary of a US resident software developer of Bob Zale's caliber. You can divide this figure by 3 to get an idea of the rank-and-file developer's annual rate in the equivalent dev team who would be professionally able to efficiently build up on where Bob left off. Unavailability of sources (of which the machine code generation back end is the only significant part, the rest being trivial common-knowledge stuff) or deprecation of Bob's dev platform (presumably DOS if the rumours on 16-bit assembly cross-compilation are true) could set the entire project back by a couple of years, the salaries being spent on reconstructing the existing functionality of 32-bit PBCC/PBWin in a modern Windows development environment by looking into the PB user manual and scrutinizing the machine code PB emits in response to each and every keyword found there.
In Europe, you can safely divide the equivalent figures by two. But you will also have to divide my estimation of PB Inc.'s net worth accordingly.
-
I don't see the need or desire to have a BASIC compiler any longer. I feel OxygenBasic is probably the best supported and most flexible option if the need still exists. C and portability should be the foundation of any higher level language going forward.
-
OxygenBasic's Public Domain engine would be Candidate #1 to re-create a 100% keyword-for-keyword replica of 32-bit only and Windows only PowerBASIC from scratch. Currently, O2 has only rudimentary BASIC-specific vocabulary of its own, happily swallows nearly 100% of raw NASM input, supports perhaps 70% of genuine ANSI C preprocessing verbatim, generates solid 32-bit machine code, and is already capable of generating (still buggy at times) true 64-bit output. And it is entirely devoid of any licensing issues (and anarchy!) you may encounter trying to move along the GNU GPL trends or using e.g. rock-solid MASM or VC as your development platform. The only challenge would be to move the O2 engine itself away from its current FreeBASIC implementation and port it to a decent and predictable ANSI C compiler platform like GCC or similar, which would also open up a truly multi-platform perspective before the projected PB "successor" (or "replacement", if you will).
And it would also be a perfectly legal alternative to otherwise wasting one's money and effort on a known-indebted PB Inc. affair.
-
And it would also be a perfectly legal alternative to otherwise wasting one's money and effort on a known-indebted PB Inc. affair.
Couldn't agree more!
When do we start?
-
But first off, which way do we go, John?
Are we in for a penny or in for a pound? ;D
-
Are we in for a penny or in for a pound?
You lead, I'll follow.