Appeon - The Future of PB Webcast Series - Vision - Comments

[Former Member]

Just watched the Appeon 'The Future of PB Webcast Series - Vision' webinar. Would be interested to hear what anyone else who saw it thinks. I am writing up the main point for my team, and will add thoughts to this post soon

[ricardojasso]

Hi,

These are my general thoughts on PowerBuilder's future:

Native Windows Development with PowerBuilder

PowerBuilder should improve on what it currently does; provide the development community with a client server development tool for building rich business database driven Win32 applications. PB does a great job integrating the database with the application via the DataWindow. We can easily create edit windows and complex reports with it. Doing the same with other languages takes considerably more effort and resources. It is a great tool for this purpose.

Many companies have seriously invested in PowerBuilder in the last 20+ years and cannot easily migrate to other tools and languages due to the size of their systems and the complexity involved in programming in a new unfamiliar environment. These companies need to maintain their current Win32 PB applications and possibly develop new ones and they need to take advantage of the new functionality released in each iteration of the Windows API (i.e WinXP, WinVista, Win7, Win8, Win10, etc). So PB should fully adapt to these iterations to allow us to take advantage of new UI options and features.

I also think many companies will want to stay on the client server architecture even if they can deploy to the web with minimal effort using Appeon. I’m thinking about companies who don’t need to publish their applications on the Internet and who don’t find a real benefit using a browser instead of a native application. From test I’ve done a PB application deployed to the web runs slower than a native Win32 application. This reduction in speed will make companies think whether they want to sacrifice speed for scalability even if they have the benefit of seamless deployment. PB executes really fast and it should stay that way to keep its competitive advantage. I think it is the closest thing to developing in C++, execution speed wise.

So I believe that in general Win32 PowerBuilder should not be phased out and instead should be improved regarding Windows API adaptability, core functionality (web services consumption, xml document processing, security, etc.), and IDE features and stability.

Win32 PowerBuilder and .NET

In my opinion Win32 PowerBuilder should be totally independent of .NET as far as application building and running is concerned. For example, Win32 PB should be able to generate web services proxies and consume web services without the need of the .NET engine or .NET Framework. Doing so will remove many issues concerning .NET compatibility when developing and deploying applications. There are many examples in this forum of people having issues when using a feature that requires the .NET Framework. Frankly, it is embarrassing.

But that doesn’t mean PB should not interact with .NET. On the contrary, it should continue offering the ability to generate .NET assemblies from PB objects to be used in other .NET applications. And this should be enhanced by adding the ability to specify the CLR version one wants to target (i.e. CLR 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, or 4.0). Calling .NET components using COM wrappers is also necessary to access the .NET Framework and third party .NET components. So I think .NET should be optional and not required for Win32 PB development and deployment.

PowerBuilder Development with .NET

Appeon’s vision was made clear at the Webcast in the sense that it sees future PowerBuilder development being done on top of .NET. This is right, in my opinion, due to the extensive support Microsoft has shown to .NET and its clear promotion as its next generation development platform; but most of all, due to its technical aspects (e.g. managed code, security, framework).

Now, Appeon plans to phase out Powerbuilder.NET in favor of a Visual Studio plugin. Stopping the use of the VS isolated shell makes a lot of sense because it’ll stop PB dependency on Microsoft regarding when and how it chooses to improve the IDE. But in the past years Microsoft has been constantly improving VS so this dependency hasn’t been an issue to this day and I think it’s not the cause of the current problems with PB.NET. The problem in my opinion is that Sybase stopped working on PB.NET and so we stopped receiving improvements. A VS plugin can solve this.

But we’ll still be dependent on Microsoft for IDE improvements. So I think Appeon should continue working on a proprietary IDE, if economically feasible, to regain full control over its development. This will give PB yet another competitive advantage. For example, does the use of a plugin will mean we won’t be using PB libraries anymore? I believe the use of PBLs is one of PB advantages because it allows us to have a more organized storage environment of our code. Jumping to Visual Studio will make us lose this advantage.

And instead of a C# conversion I would prefer to have a real CLR compliant PowerScript language that can compile directly to MSIL. I’m not sure if I agree with Appeon’s intention to give us the alternative to use PowerScript or C#, especially if the vision means having PowerScript code converted to C# before being compiled to MSIL. C# is not the core language of .NET. MSIL is. PowerScript.NET should compile directly to MSIL. Or converted to C# and compiled to MSIL as long as we don’t have to deal with C# code, like right now we don’t have to deal with C++ code when using PowerScript.

“It’s hard to find PowerBuilder developers now days”. The reason for this has nothing to do with the language per se. PowerBuilder the tool lingered for such a long time people lost interest in it for new development projects. Thus, PB programmers became scarce. “There are a lot of C# developers out there”. Well, PowerScript has an easy to read BASIC like syntax with a C++ variable declaration style that makes it easy to learn and use. Experienced C# or VisualBasic.NET programmers with good knowledge of the .NET framework will have no problem learning the new PowerScript.NET. And being already an object oriented language it shouldn’t be hard to create a CLR compliant version of PowerScript. Again, PowerScript is an important competitive advantage and should be kept.

Deployment of Native Windows PowerBuilder Applications to n-Tier Web using Appeon

For those companies who want to deploy their current applications to the web with minimal changes Appeon is clearly the best solution by far. In the past weeks I’ve been testing Appeon and frankly I’m impressed on how faithful the application was reproduced in an n-tier web architecture (I used the IIS version of Appeon). Nevertheless Appeon should improve as to reduce the number of unsupported features. The less I have to modify my original application the better because if not I’ll end up using a reduced set of PB features in order to have my application available in both platforms thus reducing its potential.

Web and Mobile Development using PowerBuilder

In a perfect world, PowerBuilder should allow us to develop for client server, the web and mobile targeting each specific platform (Win32, .NET, Java, iOS, Android, WinOS, etc.) But in a cross platform development strategy like the one Appeon envisions we are forced to use a reduced set of functions in order to have our applications available on all platforms. We thus end up using the lowest common denominator set of features from all supported platforms. This is not good and should be seriously reconsidered.

I believe we should be able to target specific platforms when developing with PowerBuilder to get full advantage of each platform. Nevertheless, the argument for a cross platform development environment is attractive money wise, especially to administrative managers who want to do the most with the least. If they don’t mind having a sub par application as long as it can be accessed from all platforms then a cross platform solution is a good bet. But I agree we should be able to target web and mobile platforms one way or another. The way it should be done I think depends on the market Appeon is targeting.

BR,

Ricardo

[Former Member]

Hi Ricardo;

Well stated IMHO ... thanks!

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

A very well considered and presented argument. I agree with most of it, I'm waiting for the next webinar to hear more of the Appeon vision  before I join the debate fully.

Cheers

David

[Former Member]

We are "all ears" now David!  

[Former Member]

Sadly I missed the webinar Chris.

I need to watch it when its uploaded.....

You know I'll have something to say when the time comes

[Former Member]

I know .... but, the webinar has been uploaded earlier this week. An email from Appeon went out yesterday to all registered attendees to review the presentation and see the Q&A responses.  Just thought that you would have jumped on that by now - LOL!    

