Gambas futuro o che tipo di Gambas noi vogliamo.

[vuott]

Vi riporto questa discussione apparsa nella M.L. ufficiale:


" After long talk with many gambas developpers, after years of joy on the use
of this language, I want to talk about its future... its persistance.


Benoit for me is a little bit like our Linus. He have done something for
itself and it's today one of the better tool ever see. (Umm ... ;-))

Now, for me one thing lock down Gambas... why can't it be more known ?
Because it is close to Linux world. Theire is no possibility to use it
natively on other system ... this problem what explicitely exposed by RMS
in the past in a mail sended to us. Yes in his request he wanted us to make
the interpreter generate a cil code for interpreter like java/.net or
parrot. Well today we know java isn't a sure way, and we can do things too
without.

I have a request to Benoit, and i know it's time is precious and like mine
rare. I want him to concentrate on make it's code portable... separate
specific linux part to allow all our friend that want to help to port
gambas to stars to make theire job.

By doing this, most people can participate on compiler/interpreter code, by
having Gambas on other system we can have more component maker/maintainer.
At the end Benoit can take hollidays and come take a Cognac at home .   :-)

I know this is a huge job as he/we need to take the time to mark all part
of the code that is hard linked on Linux system, and then choose a way to
separate it to symplify the maintainment

Same thing for the toolkits but it's at a first time not the subject of
today.

Now we have hands that can help... but it can't be done if the code is not
structured for.

So for the Undred time ... Benoit ... Please, let us helping you.


To all, the gambas user/dev, this exchange is for you so even if it take
thouthen of mail, please give us your impress and your ideas, your support.


Please, don't look at the spelling fault, it will take to many time to you
  ;-)

--
Fabien Bodard "


" Fabien's right!

i worked on gambas' portability (OS X and *BSD) and i can say
we need a new structure of code to make a good portability
but mainly a proper maintenance.

Gambas is too linked to Linux. I can understand Benoit isn't
interesting to spend time in the developing to port Gambas,
but Benoit MUST review its code.

At the moment, Gambas is not coded to port properly on
others OS.
a lot of routines is too linked to Linux (i say it again).

Add new components and features is great, but it is
preferable to focus time to make it better.

i hope a work will be done in the gambas code to have
a "modular code". Separate X11 in a single code is
better for us, developers who wants to work on
portability of Gambas!

in this manner, each developer can works on a code
for OS X, for Windows and so on ...
X11 for OS X is ugly.
X11 for Windows is ugly.
Use translated X11 routines are ugly.

Benoit, we don't ask you to port Gambas to OS X & Windows,
just to re-structure code of Gambas so that we can works
efficiently!

While this change will not be applied,
i would not be motivated to work on any Gambas port again...

François Gallo "

[vuott]

...continua...


" well, theres some point that end in a double-edged sword

there's sense to ported to BSD, maebo, firefox-os,but if we make
software for non-free
systems, i see that most free projects in net the binaries for OSX or
Guindows are more
downloaded rather than the binaries for FOSS like linux, maebo, BSD,
etc etc, so then this its
a double-edged sword

those that makes free software for non-free systems are hipocrit due
made more relatiable these non-free systems

think about it: oh i have gambas for guindows, so why installing
complete os linux? nahhh
then install "w2008R2 super dupper edition ultimate corporate with all stuff"
and that's all .. no funny mens

>> rare. I want him to concentrate on make it's code portable... separate
>> specific linux part to allow all our friend that want to help to port
>> gambas to stars to make theire job.
I have no problem if code are ported to ONLY FREE OS's i can help ONLY
IN THAT SCENARY


>> separate it to symplify the maintainment
YEs in this part u have rigth

> i worked on gambas' portability (OS X and *BSD) and i can say
OSX are a non-free OS

> we need a new structure of code to make a good portability
> but mainly a proper maintenance.
Well yes have right

> Gambas is too linked to Linux. I can understand Benoit isn't
> interesting to spend time in the developing to port Gambas,
oh god exits!   ;-)
> but Benoit MUST review its code.
well u have right   u_u

