Maybe You will think that it's a provocation or a "troll", but I don't really understand the advantage of using the complete Studio version compared with the "simple" software (which I use for more than 4 years and I am very satisfied with it). Can anybody explain ?
I tested GCB Studio several months ago ... All the way, the newest version crashes on my good old computer from Dec 2016, still running W7 x64 pro ... :(
Last edit: Bertrand BAROTH 2022-11-25
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
GCode is a far better editor. SynWrite is a hacked up editor by me to make it stable. There are features in Synwrite that crash the editor like autotype (I hacked the exe to stop SynWrite from crashing!! Nice).
GCode has the shell for executing the compiler (and any other part of the toolchain). The shell is a managed environment where you can kill GCBASIC (yes... it does lock up sometimes and never exits) easily and you get to see what is going on.
GCode supports all the toolchain software applications in the environment. Synwrite is limited to a few and we have a lot of toolchain software applications – any one developer may not use all the tools but the toolchain software applications create a complete development environment.
GCCode use published APIs to configure the editor. SynWrite is a Black Art that only myself and Frank know how to manage. This is not sustainable going forward.
GCode integrated HELP save me hours and hours. SynWrite is total pain to add Help. Again, SynWrite Help is Black Art and only three people know how to make that Magic work.
GCode is cross platform. SynWrite is Windows Only. Going forward look to see GCode for Mac and Linux.
GCode has an open approach to configuration. SynWrite is supported by a set of batch files that are very complex and support for these going forward is harder and harder.
GCode is a signed application. And, therefore considered safe by the operating system. GS+Tools and SyWrite takes me days and days to manage. I have to send all the applications to the major virus checkers, I have get the applications white listed. I have to manage the white listing process whenever I made a release… GCode has removed that overhead.
GCode is an industry standard. SynWrite is not.
Oh.. I could go on and on. But, Great Cow BASIC needs to evolve. It needs new blood to take over the leadership and the development program. That new blood is arriving. And, one of the changes is GCStudio. Under my stewardship I believe that I have listened to the challenges of this evolution and we have addressed the major concerns – this is a great step forward
The download is larger. This is purely the toolchain and demos. See the complete toolchain here - https://sourceforge.net/p/gcbasic/discussion/579126/thread/0d009b1785/ (and, yes. we have to maintain this list to ensure we comply with US Regulations). Synwrite is NOT supported/developed and therefore cannot be used where this regulation applies (along with any unsupported software). GCStudio and GCode are supported.
The download is larger. The contents of the distribution and therefore the size are within the control of the user community. The toolchain has been created to support the needs of the users - this can be pruned when the community agree to the remove of specific tools. But, today, we have a complete toolchain that works very well.
No-one is forcing anyone to use GCode as the code editor. You can change the editor SynWrite, Geany or GCGB and never use GCode. You can choose Great Cow Graphical BASIC or Geany. These editors will be considered as legacy from 01/12/2022 and I dont expect them to be developed. GCode is supported. Synwrite is not.
And, what next ? A new GC Terminal application with integrated Data Visualization, then, Scratch. These new applications will replace Terminal.exe and GCGB.
GCStudio has attracted a new group of users to GCBASIC. Downloads have increased with an upwards tick. The feedback I get on YouTube is very positive reegarding GCode - a great sign.
GCStudio is like the chips supported by the toolchain - new chips generally do not get used by existing developers... new developers use new chips. GCBASIC is now the leading 8-Bit compiler for PIC, AVR and LGTs. GCBASIC and the toolchain supports more microcontrollers than any other compiler. Hugh created an toolchain that could evolve and GCStudio is the next step of the evolution.
From a personal point of view. GCStudio is reducing the many, many hours of my time. Hugh once told me that he was 'a full time programmer/developer' when he was leading. Prior to GCStudio arriving my commitment had to be total to keep Great Cow BASIC stable and almost every support email or post that I responded to start 'what version ....'. GCStudio will maintain environment, it will reduce the support time and it will ensure consistency of the toolchain. However, I have a clear expectation that folks use GCStudio to maintain a consistent development environment.
Finally, if GCStudio and GCode turn out to be a lemon... nothing is lost. Folks can use EDLIN.
Last edit: Anobium 2022-11-25
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have always been satisfied with GCBasic for almost 5 years, but I HATE all things related with Studio (including AVR Studio) ; so I am afraid that, since there will be no more support for standard GCBasic, I will migrate to another programming language (Pascal or WinAVR-C).
Sorry, and bye ...
Last edit: Bertrand BAROTH 2022-11-25
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
People can stay with SymWrite. And, only use GCStudio for updating the toolchain.