[Former Member]

I didn't get the email from Appeon.....

Perhaps Armeen is trying to keep me quiet for now

[Former Member]

ROFLMAO! 

[ricardojasso]

I wondered why I hadn't received it yet so I just checked in my mail hosting spam folder and there it was...

Thanks Chris!

[Former Member]

Ι did not get an email either

[Former Member]

Hi David et Al;

  Try this link to review the webcasts if you have an Appeon Login ID ... Webcast

HTH

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

OK Chris et Al

Much more of a conceptual presentation than before, showing the deployment options that we would all like to see in an ideal world.

I was particularly pleased to see the inclusion of ADP for data transport creating a uniform method of talking to remote objects and databases, this I can see adding huge value to the development proposition and at the same time allowing an easier transition for developers with large n-tier application based on EAServer. This would also allow developers to easily thin down their clients in the traditional fat desktop applications.

The Deployment architectures all make sense and are quite exciting for some of our existing PB applications. Particularly those that are typically used by small business and so are deployed to many customers. The OTA deployment would be perfect with back-end server deployment to a cloud or hosted solution if that is what they would like. Not always practical when you are based in the highlands of Scotland and have a very intermittent internet connection. You need your system local in order to maintain the business service. So we need to option for both deployment strategies.

For us mobile is still only a small consideration as the majority of the business applications will still be based on windows pc clients. Despite what Armeen said I believe there is now a shift away from people installing apps to interact with businesses on-line. Unless you are going to regularly use that supplier it is quite irritating to have to install an app in order to perform a single transaction. The number of installed apps a user has is declining, we now expect the html web sites to have high functionality specifically designed for the mobile device. Nowhere in this vision is a solution for that.

In my opinion the priority should be the desktop application, yes we need to understand the end goal and how we are to get there. But the first step on that road should be to bring the desktop application development tool up to the level described with the n-tier deployment options and OTA delivery. The second phase can be to address the deploy anywhere and mobile deployments.

Finally there is still no credible solution for developing highly functional HTML5 applications. This is not a specific PB issue, but a wider development tools issue. All the tools I have looked at fall far short of being an appropriate RAD tool for HTML5. I believe that PB has the right underlying concepts, linked with the skills that Appeon have, to provide a HTML5 RAD tool. I do not expect this tool to be a migration for PB but just use the building blocks and powerscript language as the core of the IDE. Perhaps this could be phase 3 of the Appeon vision?

Going back to the Appeon presentation, I'm still concerned by the HOW? I was less than impressed by the concept of PB being a plug-in to Visual Studio, I believe that would be the final nail in the coffin for PB. For PB to survive and stand up on it's own we need our own specialist IDE. If you move PB to VS then what is the point in developing new apps in PB, the IT strategy will undoubtedly be to write new code in c# only and not to use any PB objects so as to break free from that "legacy" platform. Not my point of view you understand but CTO's will still want to get rid of PB seeing it as a small wart on the side of the wonderful VS offering. By having our own IDE and demonstrating the power of the language and its deployment options will make PB stand out rather than be merged in. By standing away from the crowd we will shine again and CTO's will look at PB as a viable strategy decision.

That's my 2p worth.

David

[Former Member]

Hi David;

  Thank you for that feedback from your perspective!

FWIW: The only way PB will ever see any further use or re-adoption in the Canadian Federal government is if it becomes fully web enabled. By that I mean fully HTML5 compliant. The current direction of both the federal and provincial governments is web only - no mobile - no native applications. While native mobile solutions are being looked at, they are not strategic at this time. The other big factor is J2EE support. Right now, about 60% of my Cdn government clients use Java vs .Net. So while transparent .Net interoperability is definitely a key consideration ... transparent Java interoperability is also a key factor locally to my clientele.

  I can't speak on what Appeon sees application development internationally though - so it might just be my local government client bias. I would be interested to hear what other PB developers see in their realm currently.

Regards ... Chris

PS: The VS plug-in route also makes me nervous vs the unique PB IDE approach making it distinctive. Maybe its the bad taste the DW.Net product left in my mouth. Most comments from the government departments who tried DW.Net (and there were quite a few) were: a) there are better data plug-ins available today; b) the DW features need more polish and c) my MS salesperson said that if I buy VS - that's all I need.

=> "C" was the big killer. Also, IT Management said .. " I spent all this money on VS - make it work!".

PPS: One last thought ... SAP's application & tools direction is Java & HTML5 (what is that telling us?).

[Former Member]

The explanation Armeen gave around the VS plug-in wasn't clear. My interpretation is that it is a replacement for the current PB.Net only. PB Classic would continue in the current IDE for the foreseeable future. Perhaps at the next session someone should ask to have that point clarified.

[Former Member]

I am with David and Chris on this one.  Little to no interest from clients in a native mobile deployment. Very interested in how to modernize our client/server applications and improve deployment.  The real priority is for a HTML 5 deployment option for our systems employee self service component as we are getting by with the web datawindow and it doesn't work well you need more than 1 datawindow on a single page to be updated.

Tell you the truth if we had a decent RAD html5 deployment we could look at dropping the client/server component altogether like many of our competitors.

Regards Michael

[Former Member]

Here;s the answer to my question during the webinar (thanks Appeon for answering the questions) in case anyone is interested

Q: I guess if PB became a first class .NET language then the reason to use it would be the big thing. So what features will your PB.NET have that would make it attractive, and I don't think the datawindow is enough. although the PFC or similar may be?

This is a fantastic question.  You are absolutely right that we should not put all our hopes on DataWindow.  The component market is crowded and there are many options, so unless DataWindow is 10X better than the most popular components it will not be enough.  Our direction for C# is to focus on 1) enterprise app development,  2) native technology, and 3) cross-OS.  There are very few vendors having a tight focus on all 3 points.  The most notable would be Xamarin, but they are trying to be everything to everybody rather than focused specifically on enterprise app development using C#. 

[Former Member]

Hi Aron;

  Thanks for sharing!

   I wonder though, how will Appeon compete with products that already do that now?  For example:

http://windev.ca/home.php

http://www.embarcadero.com/products/application-development

   That means .... Appeon will have to do it better, cheaper, offer more features, etc than these type of products while showing a high level of .Net integration. An interesting challenge for sure. The BIG carrot (in my mind) would be to achieve this via an automated upgrade / migration vs a complete rewrite to another tool set -  as we all know how easy that is <bg>!

Regards ... Chris

[former_member185283]

Hi Chris,

You're assuming we build another RAD tool, which is not the case.  For C# development I don't see Visual Studio being dethroned.  So the point is how can we add value on top of using Visual Studio IDE with the goal of producing cross-OS business applications powered by native technology? 

WinDev was founded in 1984 and has 150,000 developers using their product (not much different than PowerBuilder) while Xamarin was founded in 2011 and has over 1 million developers using their product.  So I don't worry much about WinDev or Delphi, and I don't believe PowerBuilder's future should be to emulate these tools. 