> for OS X, for Windows and so on ...
> X11 for OS X is ugly.
> X11 for Windows is ugly.
> Use translated X11 routines are ugly.
u must use free software

> While this change will not be applied,
> i would not be motivated to work on any Gambas port again...
well with this i already very motivated

--
Lenz McKAY Gerardo "


" Just to throw in my two cents... I personally despise Windows, OSX and
iOS. Microsoft and Apple can both die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.
That being said, from a practical standpoint I think the lack of
portability speaks of two weaknesses (or strengths not taken advantage
of) of GAMBAS:

1) Developers have a significantly more limited target audience. The
best program in the world, if developed in GAMBAS, won't be used by the
vast majority of those potentially interested in using it. That hurts
potential end users and the developers.

2) The more people using an open source application, the more people
contribute to maintaining, improving, documenting, and evangelizing it,
as well as testing and reporting bugs. Hypothetically, if one million
people use GAMBAS and it runs on 1% of computers due to OS limitation,
porting it to the other 99% will result in the user base increasing to
100 million. That is profound and could accelerate the development and
stability of GAMBAS to unseen levels.

So, despite wanting to stab Microsoft and Apple in both eyes with
daggers, in the end I think it would benefit GAMBAS and us as developers.

If it's a matter of getting all the component dependencies working in
other OS's, couldn't build scripts be generated for all of them? You'd
think a lot of them already have build scripts for Windows and OSX and
it would be a matter of identifying the outliers and creating scripts
for them. How many components actually can't currently be compiled on
Windows/OSX? Maybe the start could just be the IDE and "default"
components, then the other components could be tackled individually. Not
my area of expertise. :/


> then install "w2008R2 super dupper edition ultimate corporate with all stuff"
> and that's all .. no funny mens
>
While that's true, it depends on your perspective, or, your intentions
as a GAMBAS developer. Most developers, especially in the open source
world, just want their application to be the best possible and to be
accessible to and used by the most people possible. People like RMS on
the other hand allow philosophy and politics to affect the landscape,
sometimes to their own detriment. If you get too "religious" about a
project you can end up shooting yourself in the face by accident.

Most users aren't technically savvy enough to migrate their OS to Linux
or set up a dual-boot scenario. They don't understand or care about the
open source philosophy, and while it's important to me, I don't think it
NEEDS to be important to other people. Everyone uses computers now;
kids, grandmas, police, firemen, lumberjacks, whatever. I don't think
they all need to be worried about changing OS's because a handful of
programs they want to use only work on Linux.

Linux will have its day on the desktop; it will have it's appropriate
market share (33% to be fair at this point), but I don't think it will
be from application platform exclusivity.


Kevin Fishburne "

[vuott]

...continua...


" Why, at least if it would be possible to implement multi-threading...

M. Cs. "


" To port Gambas on non-X11 systems, the problems are the following:

1) The interpreter relies on some kernel features that are not exactly
implemented in the Windows kernel, especially the fork() system call.
The Cygwin emulation layer is too slow.

2) I don't care about Windows. Doing the port is a big job. I started to
did it on Windows XP + Cygwin years ago. It worked, but there was the
fork() system call emulation that was slow.

3) There is X11 code in gb.gtk, gb.qt4 and gb.desktop.

4) For gb.gtk: as GTK+ 2 is deprecated, gb.gtk should be ported to GTK+
3. This implies removing all the X11 specific code.

5) For gb.qt4: the X11 specific code is there to workaround some
problems, but should not exist theoritically.

6) For gb.desktop: the desktop routines relies on the X11 window manager
protocols and freedesktop.org standards. A lot of things cannot be
ported, but some things can.

7) Many components are interfaces to libraries that do not necessarily
exist on other systems. It could be a problem.

I think there is not a lot of thing to do to port the interpreter, the
compiler and the other tools, as I already did that on Windows.

As for the X11 stuff, of course you're right. It must be encapsulated
somewhere so that it can be easily replaced. I already planned to do
that, but never had the time.

At the moment, I'm busy with fixing Gambas packager as soon as possible,
so that a Gambas 3.5.1 could be released.