But, I want everyone to think about 'supportability' going forward.
We use tools that are developed in dev tools that out of date, applications that are hacked, and scripts that are overly complex.
The strategy must be to eradicate out of support tools like FreeBasic 0.98 circa 2001. And, get on supported tools.
This is a debate we had on this forum in March when this migration started. And, I think we have resolved. Those that want to stay on the legacy can. They just need to update using GCStudio.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I know I am in the minority here, but I would really, really, really like to not have to install GCStudio.
My tiny mind cannot compute any logic in downloading and installing a 1Gb+ program just to update the core compiler. As the core compiler is barely a few Mb it makes more sense to me to update manually, by downloading and installing just the files I want.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Looks as though you and I are the last of the few. I agree with you totally, and would rather jump ship than sail onboard the HMS GCStudio. Whilst the core compiler continues to work and I can continue to update it manually I'll be happy to support GCB, if I'm forced to go to GCStudio I'll be putting my coat on for the last time.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm sorry that I've upset you, that has never been my intention.
I've supported GCB from the day that I discovered it and have done my utmost to promote it and have always tried to put something back into the GCB community, whether by sharing and compiling a macOS version, writing tutorials, posting my projects or financial support.
I can only say that I personally dislike GCStudio and wish to see the core compiler made available. I'm sorry if that offends you and Angel, I realise the amount of work that has gone into it and it isn't that I don't recognise both of your efforts, sadly it isn't for me.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Gcstudio is very delicious but I also prefer to use synwrite.
I wrote programs in which more than 400 routines were present.
With Synwrite it is very easy to switch from one routine to another simply by clicking on the name of the routine on the list.
With Gcstudio you have to go to look for it on the list, easy if the program is short, annoying with very large programs.
Isn't there a trick to move quickly between routines?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Sure.
Select OUTLINE from the EXPLORER (CTRL-B if not shown).
Drag the OUTLINE to a nice position if at the bottom.
Then, select ..., I filter on type and sort by category.
Now you see the list of categories - the little cube are the subs and functions.
This will always need improvements - the same sort of hacks we did to SynWrite
I suspect that the backlash you are receiving is because many of us found GCBASIC whilst looking for an alternative to MPLABx.
I was happy working in MASM and C++ but did not want to now learn a blotted IDE with far too many bells and whistles.
Synwrite was an easy and intuitive environment and finding that it was bundled with a great compiler was a bonus.
Now the old Dogs are even Older dogs and we find that a NEW Bloated IDE full of bells and whistles has replaced Synwrite and I will take longer to learn that the Compiler did.
At my stage in life Synwrite will probably out last me so I will probably leave GCode to the young pups who like to try new things and stick with GCBASIC for as long as the old IDE is available.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I keep saying this... Use SynWrite as the IDE and only use GCStudio for management of the updates.
I am old dog and I know it. When this old dog dies and passes the baton onto others then the new dogs will have an environment that is supported and can be supported.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Archive GCBASIC - Minimal Installation - there has been no downloads
Archive GCBASIC - Core Compiler - there has been no downloads
I can't be sure what time period your stats refer to, but I'm certain in the last 12 months I have downloaded one or more of those? I've changed my PC at work from an iMac to a Windows PC (Yuk!) and I know I didn't install GCB using GCStudio.
For many recent updates to GCB, I got the very distinct impression that they were included in GCStudio only, subsequently I have not looked for any more recent versions of the core compiler/minimal installation on the assumption they had not been updated. I think I've downloaded a few patches when I've been able to find them.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
There has been 60 ish download of these two packages - this year.
For me to create the packages, to test, and release will take me a day each.
This is not justified.
The patches are in release candidates folder and these have been updated almost daily for most of this year. Again. I do this. Every morning for 3-4 hours. This is not sustainable.
The static post at the top of the Discussion Board shows the download location for the patches.
What more can I do?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Maybe You will think that it's a provocation or a "troll", but I don't really understand the advantage of using the complete Studio version compared with the "simple" software (which I use for more than 4 years and I am very satisfied with it). Can anybody explain ?
I tested GCB Studio several months ago ... All the way, the newest version crashes on my good old computer from Dec 2016, still running W7 x64 pro ... :(
Last edit: Bertrand BAROTH 2022-11-25
I will try.
CGStudio is managed. The total toolchain is managed. All previous releases are not. Please review https://onedrive.live.com/Edit.aspx?resid=2F87FFE77F3DBEC7!67634&wd=cpe&authkey=!ADmkT3exl5l4Pkc for the 100s of changes, fixes and new feature that have happened this year. These are delivered automatically with GCStudio.