Regards,

Armeen

[Former Member]

Hi Armeen;

  Thank you for that clarification. I spent a year using Win/Web/Mobile DEV comparing this to PB and I must say that while they are cross O/S & Device capable from one code-line - their tools & language are not as intuitive as PB. I have not looked at Embarcadaro's Delphi product as of late - but, they seem to have rejuvenated the product a lot in recent years.

  One big question then to you might be - How do you see Appeon's new product positioned in light of Xamarin? That is to say, how would you see yourself marketing the new PB against Xamarin's - or is this even relevant? Another key question might also be: "What has made Xamarin so successful and can Appeon replicate that in the PB Space"?

PS: Just playing the IT Manager "devils advocate" here like I suspect many of our PB Community developers will encounter in their organization. We need to be fully prepared to "sell" your vision to senior management.  

Regards ... Chris

[former_member185283]

Hi Chris,

I don't think we are trying to compete with Xamarin per se.  In fact, we may ultimately decide to run on top of Xamarin for deploying C# to iOS and Android deployment.  The only thing that turns me off about Xamarin is their pricing, but perhaps few years from now they may reduce their pricing or Microsoft may buy them and just give it away for free.  Mobile market is changing so fast I think it is wise to not make any final decisions about C# mobile target until after we release the C# desktop target.

Regards,

Armeen

[Former Member]

    I just spent a few minutes poking around their website & tool set. The BIG HOLE that struck me right away was the lack of Web Browser deployment. In the entire Canadian Federal and most Provincial governments - if you can not provide a Web enabled tool, you might as well go home as that is the standard direction these days. Mobile development is not strategic what-so-ever yet (5+ years is my guess).

    Yes, at $999 per platform / per developer their Studio product would not be cheap - ouch! With today's free Java compilers, open source, free / inexpensive J2EE IDE's, etc - its still the #1 direction for the Cdn Fed government in most large departments. However lately, MS has been giving away or significantly discounting their development products/tools on the PWGSC "Standing Offer" list to get a better toehold against J2EE.

   BTW:  1M developers have downloaded Xamarian - it does not mean that they are using it. Bill Gates did the same thing with VB and gave it away and then later on had a $99 special on the product. Then MS could claim the same thing - 1M developers on VB. Marketing dribble ... Sheeesh!

   I'm still very interested in Appeon's PB VISION though as I think that there are still significant niche markets, small to medium sized business targeted opportunities and always room for a better mousetrap.   

[Former Member]

I have been playing around with a tool called B4A (Basic 4 Android). It is a VB6 like IDE and language that compiles down to native Java executables to run on Android. It costs under $100 for 2 years of updates. They also offer B4J which is a free version that generates desktop Java apps that will run on Windows, Linux and Mac. They also have B4i for iOS devices. These three products are all developed by one person who lives in Isreal.

It would be really great if PowerBuilder had the built in ability to deploy to Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Mac and Linux from the same source code. If one guy can do it for VB6, I am sure the Appeon team can do it for PowerBuilder.

[Former Member]

Hmm, I thought Appeon was first a Powerbuilder to the web thing, with Android and IOS being added recently. Or perhaps I'm not understanding your message? From what I remember, the last time I looked at it, many years ago when I was also in Canada, it allowed the writing of PB apps with a few caveats that would work in the browser as well on on Windows.

I must admit the idea was nice, but the cost was a bit prohibitive at the time.

Still I think we can all be happy that at the very least someone is interested in doing something with Powerbuilder, it feels like a long time since we've had that. I really with them all the luck in the world!

[former_member185283]

Roland, Appeon Mobile already deploys PB Classic apps to iOS and Android from single PB source code.  With some adjustments of the app usually existing desktop apps can be deployed to iPad or Android tablet.  For phone, you would obviously want to rethink the UI.  Appeon Mobile automatically maps PB mouse events to gestures and makes PB controls "touch" friendly.  It also supports a number of mobile-specific APIs to take advantage of features like camera, GPS, NFC, etc.

[Former Member]

I will tell everyone here flat out that MY personal experience with Appeon has been great.

That said, I have a couple of issues to deal with:

1. Our Affiliate Management team has asked our team to de-Appeon the product because it is a hassle for them to assist our clients with getting the plug-in installed.  At each installation there might be 10 different users that need to use it from time to time and the install is problematic.
2. We had a need to deploy a one-page website to 700 of our partners so they could enter information about which car they had assigned to the job.  Essentially, they would pretty much need to be logged in all the time, but only to one page.  When my boss did the math, he immediately told me to contact one of our contract developers and have the page done in Visual Studio.  Not good for Appeon and certainly not good for me.
3. We are WinDev users.  I am not a big fan of WinDev for Windows or WebDev, but their WinDev Mobile platform works well and we have deployed it in production.  I did the development myself, so I KNOW it works.  I write webservices using PB 12.5 and publish them.  I use WinDev Mobile to create mobile apps that call the PB web services.  Works great.  Frankly, I would consider using Appeon for this, but I don't want to pay for a license for each user.  Let's say that I want to create an App for booking reservations?  How is that going to get priced?  Let's say that 10,000 people download the app and start using it?  Am I going to pay huge license fees because the application is successful or am I going to create it using a technology where I am not paying a license fee to deploy?  Right now it is the latter.  I can only imagine using Appeon for serious deployment if they have a flat fee unlimited deployments at X price.  Otherwise, I have to spend too much time wondering if the App will be successful and re-writing and re-deploying if it is.  The net of this is that Appeon is great for prototyping, but I can't afford to actually deploy in large scale with it.

Sorry Armeen.  I love the product, but my management has already overruled me on pricing and that's not really great for me trying to run a PB/Appeon shop.

Price matters.

Paul

[former_member185283]

Hi Paul,

Appeon Web is a niche Web deployment product for PB Classic as an alternative to Citrix.  Compared to Citrix the price is far cheaper, it offers a true Web architecture, and doesn't suffer from the scalability or other shortcomings of Citrix.  Since it is a niche product the price has to obviously be more than a PB license in order to cover our development costs.

It is true that browser plug-ins can be problematic for some system configurations.  This is not under Appeon's control, and any other Web applications that uses browser plug-ins would have the same system requirements.

As mentioned in the Vision Webcast, our direction is to keep PB apps as "native" apps rather than Web browser apps with plug-ins.  This doesn't mean we are giving up on Appeon Web, but for PB itself we don't want to force everybody to deploy their apps using a browser plug-in model.

There is a time and place for HTML and there is a time and place for "native" apps.  For most PB apps we believe native technology is more appropriate, delivering richer features and faster performance.  For example, PB WebForms (which was pure HTML) didn't work for most customers, and SAP EOL it in PB 12.5.2. Perhaps your PB app is more appropriate for HTML deployment.

Anyway, thank you for being so supportive of our company and products.

Best regards,

Armeen

[Former Member]

Thanks Armeen,

Right now my primary concern is the cost of deploying technology via Appeon.  I think there needs to be a price point at which you can get unlimited deployments.  I think i am paying a lot for the Appeon license and then paying a lot to deploy.  While PB 11.5 and Sybase never kept up, at one point I could deploy a web application to an unlimited number of users without worrying about any deployment cost at all.

