tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14934996.post7434346416991441323..comments2023-08-26T01:35:40.671-07:00Comments on Bruce Armstrong's blog: My list of preferred new PowerBuilder featuresBruce Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06531990923901345957noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14934996.post-66550924511420214302015-06-09T09:16:53.091-07:002015-06-09T09:16:53.091-07:00>>I was wondering if this blog had dried up ...>>I was wondering if this blog had dried up since the ISUG conference was 3 months ago and <br />>>you hadn't summarized it for us mere mortals. Thanks for the deluge of updates!<br /><br />I'd started writing something up immediately after the ISUG conference but then put it aside until after the NCPBUG meeting. If that announcement hadn't gone well, there might not have been much more to write about....Bruce Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06531990923901345957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14934996.post-55826129302317730012015-06-09T09:06:42.807-07:002015-06-09T09:06:42.807-07:00>>I must admit I was quite surprise at the 1...>>I must admit I was quite surprise at the 180 you did back to PB Classic given the time and <br />>>effort you've put in to education us on PB.Net.<br /><br />The problem with the .Net approach, at least as far as Sybase tried to implement it, is that they couldn't keep up with Microsoft's "flavor of the moment" mentality. One day a particular .Net technology is all the rage, a few months later it's mothballed and another new technology is the new darling. Look at web services. First there was ASP.Net web services, then WCF, and now ASP.Net Web API is the new thing. Meanwhile, PowerBuilder Classic is still using ASP.Net web servcies and PB.Net is only up to WCF.<br /><br />Same thing with the VS.Net Isolated Shell. PB.Net is still on the 2010 shell. Microsoft has essentially re-written the shell with each new release, which creates issues for Sybase/SAP/Appeon having to make significant modifications to move to each newer version of the shell. The Eclipse platform seems to offer more stability and backwards compatibility.Bruce Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06531990923901345957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14934996.post-11432540080446444592015-06-03T11:19:56.186-07:002015-06-03T11:19:56.186-07:00I was wondering if this blog had dried up since th...I was wondering if this blog had dried up since the ISUG conference was 3 months ago and you hadn't summarized it for us mere mortals. Thanks for the deluge of updates!<br /><br />I thought you were the torch bearer for us that thought PB.Net had the potential to make PB relevant again. I must admit I was quite surprise at the 180 you did back to PB Classic given the time and effort you've put in to education us on PB.Net.<br /><br />Update Current Functionality<br />"Add [fill in the blank] functionality to PB Classic" WTF? This functionality already exist in PB.Net and would be a complete waste of time and resources. Finishing PB.Net would be money better spent. Why spend another nickle on a Win32 IDE. It is not 1999 regardless of what Prince says!<br /><br />Near Term Enhancements<br />PB.Net already has native PDF generation. Completing PB.Net would open up a huge 3rd party market which more than likely would address your other request.<br /><br />Long Term Enhancements<br />Make PB.Net the single IDE. VS is head shoulders better than Eclipse IMHO. Moving to PB.Net prevents the necessary cludge of CCWs, Interop etc. and all the associated crap to try to make things work with PB Classic. These things are seamless in the .Net world. As a bonus your other request are unnecessary.<br /><br />My only request: blog more often. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04693154481931693467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14934996.post-25496261593499432382015-05-25T04:56:00.324-07:002015-05-25T04:56:00.324-07:00There appears to be a significant amount of though...There appears to be a significant amount of thought and time in this post, Thank you.<br /><br />I totally agree with the controls updates. Functionality is always important but must 'SEE' changes for people to feel things are changing.<br /><br />Re: getting shops to upgrade. You are the first I heard mention other than me. So many have decade old versions. Up side, testament to PB still working with years newer OS and DB versions.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08406124165349299495noreply@blogger.com