GCode is a far better editor. SynWrite is a hacked up editor by me to make it stable. There are features in Synwrite that crash the editor like autotype (I hacked the exe to stop SynWrite from crashing!! Nice).
GCode has the shell for executing the compiler (and any other part of the toolchain). The shell is a managed environment where you can kill GCBASIC (yes... it does lock up sometimes and never exits) easily and you get to see what is going on.
GCode supports all the toolchain software applications in the environment. Synwrite is limited to a few and we have a lot of toolchain software applications – any one developer may not use all the tools but the toolchain software applications create a complete development environment.
GCCode use published APIs to configure the editor. SynWrite is a Black Art that only myself and Frank know how to manage. This is not sustainable going forward.
GCode integrated HELP save me hours and hours. SynWrite is total pain to add Help. Again, SynWrite Help is Black Art and only three people know how to make that Magic work.
GCode is cross platform. SynWrite is Windows Only. Going forward look to see GCode for Mac and Linux.
GCode has an open approach to configuration. SynWrite is supported by a set of batch files that are very complex and support for these going forward is harder and harder.
GCode is a signed application. And, therefore considered safe by the operating system. GS+Tools and SyWrite takes me days and days to manage. I have to send all the applications to the major virus checkers, I have get the applications white listed. I have to manage the white listing process whenever I made a release… GCode has removed that overhead.
GCode is an industry standard. SynWrite is not.
Oh.. I could go on and on. But, Great Cow BASIC needs to evolve. It needs new blood to take over the leadership and the development program. That new blood is arriving. And, one of the changes is GCStudio. Under my stewardship I believe that I have listened to the challenges of this evolution and we have addressed the major concerns – this is a great step forward
The download is larger. This is purely the toolchain and demos. See the complete toolchain here - https://sourceforge.net/p/gcbasic/discussion/579126/thread/0d009b1785/ (and, yes. we have to maintain this list to ensure we comply with US Regulations). Synwrite is NOT supported/developed and therefore cannot be used where this regulation applies (along with any unsupported software). GCStudio and GCode are supported.
The download is larger. The contents of the distribution and therefore the size are within the control of the user community. The toolchain has been created to support the needs of the users - this can be pruned when the community agree to the remove of specific tools. But, today, we have a complete toolchain that works very well.
No-one is forcing anyone to use GCode as the code editor. You can change the editor SynWrite, Geany or GCGB and never use GCode. You can choose Great Cow Graphical BASIC or Geany. These editors will be considered as legacy from 01/12/2022 and I dont expect them to be developed. GCode is supported. Synwrite is not.
And, what next ? A new GC Terminal application with integrated Data Visualization, then, Scratch. These new applications will replace Terminal.exe and GCGB.
GCStudio has attracted a new group of users to GCBASIC. Downloads have increased with an upwards tick. The feedback I get on YouTube is very positive reegarding GCode - a great sign.
GCStudio is like the chips supported by the toolchain - new chips generally do not get used by existing developers... new developers use new chips. GCBASIC is now the leading 8-Bit compiler for PIC, AVR and LGTs. GCBASIC and the toolchain supports more microcontrollers than any other compiler. Hugh created an toolchain that could evolve and GCStudio is the next step of the evolution.
From a personal point of view. GCStudio is reducing the many, many hours of my time. Hugh once told me that he was 'a full time programmer/developer' when he was leading. Prior to GCStudio arriving my commitment had to be total to keep Great Cow BASIC stable and almost every support email or post that I responded to start 'what version ....'. GCStudio will maintain environment, it will reduce the support time and it will ensure consistency of the toolchain. However, I have a clear expectation that folks use GCStudio to maintain a consistent development environment.
Finally, if GCStudio and GCode turn out to be a lemon... nothing is lost. Folks can use EDLIN.
Last edit: Anobium 2022-11-25
I should be clear with the release plan.
This is the release plan for 01/12/2022
So, going forward there will be two downloads.
Folks can access the Archives for older releases.
I have always been satisfied with GCBasic for almost 5 years, but I HATE all things related with Studio (including AVR Studio) ; so I am afraid that, since there will be no more support for standard GCBasic, I will migrate to another programming language (Pascal or WinAVR-C).
Sorry, and bye ...
Last edit: Bertrand BAROTH 2022-11-25
No-one is forcing you to change.
Stay with what you are satisfied with. Use GStudio to update your system and nothing else.
If you are happy = you can remain satisfied.
I thought studio was cool but it bigs up what was simpler
People can stay with SymWrite. And, only use GCStudio for updating the toolchain.
But, I want everyone to think about 'supportability' going forward.
We use tools that are developed in dev tools that out of date, applications that are hacked, and scripts that are overly complex.