Paul

[Former Member]

Hi Roland;

  Yes, I remember you posting about this product before. I did some poking around last night on the B4X products and they look amazing for the price!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic4android

  The home IDE grown IDE is also nice & clean (uncluttered) and focused on the task you want to accomplish. You can also see the nice uncluttered look, Intellisense, collapsing code blocks, etc that the PB Classic IDE reminds me - juts a little "sexier" all black look. Something that a little "skins" support in the PB Classic IDE and our applications would certainly go along way in refreshing the PB Look & Feel IMHO.

  The other thing that strikes me is the nice clean and easy to read BASIC language like PowerScript. Business application developers like simplex coding languages that can be easily read & documented. They have enough issues with keeping track of complex business processes and developing useful GUI interfaces than worrying about cryptic 3GL languages like Java or C/C++/C#, etc.

  The other amazing feature about this is the price - $119 for the Enterprise version!!!!

There are certainly some lessons to be learned from products like this (I think) in moving forward with PB Classic and/or a new PB product. Thanks for posting about this interesting software avenue. I'm downloading it now.  

Regards .. Chris

[Former Member]

Hi Paul;

  => Price Matters

  Right on ... especially in today's economic situation where government & private companies are facing cut backs, reduced bottom line, savings initiatives, productivity, ROI, etc considerations that are front & center in the IT world as well.

  One of the big mistakes IMHO that Sybase did in accelerating the decay of PB was to remove the 3 tier product pricing on PB. The Desktop, Team and Enterprise versions were designed to make low level entry possible to experience PB & the DW, then build some applications and move up to the Team version where application sales and a few more developers warranted / justified the higher level pricing and finally, to the Enterprise version of PB because your applications required that level of product features & support.

  I am 100% behind you on the Enterprise pricing that allows you to add more instances with no more cost to the corporation of ISP. That should also hold true for Appeon's clustering option as well. For example, if an IT manger needed to add a "warm stand-by" feature at location Y to compliment their processing at location X - we should not be charged for running a few more Appeon Servers at location Y in "idle" mode. However, this fail-over planing & support is often mission critical to the success if your mission critical applications - yet, why would any software vendor charge the customer 2x for something they might use once or twice a year for 12-24 hours. This was a recent experience of one of my government clients that lead to them turning away from Appeon. 

Price does matter! 

Oh yeah, one other pet peeve and one that many IT people see every day .. put your prices clearly visible on your website. One of the big turn offs these days is when people see "Contact us for pricing"! Pricing needs to be standardized, known & well published - not a secret.

regards ... Chris

[ricardojasso]

Chris,

I totally agree with you on the syntax cleanliness of BASIC against the cryptic C or C++ and now C#. And I think PowerScript improves on that. I always thought of PowerScript as a mix between C and BASIC. I like better the variable declaration syntax in PowerScript, which is similar to C, than the Dim As (ugh!) syntax in BASIC. But PowerScript doesn't use curly brackets and semicolons like C, making it easier on the eye. And, as you mention, this certainly helps when building business applications.

Microsoft knew that it will be hard for people to change from a familiar language to an unfamiliar one when developing .NET so they first built the MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) that gets compiled Just in Time to the CLR (Common Language Runtime), and THEN built two different languages which people could use to program which would generate MSIL code. C# for people that used C and/or C++, and VisualBasic.NET for people who were used to code in BASIC using Visual Basic 6. This way they won’t lose key customers from both bands.

So I don’t believe that switching from PowerScript to C# would be a good idea. PowerScript is one of the competitive advantages of PowerBuilder against other tools. It’s simple to learn, simple to use. And with the help of the IDE it makes object orientation easy to implement.

This and many other features of PowerBuilder should be kept, but enhanced and modernized at the same time, to make it a different and better tool than the competition. I’m not sure the idea of mounting it on Visual Studio will be a good one but let's see what Armeen has to say in the next Webcasts.

Regards,

Ricardo

[Former Member]

Recardo

I totally agree with you, one of the positive benefits f using Pb is the powerscript language. The IDE is easy to learn as well.

We can train people to use PB in 3 days... on day 4 they can doing something useful. That is certainly not possible with VS & C#. This summer I had a young 14 year old lad for a week. He had some basic coding knowledge from school. He left me after 5 days able to code an idea he had for a game.

I'm doing my best to will the void of PB coders... starting them young

Cheers

David

[Former Member]

Has anyone mentioned that PRICE MATTERS

Have a great weekend.

[Former Member]

  Nice testimonial David to what I have personally experienced as well.

  Another positive note I can add to that story is my good friend Greg Winfield who wrote the very popular AIRMAN system I have often reference in my various posts. Greg is actually a retired aircraft controller with a very small amount of VB exposure who was able to easily pick-up PB. Greg has had no formal programming training either BTW. A great testimony to PB Classic's KISS IDE yet when the basics are understood, can propel you & your application into some pretty advanced areas.  

[Former Member]

Hi Ricardo;

=> PowerScript is one of the competitive advantages of PowerBuilder against other tools. It’s simple to learn, simple to use. And with the help of the IDE it makes object orientation easy to implement.

Absolutely ...

1) Visual Inheritance

2) Save & Go compiling & debugging (no incremental compiling).

3) Application Profiling built-in

4) Supports Property programming (which PB.Net does not).

5) Supports all the primary OO concepts (just needs parameterized constructors)

etc, etc.

The other major concern I have (looking at this as a long term IT person) ... languages come & go. God knows I have seen a plethora of these since starting my IT career on mainframes => mini's => PC's => Cloud => ?! My worry would be for example .. "What if tomorrow MS now standardizes on F# vs C# or some other new passing language fancy"? Staying in pure PowerScript future proofs your application's ability to continue.

Now, some improvements to the PowerScript language should be done - but, keeping PowerScript front & center (IMHO) would be an asset ... even in Armeen's new PB product.

What does everyone else think?

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

=> I'm doing my best to will the void of PB coders... starting them young

We need to do this as Sybase and SAP never understood this aspect ...

1) Create tons of "how to videos"

2) Create an Express version of PB that is free to all students!

3) Create a Community edition of PB that is free to all independent consultants!

4) Include Appeon products in the above

5) Maybe create an online international user group focused on Appeon + PB

etc

[Former Member]

Right Chris.

We used Sybase Application Server and we maintained a standby server (just in case) at no extra cost.

Likewise, I don't like 'Contact us for pricing...' either.

Paul

[Former Member]

One advantage of being able to code in C# with PB would be to take code snippets found online and paste them in and have them work unchanged.

[Former Member]

Hi Roland;

  All PB Classic needs is a C# User Object class like at once upon a time PB had C++ User Object type. From there we could also extend that into a Java User Object class type.

  Each UO Class type could in turn call its native compiler, like the C++ UO  used to call the WatcomC++ compiler. You used to be able to just paste C++ code "as is" and have it complied into a DLL - which your PowerScript could consume directly. We should be able to implement the same architecture for Java & C++ and have a true InterOp at the same time:   🙂

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Yeah, I really hate it when I see 'Contact us for pricing'. Just tell me how much it is already.