--
Benoît Minisini "


" But you will support the native MIR and Wayland, right? And you will
create a 'gb.qt5' component? I waiting the GTK+ 3. :-)

Kende Krisztián "


" I'm sure that we all acknowledge that Gambas plays much the same role on Linux that VB plays on Windows. I used to be a VB developer, but I'd far sooner work with Gambas any day, even if it could be run on Windows. That said, the fact is that VB does exist and, whatever we like to think, it is a good tool with a huge and enthusiastic user base. At best, fully migrating Gambas to Windows would put it in a similar position to GIMP on Windows. At a functional level GIMP stands up well against Photoshop for most users. Despite that people still pay good money for Photoshop because it is the "go to" image editor in most people's minds. In the same way, no matter how good Gambas is most people looking for a RAD tool on Windows would automatically opt for VB.

I have played around with Lazarus, which is a visual development environment based on FreePascal and generates native executables. It's harder to use than Gambas, but still a lot easier than Visual C++. It already has the advantage that there are versions for Linux, Windows and OSX, so you can develop a project on one OS and just recompile it to run on the others. On that basis it beats every other development tool hands down for portability and should dominate the market. For all that, most developers regardless of their OS, have probably never heard of it.

To my mind Gambas has been developed to satisfy a requirement on Linux and it does that brilliantly well. There's nothing that comes close in terms of functionality vs ease-of-use. My view is that just because something CAN be done doesn't mean that it MUST be done. The notion that Gambas, or any other FLOSS project, must strive for maximum market share is more than a nod towards the stance of commercial proprietary software which many of us strive to avoid.

The one thing I would like to see for Gambas is not so much functionality as improved awareness of one of its many capabilities. By combining Gambas with SQLite you have more or less a complete analog for MS Access. When I first came to Linux I struggled to find anything close to an Access equivalent. LibreOffice Base is far too complicated and slow. I'm sure there are many Linux users who would dearly love to have a powerful desktop database tool but don't realise that a solution is so readily available.

Regards

Nige "

[akrobaticone]

Argomento interessante
faccio una domanda

Visula Basic Express è già disponibile gratuitamente, naturalmente solo per uso locale.
Che vantaggi avrei ad avere Gambas in alternativa?

Prescindiamo da argomenti di tipo etico (software open e libero)

Un vantaggio è la portabilità su più piattaforme

Che dite?

[vuott]

...continua...


" Dear Nige and all,

I'm working on something like MS Access in Gambas 3, but it's far from
complete. For now it works with PostgreSQL, XSB, eXist, Flora-2 and
ZODB, but SQLite and others like CouchDB are planned and should be
done soon. You can take a look at it at:

http://code.google.com/p/the-baze/

or for a binary at:

http://tinyurl.com/skini-baze

I hope that I get a working version soon.

All the best,

Markus Schatten, PhD
Assistant professor and head of Artificial Intelligence Lab
University of Zagreb "

[splugenbrau]

Buon giorno Akrobaticone, buon giorno vuott.
Ho fatto una veloce ricerca in proposito:

Visual Basic Professional costa circa: 300$.
vedi: http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/visual-studio-2013#story-2013
mentre Visual Basic Express forse è ancora gratuita...

Eventuali profitti commerciali sono ammessi anche per
gli sviluppatori sulla versione Express...
vedi anche: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3969484/can-i-produce-a-commercial-application-using-visual-studio-express-2010

...salvo per il fatto che non è ammessa divulgazione su S.O. non Microsoft
come ad esempio Linux (paragrafo 2, comma iii, punto 3).

Per le applicazioni commerciali che comprendono Microsoft SQL SERVER
vi é una licenza a parte che ancora non ho letto (paragrafo 5).

Il riferimento a un numero di copie non eccedente quello esplicitamente
indicato dal presente contratto (paragrafo 6, punto 3), a una lettura più attenta,
credo che si intenda un "numero qualitativo" e non quantitativo del
Software-Distribuibile (run-time e .dll varie) di proprietà Microsoft. Per
questo non é precisato: (10, 100, 1000?).