The strategy must be to eradicate out of support tools like FreeBasic 0.98 circa 2001. And, get on supported tools.
This is a debate we had on this forum in March when this migration started. And, I think we have resolved. Those that want to stay on the legacy can. They just need to update using GCStudio.
I know I am in the minority here, but I would really, really, really like to not have to install GCStudio.
My tiny mind cannot compute any logic in downloading and installing a 1Gb+ program just to update the core compiler. As the core compiler is barely a few Mb it makes more sense to me to update manually, by downloading and installing just the files I want.
I GIVE UP
Looks as though you and I are the last of the few. I agree with you totally, and would rather jump ship than sail onboard the HMS GCStudio. Whilst the core compiler continues to work and I can continue to update it manually I'll be happy to support GCB, if I'm forced to go to GCStudio I'll be putting my coat on for the last time.
If I go. it dies.
Here is my strategy as of today.
I will release 1.00 GCStudio in December then someone else can do it.
I will update the licenses, pay for the storage, do all the domain stuff and then sign off.
I'm sorry that I've upset you, that has never been my intention.
I've supported GCB from the day that I discovered it and have done my utmost to promote it and have always tried to put something back into the GCB community, whether by sharing and compiling a macOS version, writing tutorials, posting my projects or financial support.
I can only say that I personally dislike GCStudio and wish to see the core compiler made available. I'm sorry if that offends you and Angel, I realise the amount of work that has gone into it and it isn't that I don't recognise both of your efforts, sadly it isn't for me.
In December may be Angel or Hugh can resolve.
Sorry. I truly am sorry, I don't know what else I can say.
It is not you. It is amount of work to prepare and then today this post basically says 'there is no point '.
Bertrand deleted his SourceForge account and then more in the post.
This change is intended to establish a new baseline for the future. It could well be the Swan song.
Last edit: Anobium 2022-11-25
@Bertrand.
I shall share how I feel after your post.
I feel that I explained and from your reaction I feel that I have done something wrong to you.
Sorry.
Last edit: Anobium 2022-11-25
Gcstudio is very delicious but I also prefer to use synwrite.
I wrote programs in which more than 400 routines were present.
With Synwrite it is very easy to switch from one routine to another simply by clicking on the name of the routine on the list.
With Gcstudio you have to go to look for it on the list, easy if the program is short, annoying with very large programs.
Isn't there a trick to move quickly between routines?
Sure.
Select OUTLINE from the EXPLORER (CTRL-B if not shown).
Drag the OUTLINE to a nice position if at the bottom.
Then, select
..., I filteron typeandsort by category.Now you see the list of categories - the little cube are the subs and functions.
This will always need improvements - the same sort of hacks we did to SynWrite
So, please report to Angel all improvements and issues. Post here https://sourceforge.net/p/gcbasic/discussion/596084/thread/2f0beef127/
Last edit: Anobium 2022-11-25
Thanks
If this works let us know.
If you working practice is better in SynWrite then a video will help Angel understand or a set of screenshots.
Cheers
I suspect that the backlash you are receiving is because many of us found GCBASIC whilst looking for an alternative to MPLABx.
I was happy working in MASM and C++ but did not want to now learn a blotted IDE with far too many bells and whistles.
Synwrite was an easy and intuitive environment and finding that it was bundled with a great compiler was a bonus.
Now the old Dogs are even Older dogs and we find that a NEW Bloated IDE full of bells and whistles has replaced Synwrite and I will take longer to learn that the Compiler did.
At my stage in life Synwrite will probably out last me so I will probably leave GCode to the young pups who like to try new things and stick with GCBASIC for as long as the old IDE is available.
I keep saying this... Use SynWrite as the IDE and only use GCStudio for management of the updates.
I am old dog and I know it. When this old dog dies and passes the baton onto others then the new dogs will have an environment that is supported and can be supported.
I can't be sure what time period your stats refer to, but I'm certain in the last 12 months I have downloaded one or more of those? I've changed my PC at work from an iMac to a Windows PC (Yuk!) and I know I didn't install GCB using GCStudio.
For many recent updates to GCB, I got the very distinct impression that they were included in GCStudio only, subsequently I have not looked for any more recent versions of the core compiler/minimal installation on the assumption they had not been updated. I think I've downloaded a few patches when I've been able to find them.
There has been 60 ish download of these two packages - this year.
For me to create the packages, to test, and release will take me a day each.
This is not justified.
The patches are in release candidates folder and these have been updated almost daily for most of this year. Again. I do this. Every morning for 3-4 hours. This is not sustainable.
The static post at the top of the Discussion Board shows the download location for the patches.
What more can I do?