[Former Member]

By the way, Chris, are you aware that B4x is using WPF controls for the IDE?

Third party controls, in a good price, and as you can see they give a great result.

Andreas.

[Former Member]

Hi Andreas;

  Yes, I believe that they use Actipro controls. What I do not know - but suspect - is that they use the VS Isolated Shell vs a VS plug-in approach. My guess is the Isolated shell as their IDE GUI does not look like your standard VS interface (like PB.Net used) - yet, has the tell tail VS signs.

  If Appeon wanted to use the VS Isolated shell - that would also be OK with me. Just get rid of WPF (pretty much a dead end for application development here in the Canadian Government) and return back to the Win32/64 world. From Armeen's preservation though, I get the feeling that Appeon is considering a plug-in approach to VS. If that is the case (hopefully, Armeen will expand on that on Dec 8th), the plug-in route does provide a much deeper .Net connectivity aspect than using the Isolated shell which does not expose all the .Net feature set.

  Personally, I don't really care about whether Appeon uses its own IDE, Eclipse, VS, etc as long as I have clean & easy to use Inter-ops to .Net and preferably Java as well. Really all the PB Classic IDE needs is the collapsing code block feature and intellisense. The key question for Appeon to answer is whether wasting a lot of time trying to move PB Classic to another IDE (like PB.Net did) vs just adding a few enhancements like I just mentioned to PB Classic IDE a better ROI.

  Now for a new futuristic PB product (if that is the Appeon vision's case) - then basing this on a standard commercially or open source IDE makes more sense. Creating a new PB from the ground up would allow Appeon to build the next generation using a technically advanced platform. In that case, you optimize your ROI for a new product by capitalizing on an existing and known IDE that provides all the plumbing for your new application venture right from the starting gate.

  It seems to me there are two paths here. One for the current PB Classic customers to continue with an enhanced PB Classic to allow them to move their current PB applications forward and the second path where a new PB generation product allows new applications and a whole new developer generation to experience a totally different way of developing but maybe with some of the things we love today in PB Classic like the DataWindow. 

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Can't possibly be Isolated Shell, it isn't slow as cold molasses!

[Former Member]

Hi Roland;

  Good point!

  I am now beginning to think that they may have incorporated the ICSharpe (aka IC#Code or #Development) development shell (SharpeDevelop) instead into their product. This IDE is very fast and includes the same robust features as the VS shell. In fact, its the IDE adopted by the MONO development team who called it MONODevelop. A variation of MonoDevelop has now formed the basis of a product suite that Armeen has mentioned before - Xamarin.

Maybe Appeon should take a very close look at the SharpeDevelop IDE alternative to VS!  

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Well... You are missing something. They are not using the isollated shell. otherwise we should install it somehow. This doesn't happen during installation. They use actipro (as you noticed) wpf controls... No vs isollated shell, no ICSharp shell (I don't see avalon libs), no vs plugin e.t.c. Simply those actipro controls, which for a very logical price and license terms provide all they need to create this ide.

This proves that WPF can really facilitate a developers life, if they know what they want to do, and of course if they know how! You may be right that wpf are dead... Your Canadian government chooses web application because those can fit their needs, not because wpf are bad implemented. And if they rejected wpf for windows applications it may be because of us (all developers who do not have a deep knowledge of that "technology"). In my opinion wpf is so close to what java does with javafx. (Actually I believe wpf are better than javafx!). But java was free for a long time, and of course it's cross platform... VS became free right now, and not for everyone! Our Greek government seems to be on the java way (should I believe that .net is dead because of that?)...

In b4x they use actipro's skin control to create skins, which lot of people request for pb IDE and their applications (although skins are available in pb.net)... So this is easily done in wpf. Also in b4x they use actipro's: docking control, syntax editor control, navigation & editor controls. They use only two components from ICSharpCode, the treeview and the zip library (through .net framework has native support for zip archives). Of course they are dependent to windows platform, that's why they don't provide versions of the  IDE for other os...

What I wanna say is, that because the wpf implementation in pb was bad, or because pb.net was bad, this doesn't mean at all that those solutions are bad... The implementation was bad! The implementation was so bad at first time (pb.net v. 12), they tried to arrange things in later version (pb.net 12.5) but a bad implementation which has been "fixed" may be still worst than a good implementation!!! And that's what I believe Sybase did wrong. They tried to fix something that was designed wrong in the first time! In some points the result was really better, but compared to competition it was still average to bad. As for the wpf targets, the inheritance of all those controls to a runtime should not be implemented that way, because it was making us need to deploy additional runtime... Only Datawindow & transaction object and other objects specific to PB should be provided as a runtime... The rest (windows, buttons, tabs, checkbox's e.t.c.) which are available in wpf.net should be provided like "PFC's" does -> as an inheritance of those base .net objects in source code with some additional implementation - properties e.t.c.!!! Anyone who buy pb doesn't buy the product for those controls,,, they buy it for datawindow, datastore, pipeline e.t.c.

Having the source code of changes between base window class to pb level window class, should not be a problem. This would make the required runtime libs less than now, and many things could work with a dependance only to the framework...

Now the way Appeon is looking things, is a better way... The whole plugin idea is a good one, but only if pb should be tied only with .net... If we want it to be also tied to java, I think there will be a lot of problems! And of course all this is still in discussions. We don't have any implementation - protoype in hand...

Finally I'm open to hear other people opinions... Especially in WPF. But please do not tell me if they are alive or dead... Tell me first of all your experience in vs & wpf... Because I believe it may not be the success MS was expecting but they are not dead at all. And I believe we use wpf applications, without knowing it's wpf, as with b4j and b4a... And Erel is not a stupid guy to make an investment to a technology that's dead especially if you take a look when those products (b4x) were launched...

Not saying WPF must remain in PB (but I use them and yes there are lot of times I do things easier than in pb classic, thanks to .net).

Finally, Chris, I may disagree with some of your opinions about PB's future, but it's always a great pleasure to read your opinion and to have this exchange of Ideas... Hope it will also help Appeon to provide a better PB product... And at this point I will agree with you that PB needs to provide a way to deploy applications to the WEB... Somehow nativelly... And of course Win32 targets must remain, as most of existing app's are there. But we need an IDE wich will have the database features (database management, datawindow designer, pipeline designer e.t.c. from classic, with all good stuff from VS Shell in the code editor) as many have stated (included you). Also I prefer the way pbl's work in pb.net, but I wonder what would be the impact for win32 targets to go to such a logic...

Andreas.

Chris Pollach wrote:

Hi Andreas;

  Yes, I believe that they use Actipro controls. What I do not know - but suspect - is that they use the VS Isolated Shell vs a VS plug-in approach. My guess is the Isolated shell as their IDE GUI does not look like your standard VS interface (like PB.Net used) - yet, has the tell tail VS signs.