In allegato a questo inserto c'è il testo completo in lingua italiana in formato
.pdf della licenza ma non riesco a visualizzarne il link!!!

Ciao.

[vuott]

Prescindiamo da argomenti di tipo etico (software open e libero)

Non credo sia un argomento secondario.

[akrobaticone]

Prescindiamo da argomenti di tipo etico (software open e libero)

Non credo sia un argomento secondario.

Non intendevo dire che sia un argomento secondario, tutt'altro, ma volevo incentrare la discussione su considerazioni meramente economiche e pratiche.
Se ho già un software che si adatta perfettamente al sistema operativo che sto usando, che vantaggi avei nell'usarne un altro ancora in sviluppo e che avrebbe prestazioni inferiori (all'inizio .....)?

[splugenbrau]

Le licenze Microsoft SQL Server per un eventuale prodotto commerciale
elaborato con Visual Basic si acquistano separatamente.
Esse sono chiamate "licenze CAL" in cui Microsoft ipotizza
scenari di assistenza CED ha piccole, medie industrie
(poche copie e attività stabile del programmatore):
vedi: http://www.microsoft.com/italy/business/sam/lic_cal.mspx
la più semplice di queste licenze costa circa 250$+VAT (Standard Edition Single)
vedi: http://www.kelkoo.it/ss-microsoft-sql-server-pricing.html

Nei pacchetti Visual Basic Express (gratuito) è incluso (=embedded) il
pacchetto SQL Compact Edition (gratuito per un uso personale), mentre,
per la vendita di un programma commerciale ivi realizzato,
nasce qualche dubbio
vedi: http://www.codeproject.com/Questions/566839/OpeningplusaplusSoftwareplusCompanyplusinplusIndia

Se la versione SQL Compact ha le stesse funzionalità della
SQL Standard Edition, chi comprerebbe più quest'ultima?
Tuttavia per creazioni commerciali di largo consumo
(molte copie, basso prezzo) tipo l'italiana Finson
o giochi commerciali tipo Patrician III, 250$ a pezzo, sono assolutamente
poco concorrenziali.

Un programma senza un valido programma di archiviazione, ad ogni
accensione, parte sempre da zero: non si va più in là di una semplice
utility. E Microsoft,(come già detto) proibisce esplicitamente l'uso congiunto di
librerie non-Microsoft. Quindi proibisce anche Oracle MySQL etc...

Resta da vedere cosa, invece, offre Gambas...

Ciao.

[splugenbrau]

Cosa offre Gambas?

La più stabile libreria di archiviazione è MySQL.
Per realizzazioni in ambito gratuito (licenza GPL), Oracle
concede MySQL con le stesse libertà!
vedi: http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html
vedi: http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/feature/Using-MySQL-licensing-Open-source-license-vs-commercial-license

Per realizzazioni di servers di internet concede una licenza in
affitto che parte da 600$ (per month) e si attesta in media a
2000$ (per month).
vedi anche: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/03/oracle_mysql_price_hike/

(Giochi di largo consumo o Finson)
Non sono riuscito a trovare una licenza (e il relativo prezzo) adeguata
a una grande distribuzione.

Ma con Gambas é possibile rivolgersi anche a SqlLite o PostGreSQL
o a un primitivo ISAM...

Alla prossima puntata...

[splugenbrau]

Buone notizie:
SQLlite è "di pubblico dominio" e non richiede alcuna licenza in nessun caso!!
vedi: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
molte sono le realizzazioni di largo consumo specie i
browsers di Internet (tra cui anche FireFox);
vedi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite

e anche PostgreSQL si ritiene nell'area delle licenze GPL, (con un
testo liberatorio differente);
vedi: http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

se può essere di qualche importanza, però, noto, nei vari Forums che,
prima o poi, i programmatori in queste piattaforme (SQL) valutano sempre
i loro progetti anche con MySQL per vedere se ci sono bug nei
loro programmi o se malfunzionamenti dipendano
da bugs delle piattaforme (SQL).

