Author |
Topic: LBB timeline and status (Read 1527 times) |
|
RNBW
Full Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 106
|
 |
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #10 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 11:02am » |
|
I think part of the problem is that LBB is used as a reference far more than LB Booster.
I did a search in LB for LB Booster (7000 days - much longer than it has been in existence) and only got 2 or 3 posts. I did likewise for LBB and got many more.
A search for LBB on Google brought nothing up on the first page. Unfortunately, that's about as far as some people look. It did pop up on the second page but under R.T. Russell LBB-BBC Basic.
Carl Gundel in a post on 6 March 2015 commented:
Quote:| Richard has indeed done interesting things with LBB, but now with version 3 he has added so much that it should probably be renamed because it isn't LB compatible anymore. |
|
Perhaps a complete change of name which could be displayed on the first page of searches might be the answer to bring it to more peoples' attention.
Users of LBB know that it still retains a massive compatibility with LB, but it also has its own improvements and the link to the power of BBC Basic for Windows.
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #11 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 11:29am » |
|
on Nov 17th, 2015, 11:02am, RNBW wrote:| Carl Gundel in a post on 6 March 2015 commented: |
|
I believe I remarked on the stupidity of that comment at the time. How Carl can think that adding functionality to LBB automatically impairs compatibility with LB I can't imagine!
In fact Carl doesn't set a good example himself. He has added new functions in LB 4.5.0 (after$(), upto$() etc.) which necessarily break compatibility with any existing LB program which happens to have used those same names either for an array or for a user-defined function.
By contrast I was very careful to ensure that the additions in LBB v3.00 were made in such a way that they could not break compatibility with existing programs. So in that particular respect you could argue that LBB is more compatible with LB 4.04 than LB 4.5.0 is!
Quote:| Perhaps a complete change of name which could be displayed on the first page of searches might be the answer |
|
I disagree with that idea, as I have explained on previous occasions. It doesn't seem at all likely to me that existing LB users - even if they are dissatisfied with it - will be searching the web for an alternative if they have no inkling that something like LBB exists.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
joker
Global Moderator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 157
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #12 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 2:00pm » |
|
That does suggest that the "link" with "Liberty Basic" has run its course. Is there another direction that makes sense?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
joker
Global Moderator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 157
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #13 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 3:14pm » |
|
From an "outsider" and being new to LBB (Liberty Basic Booster) and LB, this is what I see.
I see Liberty Basic suffering for decades from lack of users, probably because of the drain from C and other languages. Generations of young programmers have grown up without putting a dime in the coffers for the development of Basic in general.
This has inevitably squeezed Mr. Gundel into, at best, developing LB as a one man development team with an obsession and at worst, as a hobby sidelined by needing to provide for his personal needs (eating etc.) This development cycle has extended so far that one has to ask the question, "How many versions of Windows will it take before Mr. Gundel runs out of steam?"
I see Richard Russell ("Richard"  ) with a similar obsession to produce the best product that he can, also, but it seems to hang on a limited set of users of LB without a revenue stream of its own. I'm assuming that has always been by design, as stated by Richard. Richard has already reached the "no more development" stage.
The smaller the overall market for Basic gets, the more obsessed the developers and followers get.
I don't see a future if we "old folks" don't find a reason for continuing or audience to pass Basic on to.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #14 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 3:16pm » |
|
on Nov 17th, 2015, 2:00pm, pnlawrence wrote:| That does suggest that the "link" with "Liberty Basic" has run its course. Is there another direction that makes sense? |
|
I'm not too sure what point you are making, but I've always been (and remain) absolutely certain that LBB has no reason to exist other than as an implementation of Liberty BASIC. It makes so sense at all for it to 'stand alone' and to try to find a niche for itself in an already saturated market of BASIC dialects.
Having multiple 'competitive' implementations of a programming language is healthy; it hasn't done Fortran, C, Pascal and BBC BASIC - to name but a few - any harm!
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
joker
Global Moderator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 157
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #15 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 3:23pm » |
|
Quote:| Having multiple 'competitive' implementations of a programming language is healthy; it hasn't done Fortran, C, Pascal and BBC BASIC - to name but a few - any harm! |
|
Perhaps, in an altruistic way, but not in a commercial product as LB is.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #16 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 4:09pm » |
|
on Nov 17th, 2015, 3:23pm, pnlawrence wrote:| Perhaps, in an altruistic way, but not in a commercial product as LB is. |
|
What makes you say that? Do you think C or Pascal have somehow 'suffered' from the proliferation of implementations from different vendors? Would you rather that Visual C or GCC, say, had a monopoly of the market for Windows C compilers?
My view is the complete opposite. Without competition commercial products, especially, can stagnate; indeed you can argue that's exactly what has happened to Liberty BASIC. Of course in the case of LB, instead of the competition from LBB stimulating Carl to improve his product, his 'supporters' are trying to shield him from it.
Quote:| Generations of young programmers have grown up without putting a dime in the coffers for the development of Basic in general. |
|
Surely that isn't correct. Look at the way BASIC (and BBC BASIC in particular) has been influential in the teaching of programming in schools in the UK since the 1980s. Although that has declined significantly in the intervening years, even today BBC BASIC is one of only a few languages which are approved by the relevant UK authorities as being suitable for teaching programming. This student's book has a whole chapter on BBC BASIC.
Quote:| without a revenue stream of its own. I'm assuming that has always been by design |
|
Indeed it has never been, and never will be, my intention that LBB should provide a "revenue stream". I have a commercial product (BBC BASIC), although even that does not exist primarily as a source of income. You have referred to "obsessions", I wonder if you are unduly preoccupied with financial considerations.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
joker
Global Moderator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 157
|
|
Re: LBB timeline and status
« Reply #17 on: Nov 17th, 2015, 4:53pm » |
|
Quote:I wonder if you are unduly preoccupied with financial considerations. {my edit} |
|
Well, of course!
I understand the controversy that the LB supporters have created, but I think you could easily ignore it if you had a larger user base. Especially one that was supporting further development.
Actually, I really don't understand why Mr. Gundel isn't desperately involved in some kind of merger of LB and LBB. Especially since you've expressed your interest in moving it into the public domain.
It is hard for me to understand that you don't see my " Generations of young programmers " comment as a cause for Basic " has declined significantly in the intervening years ". We have so many devices running now, and I dare to say next to none of them can be programmed from/with Basic.
As Basic is my only programming language, it even sounds strange to me that I'm being such a "booBird." I am trying to get my son and potentially my grandson involved with programming, but the draw for them is to gadgets like the PI.
I'm starting to wonder why I'm messing with LB and not learning BBC Basic straight on. 
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