  If Appeon wanted to use the VS Isolated shell - that would also be OK with me. Just get rid of WPF (pretty much a dead end for application development here in the Canadian Government) and return back to the Win32/64 world. From Armeen's preservation though, I get the feeling that Appeon is considering a plug-in approach to VS. If that is the case (hopefully, Armeen will expand on that on Dec 8th), the plug-in route does provide a much deeper .Net connectivity aspect than using the Isolated shell which does not expose all the .Net feature set.

  Personally, I don't really care about whether Appeon uses its own IDE, Eclipse, VS, etc as long as I have clean & easy to use Inter-ops to .Net and preferably Java as well. Really all the PB Classic IDE needs is the collapsing code block feature and intellisense. The key question for Appeon to answer is whether wasting a lot of time trying to move PB Classic to another IDE (like PB.Net did) vs just adding a few enhancements like I just mentioned to PB Classic IDE a better ROI.

  Now for a new futuristic PB product (if that is the Appeon vision's case) - then basing this on a standard commercially or open source IDE makes more sense. Creating a new PB from the ground up would allow Appeon to build the next generation using a technically advanced platform. In that case, you optimize your ROI for a new product by capitalizing on an existing and known IDE that provides all the plumbing for your new application venture right from the starting gate.

  It seems to me there are two paths here. One for the current PB Classic customers to continue with an enhanced PB Classic to allow them to move their current PB applications forward and the second path where a new PB generation product allows new applications and a whole new developer generation to experience a totally different way of developing but maybe with some of the things we love today in PB Classic like the DataWindow.  

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Roland, you really believe the shell itself is so slow? Then why VStudio is so fast? I do believe the implementation of PB.NET was so bad. Take a look to my answer to Chris.

Andreas.

[Former Member]

No they didn't...

By the way ICSharp seems to have an impact from MS decision to give the community edition... V. 5 already deprecated a lot of futures, and I wonder what is their future? (using SharpDevelop since v. 3).

Andreas.

[Former Member]

Do I have to mention that their IDE is also based on WPF?

[Former Member]

I use VS 2005 and VS 2012 at work for Classic ASP development. VS 2012 startup is very slow compared to VS 2005. It seems to be about the same once running.

[Former Member]

Hi Andreas;

   Thank you so much for your thoughts on PB's potential direction and how you perceive the WPF.Net world. I always state ppfront, that my views are biased by the IT realm I play in and that's focused on the Canadian Federal Government. Its not the world-wide perspective that Appeon probably has along with its diverse customer base. So if I say that WPF is "dead" - I mean that I can not see it in use by my government clients or even talk of them using it in the near future.

  Interestingly, there is a BIG all weekend workshop Microsoft event coming up next week in the national capital. Believe it or not, its totally focused on JavaScipt! MS is really pushing the HTML5 + JS combination only these days around here. JavaScript is the #1 world-wide programming skill in demand in 2015. So it begs the question whether Appeon should even go after C# vs JS as its new PB development tool direction!

  One also has to remember that business people, application programmers, and importantly end users don't care about Winform vs WPF vs C/C++ vs Java vs Delphi vs etc - they only care about the final application. Does it do what I need it to do, does it look good GUI wise, does it help with visibility issues like eye strain, readability, etc, its it 100% reliable, does it perform and does it process well against my business information flows. As a business application programmer (putting that hat on for a moment), I am too busy with Business Analysis, Systems Analysis, Use Cases, Information Flows, Operational Considerations, UI & UX design, Performance, Test Cases, DBMS design & interaction, Security, Data Retention, Reporting , QA, etc, etc to care one IOTA about .Net vs Java vs WPF vs Native based software. I need a KISS development tool that really supports RAD/Agile/Protocycling, gets the applications up & running fast with low cost, yet can evolve into a robust 24/7 application that is really performance oriented as well. Basically focusing on the DEVOPS area - the real measure of your potential application's longevity. If WPF can give me that then great, I'm all in. If not then who cares in the big picture.  😉

  Appeon needs to also figure out if the long-term IT trend is towards native applications or a browser based world. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to the middle of this and a balance of both web and native applications will be the trend. Right now, I would have to say that 90%+ of all Canadian Government applications are web only. However, there is a distinct difference between "Joe Public" Internet applications that must work on most common browsers today (hence the focus on HTML5 + JS) vs Intranet (aka internal) web applications that don't care about how the browser application runs - even when a plug-in is required. Since the business owner pays the IT bill and their satisfaction is the priority, its most often the resulting application's ability to support the business user that drives the show. Basically, technology be dammed ... install it IT or else <BG>! That being said (if that is true world-wide) ... what the new PB development tool needs to be and/or what Appeon needs to do to PB Classic to morph it into something that can deliver the above - that is some soul sourcing questions that need to be asked & answered.

  I may also disagree with some of your opinions Andreas, but it's always a great pleasure to read your views and exchange ideas & experiences too! Its these kind of respectful information exchanges that needs to happen, facilitating open communication back to Appeon. They need to understand what makes PB what its is and what could even make it better. Now that Armeen has opened the future vision door as well - what we (the PB Community) need to do is also help Appeon position / revitalize PB for today's modern IT world & be successful at it.

Highest Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Ricardo Jasso wrote:

Chris,

I totally agree with you on the syntax cleanliness of BASIC against the cryptic C or C++ and now C#. And I think PowerScript improves on that. I always thought of PowerScript as a mix between C and BASIC. I like better the variable declaration syntax in PowerScript, which is similar to C, than the Dim As (ugh!) syntax in BASIC. But PowerScript doesn't use curly brackets and semicolons like C, making it easier on the eye. And, as you mention, this certainly helps when building business applications.

Microsoft knew that it will be hard for people to change from a familiar language to an unfamiliar one when developing .NET so they first built the MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) that gets compiled Just in Time to the CLR (Common Language Runtime), and THEN built two different languages which people could use to program which would generate MSIL code. C# for people that used C and/or C++, and VisualBasic.NET for people who were used to code in BASIC using Visual Basic 6. This way they won’t lose key customers from both bands.

So I don’t believe that switching from PowerScript to C# would be a good idea. PowerScript is one of the competitive advantages of PowerBuilder against other tools. It’s simple to learn, simple to use. And with the help of the IDE it makes object orientation easy to implement.

This and many other features of PowerBuilder should be kept, but enhanced and modernized at the same time, to make it a different and better tool than the competition. I’m not sure the idea of mounting it on Visual Studio will be a good one but let's see what Armeen has to say in the next Webcasts.

Regards,
Ricardo

+1

if we could get rid of the semicolon in database sentences, the "syntax cleanliness" would be nearly perfect...

[Former Member]

Hi Ricardo;

  Thank you for taking the time to express your views!

I agree 100%.  

Regards ... Chris

[ricardojasso]

Nacho,

I personally don't like embedding SQL statements inside PowerScript. I prefer to use datastores that map database tables and work with datastore controls for retrieve and update. But when I do use embedded SQL statements it doesn't bother me having to place a semicolon at the end of the statement because, well, I don't use them very much. But having to include open a close curly brackets in every class definition and semicolons at the end of each sentence is another thing. I believe this comes from original C language design to indicate the compiler when a sentence has terminated. Having the compiler determine when a statement has ended requires more computer power and longer compiler times but now days I don't think that's a problem anymore. So I would go for a more clean syntax like PowerScript specially for business applications.