Tra i "primitivi" ISAM ci sono:
1 - il BDB-Berckley-Data-Base. Che però mi sembra che nelle ultime
     licenze sia completamente votato al software libero.
     E' esplicitamente vietato qualsiasi sfruttamento commerciale.
2 - Il VB-ISAM di Trevor Van Bremen di cui è reperibile il
     codice sorgente in licenza LGPL
     vedi: http://sourceforge.net/projects/vbisam/files/vbisam/

[vuott]

...continua...


" I will be one of the first to use the possibility to let users run some gambas
app on OSX (not to work on it myself).

But if I really have to, I can run in a VM, so I wouldn't ask someone/B. to
spent time on it at the cost of the own advances of Gambas on Linux.

We have a nice platform: Linux.

We have the best desktop, and we even have choice.

And for some years, we have a great Development Environment: Gambas.

Every minute has 60 seconds, so I prefer Benoit and all the rest of us to
spent this time on improving these nice things that we have.*

The License is clear.  People that want to do so can do whatever they want if
they follow the license.

The 'lock down' is rather a 'lock open'.

So just keep on doing the nice job as long as you can.

I don't think Linus made the wrong choice, and I don't think either that he
would try to be more ... (wathever else).


Wim Geraets "


" I agree with you but, if i want to see Gambas on others OS
is because i've friends who would be to run my software
without have to install any linux distributions.

I don't care to have a lot of users from Windows or OS X
who use Gambas :-) . This is not my goal.
My goal is just to be able to run Gambas applications
without imposing choices.

furthermore, on OS X like Windows,
there is no good BASIC programming language.

either BASIC's are not free, or don't have good tools
and a good logic into BASIC syntax as Gambas.

François Gallo "


" Hi Markus et al

One of the big attractions of MS Access is that all the data, forms and queries can be delivered to the user in a single file. This is very attractive when it comes to distributing standalone databases to be run on the desktop. LibreOffice Base, at its simplest level, seeks to do the same thing, but it is seriously hampered by having such a rudimentary form designer, and its implemention of the Basic programming language is more difficult to use than VBA. When you add to that the default HSQL database engine, which is both slow and inefficient, you have a tool which I cannot believe is widely used for anything other than local "quick and dirty" databases, where performance and appearance are of little importance.

Of course, both Access and Base can be used for far more sophisticated purposes. Through the use of ODBC Access can connect to a number of different types of database and, combined with the use of local tables, can extend the core dataset. Again, Base can do much the same, but it remains hampered by having such an unsophisticated form designer and the tedious programming language.

With Gambas it is not possible to achieve the "single file" approach to database application delivery that you can with Access or Base (well, I've not found a way), but it is still very simple to deliver a Gambas executable (assuming the runtime environment has already been installed on the target) and an associated SQLite database in just 2 files. This makes distribution by email, subject to size constraints, a practical proposition in way that is not possible if the data is hosted in a server-based architecture.

Developing a database front-end in Gambas is more like developing such an application in VB than Access, as you still need to create the links between the controls on the form and the database which, of course, is done for you automatically in Access. For all that, though, it is very easy whether you use the Gambas databound controls or prefer to write a few generic read/write procedures long-hand.

>From the description of your Baze project in Google Code, rather than duplicating an existing application I believe that you will end up with a high performance tool which achieves the flexibility aspirations of Base combined with the ability to create a sophisticated, professional-looking user interface. By including support for NoSQL you will be ahead of the game.

It's an ambitious goal, but I do think that as long as ease of use and implementation are always at the forefront of the design, then it will eventually find an enthusiastic user base.

I wish you every success.

Nige "

[akrobaticone]

E se Gambas potesse diventare uno dei linguaggi di supporto a Libreoffice?
alla stregua di VBA.........

[milio]

E se Gambas potesse diventare uno dei linguaggi di supporto a Libreoffice?
alla stregua di VBA.........

Eccolo! Questo potrebbe essere un gran matrimonio!
Purtroppo non verrà mai utilizzato, almeno finché Gambas non giri anche su altre piattaforme...

[akrobaticone]

Quanto deve essere grande l'impegno per portare gambas anche su Win?
certo che con Libreoffice sarebbe un bel colpaccio....