Regards,

Ricardo

[Former Member]

Thank Armeen for the discussion go ahead. So here's some of my thoughts.

Firstly I was surprised how my fellow Powerbuilder developers in my office were not interested at all. I'm not really sure why, but perhaps the long wait for news has left them feeling disenfranchised, or maybe there's not enough details yet to get a grip on things.

It sounded to me like Appeon were saying the following:

* Powerbuilder classic will be gone

* Powerbuilder .NET lives, but not in the way it was first released, i.e. a tool that converts Powerscript to C# and then compiles it, but as, I'm guessing, a Powerscipt .NET language and a Datawindow .NET plug-in

* Existing applications will need to be converted and Appeoon hope to do a better job with this than Sybase did

Other stuff, like in-built PDF support, datawindow improvements to an MVC type of model (I've never understood why a datawindow wasn't inherited from a datastore, but probably too late to fix that)

All this sounds great to me, .NET is an excellent language, and Visual Studio a great IDE (once it has started, it is pretty slow to start!). Many of the things I've wanted for some time would naturally occur, e.g. a less crashy IDE, no PBLs, proper datawindow debugger tools, better web services support.

But it does depend on one huge thing, we need to be able to easily convert our existing applications, and this will be the difficult bit. Our main application has been around for a while, it calls external dlls, it uses OLE to integrate with Word, Excel and Outlook, it calls any number of Windows API calls, it integrates with .NET by wrapping the .NET code as COM objects, it has sneaky things that affect the main menu. I can't imagine how hard it would be to automatically convert all of these. So good luck Appeon, I really hope you can do it as that would be great!

From a business point of view I wonder what Appeon's ideas are for keeping Powerbuilder alive. My guess is it's the datawindow. I think the datawindow has fallen behind other similar controls in many ways. There was talk in the webinar of enhancing the datawindow and I am looking forward to seeing what kinds of things they are thinking of as this will be essential (I think).

What do you think?

[Former Member]

Hi Aron

I think you have summed it up quite well. As you say people here were not really fired up, comments were neither good nor bad. One comment was... will we have to buy Visual Studio? Another was, if we are coding in C# then why bother with PB at all!

The DW .Net plug-in was available for many years and did not have an impact on the .Net developer community so is a PB plug-in for VS going to be any different.

Personally I don't like C# and the .Net framework but that could be because I'm just an old dog and cannot learn new tricks. I find the productivity does not match that of PB and whilst my developers like VS it cost me money because they are not as productive!

Migration to something new will be critical, as you say applications are full of quirky add-ons and interfaces that need to still work. I spend my life picking up other peoples systems and breathing life into them and it never ceases to amaze me how inventive some people have been. There is always something in ever new application I look at that catches you out and that's migrating with PB classic when in theory everything should continue to work.

From a business point of view, I do not think it matters about the technology but the marketing will be critical. Can PB be reborn and stop the spiral of decline? I suspect not. Too many people are looking or moving away. The big systems that are still running in PB are not generating enough revenue in support to justify a huge expenditure on R&D. Perhaps this is why Appeon are looking to take what appears to be the cheaper route and looking to create a plug-n for VS.

To sum up, I'm cautiously sceptical but eager to hear more and understand the details. I hope to change from sceptical to optimistic after the next presentation.

Thanks to Armeen for what was a very clear presentation with no ambiguity in what was said. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Regards

David

[Former Member]

Hi David,

I quite like C#, but I do think it could do with a PFC type framework for people who want to create standard business applications that get data from a database, display it, edit it and save it back again.There are so many ways of doing things that getting started is quite daunting.

Like you I'm glad Appeon are up front about their plans, and that there are plans happening. We all know something needs to be done with Powerbuilder. I just hope they can do it! Otherwise, I wonder what they are planning to do to support people who are stuck on good old PB Classic.

Really looking forward to the next presentation, more info needed!

[Former Member]

Hi Aron;

   FWIW:  I can not see Appeon abandoning PB Classic. In fact, I think that Appeon needs to start investing in this "puppy" ASAP and BIG time. Why .. because its going to be a little while before we see the new PB product from Armeen's vision. In order to build the new product, Appeon will need revenue from PB Sales & Upgrades to keep the R&D going. The best (and only way I can see this happening), would be to heavily invest in PB Classic to add "MUST" have features & stability now to make the PB Community want to upgrade. With that happening, Appeon can tap these revenues to fund the new PB Vision product while (finally) moving the best thing we have currently forward after a 4.5 year SAP hiatus. 

PS: I am already thinking about how I might retrofit / realign my STD Frameworks for the new PB Vision product. I have a vision (or maybe its just too much coffee) at this juncture of time!  

Regards ... Chris

[former_member185283]

Hi Everybody,

Appeon does NOT have any plans to "abandon" existing PB Classic apps!

We plan to keep consistent focus on PB Classic apps and bring much-needed enhancements ASAP while we prepare for the long-term vision of C# in parallel.  We plan to do several exciting releases of PB Classic before releasing the first phase of the C# vision.  This will be discussed in much more detail during the roadmap Webcast scheduled for Feb 2016.

Far far far in the future we would like to standardize everybody on the Visual Studio IDE rather than maintain two IDEs, no matter you wish to code using PowerScript or C#.   But really what we end up doing in the end will be determined by customer demand.

We think existing customers contemplating rewriting their apps in .NET will strongly consider to stick with PowerBuilder if we really are able to deliver a good automated migration path to C#.  Based on our experience with the Appeon for PowerBuilder product over last 15 years we are confident we can do this.

Regards,
Armeen Mazda

CEO, Appeon Corporation

[former_member185283]

Hi Chris, I don't see why you would need to retrofit. Just like how your framework gets migrated automatically to the Web/Mobile and JavaScript by the Appeon for PowerBuilder product the migration by Appeon to C# should not be any worse than that.  In fact, since your framework is already Appeon-compliant it should be 100% automatic conversion to C# with zero loss in functionality.

[Former Member]

HI Armeen;

  Thanks ... That's even more  "Music to my framework ears"!  

Maybe I should state ... "tweak my frameworks to take more advantage of the .Net environment" then. FWIW: Looking forward to using the new PB while enhancing the PB Classic experience! 

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Thanks Armeen,

I missed that bit, if it was in the webinar.

I'm glad-ish that PB Classic will be supported for some time to come. It would be nice if we could switch to Visual Studio and PB.NET+ right away, converting all our applications seamlessly, but it does sound like that's unlikely in the near term I really hope you guys can pull that off though as it would make life interesting, for me at least!

Some things that I think would be useful for all of this to work are:

  * White papers galore on best practices with the new .NET code

  * Explanations on how to connect and use various common source control systems (no more PBLs hurrah)

  * Somewhere to store code samples so we can share things with each other

  * Email newsletters with hints and tips

I'm sure you guys have thought about this already, looking forward to more news.

[Former Member]

I hope it gets uploaded soon because due to work I was not available at the time of the presentation.

[former_member185283]

A recording of the PB Vision Webcast along with an FAQ is now available.  To gain access please fill out the form at http://www.appeon.com/PBfuture You will receive an email with login credentials to access these materials.

Also, we hope more of you will participate in the upcoming Webcasts. Your participation is key to shape the future roadmap of PowerBuilder!

Thank you for your time and interest.

[Former Member]

Well it's a shame we haven't heard whether we can discuss the webinar in here yet.  I was really hoping for a good buzz, and listening to everyone's thoughts. I hope we hear something soon.

[Former Member]

   After watching the webinar a few minutes ago ... I'm not really sure what to say as I found the material lacking enough substance to comment one way or the other. Hopefully, the next webinar on December 8th will give us a lot more to chew on (mentally speaking).  

[Former Member]

True, but my head is still spinning with all the possible implications!

[Former Member]

  We just had a new Prime Minster elected in Canada, Mr Justin Trudeau who campaigned on a platform of reinvesting in Canada for positive change. The headlines in the newspaper this week state "Mr Trudeau has a plan, so everyone take a Valium!". In this case, we can see that Appeon has a "Vision" for what PB could become and here is Armeen's vision and how he got there thus far ....

What I did "take away" from the Webinar is that Appeon would like to:

1) Build a new PB someday (no timeline given)

2) Have it based on .Net - not J2EE

3) Use VS plug-in approach vs the VS.Shell that PB.Net uses today.

4) Have it support C# and PowerScript languages.

5) Be cloud enabled.

6) Support multiple O/S's.

7) Support more modern API's (ie: JSON).

  So stay tuned & DO participate in the next webinars and send your feedback to Appeon where you can. Lets help Armeen get a plan together to reinvest in PB for positive change!  

[Former Member]

Hi Chris.

Next webinars will be:

• December 8
• Jan 2016
• Feb 2016

I know you saw the webinar, so you are aware of those plans, but as Armeen said we have to push more people to participate to those webinars.

For the last two there is not a fix date yet. But it's good to know that we can expect a monthly update from Appeon... And this is a good sign. As in previous situation there was no exchange with the community.

After all, all we can do is to show our commitment and wait.

Andreas.

[ricardojasso]

I found the Webcast very informative. Armeen’s presentation was clear and concise at the level this Webcast was intended to be. I didn’t expect many details about how he plans to implement his vision while he made it clear these details are to be explained in later Webcasts.

What I liked about Armeen’s presentation is that,

• He understands what the current state of PowerBuilder is in terms of features and lack of them.
• He has a clear understanding about the technology trends being currently adopted by companies all around the world.
• He takes into account the feedback of thousands of current PB users, not just a single case or a small group case.
• He has a high level business education which forces him to seek a business model that truly generates profit which can be reinvested in improving PB in a virtuous circle.

Of course, to enrich his vision, we should give him the most feedback we can, even, and especially if, it is contrary to what he has presented. This is the time to give such feedback so we won’t regret in the future not having asked for a feature (no pun intended) we consider important.

[former_member185283]

Thank you Richard for trying to help the PB community to understand the purpose of the first Webcast, and rallying the PB community to speak up.

We will have other Webcasts in the future that go into various details about the future, and there is still time before we finalize our plans.  So this period is critical to get as many people participating in the Webcasts to understand more details and communicate with us afterwards.

Thanks!

[former_member185283]

Aron is not alone!  Many people's head spin thinking about all the possible implications.  This is why although some people have criticized us about the presentation lacking details, we intentionally wanted the first Webcast to just put out the vision.

We need to give everybody a proper chance to digest, ask questions/discuss, etc. about the vision!  Details will come in the future Webcasts as Andreas pointed out, and we plan to continue regularly communicating with the community.

[Former Member]

Hi,

I've missed the webinar this morning.

Where can I register for the event this eveneing (at 9:00 am PST)?

Thanks and best regards.

Heiko

[Former Member]

Hi Heiko;

  You can register at:  http://www.appeon.com/form/form.php?mid=20

HTH

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Thanks Chris.

[Former Member]

Hi Aron;

  The webcast for North America is still pending for later today (12:00am EST & 9:00am PST). I would imagine that Armeen might like everyone to wait until he completes the webinar in that time zone first.

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Okay, that's fair. Hopefully we'll be allowed to discuss it then. I am especially interested in what you think Chris

[Former Member]

While I await whether we are allowed to post our thoughts on the details I will say the following. I was a bit disappointed, there was very little detail, and it sounds like there is a long way to go. I suppose I should have expected that, but it just feels we've been waiting so long.

[former_member185283]

Details are coming in the other Webcasts.  First step was to make sure everybody had the right understanding about who Appeon and what is our vision for the the long-term direction that of PowerBuilder. 

We appreciate that the PB community has been waiting so long.  This wait was not under Appeon's control, and we are preparing to pick up the pieces to bring positive change.  So we hope the PB community will be supportive of our efforts rather than lash out their frustrations against us. 

Thank you all in advance for your support and understanding during this critical process!

[Former Member]

Hi Aron

I'm doing just the same internally.

Not sure we should be discussing this in public Appeon did put up a confidentiality disclaimer at the start.

Perhaps Armeen can clarify this and say if he is happy for us to discuss this on this forum?

Cheers

David

[Former Member]

Yes I was wondering about that, am I even allowed to discuss it with colleagues at work. I must admit I am assuming that the presentation itself is not to be shared, e.g. posted on YouTube, rather than my thoughts on what they said. I really hope that is what they meant otherwise it's crazy that we can't discuss what the ramification for the community might be, etc.

Hopefully someone can confirm whether we are actually able to talk amongst ourselves.

[former_member185283]

Hi David and Aron,

We really appreciate you guys checking first.  Yes, the purpose of the legal disclaimer was to prevent people from re-posting the video or its contents on other sites.  The intention was not to prevent active discussions on SCN.

We  hope everybody will first watch the recorded versions of the PB Vision and Roadmap Webcasts and read the related FAQs carefully.  The reason being, we want to avoid unproductive discussions or people perpetuating misconceptions on the newsgroups, which is actually doing a disservice to the PB community.

Also, we hope more people will participate in the upcoming Webcasts rather than watching the recordings. During the Webcast we will be conducting polls, engaging in live Q&A, and after the Webcast we will reach out to interested people to have deeper discussions.  As such, active participation is very important.

We look forward to some exciting times ahead for PowerBuilder!

Thanks,

Armeen Mazda

CEO, Appeon Corporation

[Former Member]

Hi.

I believe they have a vision. But I don't know, and it's not clear to me, if there is a final agreement between SAP and Appeon. I hope there is.

Also, they seem to be ready to do a huge investment... I would like to know if this would affect prices...

Also all they said, was interesting, but it was mostly theoretical.

They seem to give attention the community, and I would recommend all of us to try and participate to upcoming webcasts.

Andreas.

[former_member185283]

We understand that not all companies using PB are large organizations with deep pockets, and also we are aware there is a sizable community of independent consultants around PB.  We will carefully consider these points.  Our goal is to cater to as many PB customers as possible rather than just a select few companies.