Author |
Topic: Banned from the LB Community Forum (Read 7037 times) |
|
Richey
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 14
|
 |
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #15 on: Mar 17th, 2015, 10:23pm » |
|
on Mar 17th, 2015, 7:20pm, Mystic wrote:Due to the "conversation" on the LB forums I found your wonderful version!
After installing it and briefly checking things out it would be a great tragedy for you not to continue support for LBB.
This community would truly loose a fantastic tool!
Please reconsider and ignore disgruntled folks. Bask in your success, and not the failure of others.
Thanks!!! |
|
The irony is that it is called 'Liberty BASIC' and yet there seems to be a concerted effort on the LB Community Forum to limit the free discussion of LBB and its benefits for LB users, which is detrimental to users interests.
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #16 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 12:35am » |
|
Once again I find myself having to use this forum to respond to comments posted at the LB Community Forum, where I am banned.
Rod Bird wrote:
Quote:| There is an implied assumption that we have campaigned against Richard and that we have all actively hounded him out of the forum. In fact we have been actively trying to include him in the forum, wishing he would support LB, which he has done in the past and rather well. |
|
That is a straw man argument. Mystic didn't say that I had been "hounded out of the forum" he said the LB community were "blocking any attempt of this person trying to share their hard work" which is the case.
Quote:| Richard has self excluded himself from this forum more than once, simply because he does not get his own way. |
|
The truth is that, about a year ago, I requested that discussion of LBB on the forum be permitted. Alyce apparently consulted with the other senior staff members and the change of policy was agreed. However I was then informed that Carl had vetoed the proposal; on that basis I decided that I couldn't remain a member.
Quote:| This is a LB forum and needs to stay focused on that software. LBB is awesome and a great achievement but there are quite substantial differences and it needs its own forum. |
|
The "differences" Rod refers to are of course in nearly every case a functionality which LBB has that LB4 hasn't, or something which works properly in LBB but doesn't in LB4 because of a bug. The great majority of programs which run in LB 4.04 run perfectly in LBB with no modifications. Therefore I cannot see any valid argument for not allowing LBB to be mentioned at a forum intended to support users of the Liberty BASIC language.
Quote:| To think that they can work together is naive since LB is based on Smalltalk and LBB, on BBC BASIC, so neither author understands each others system or constraints. |
|
I think Carl should be allowed to speak for himself. From a technical standpoint it would, in principle, be entirely possible for a 'hybrid' product to be developed. For example I could incorporate some of LBB's technology in a DLL, which could be called from SmallTalk in exactly the way the existing LB4 calls its custom DLLs. This approach could substantially solve the problem Carl has with LB5, in that his tools vendor has discontinued support for native GUI widgets; LBB (or more precisely the LBLIB library) could provide that support.
Quote:| I postulate this scenario, I build an exact replica of a Ferrari that can run at ten times the speed of a real Ferrari. I then roll it in to a Ferrari showroom and say "hey I want to promote this car here and I want to give it away, not just this one but as many as I can give away" |
|
I would say that's a poor analogy. The LB Community Forum isn't like a showroom for Liberty BASIC; its primary purpose isn't to attract custom for Carl. Rather it is (or should be) providing support for existing users of the language, whether that be Carl's implementation or mine. How many people have given up on Liberty BASIC entirely because Carl's version is so slow and bug-ridden? How many might still be using it today if they had discovered LBB earlier?
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mystic
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 53
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #17 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 12:44am » |
|
on Mar 20th, 2015, 12:35am, Richard Russell wrote: How many people have given up on Liberty BASIC entirely because Carl's version is so slow and bug-ridden? How many might still be using it today if they had discovered LBB earlier?
|
|
Definitely agree with this one! I'm running into the same mess with a CMS I use.
It's frustrating that things with great potential are stifled due to poor vision.
Don't get me started on the Amiga! LOL
|
|
Logged
|
- Rick
|
|
|
Mystic
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 53
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #18 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 12:56am » |
|
From LB Forums
Alyce wrote on the LB forums
Quote:LBB may be mentioned here, but not promoted. We believe that is an amicable solution and we have tried to work this out with Richard for four years.
Richard is an amazingly talented programmer, and I wish him well.
If LBB is mentioned, we will point folks to Richard's forum for discussion.
|
|
At least that means LBB can be discussed in front of others and still attract potential users.
I'm sure they will watch carefully and draw a fine line between "mention" and anything else.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2015, 12:58am by Mystic » |
Logged
|
- Rick
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #19 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 5:39pm » |
|
on Mar 20th, 2015, 12:56am, Mystic wrote:| I'm sure they will watch carefully and draw a fine line between "mention" and anything else. |
|
Somebody on the LB forum has followed up an old message from Stefan stating "You can't create controls in a loop". Of course you can create controls in a loop in LBB and this would make the task of the enquirer much easier.
So, would responding with this information about LBB be "promoting" it or just "mentioning" it? Would somebody who can still post to the LB forum like to put this to the test?
Here's some code for LBB which will create a grid of between 1 and 8 rows of textboxes as requested by enquirer RNBW:
Code: number.of.rows = 8
for row = 1 to number.of.rows
for col = 0 to 4
textbox #w.tb, 10+col*55, row*20, 55, 20
maphandle #w.tb, "#w.tb";row;col
next col
next row
open "Textbox grid" for window as #w
#w.tb42 "Some text"
wait
Richard.
|
|
|
|
AAW
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #20 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 6:06pm » |
|
on Mar 20th, 2015, 5:39pm, Richard Russell wrote:So, would responding with this information about LBB be "promoting" it or just "mentioning" it? Would somebody who can still post to the LB forum like to put this to the test?
Here's some code for LBB which will create a grid of between 1 and 8 rows of textboxes as requested by enquirer RNBW:
Richard. |
|
I have logged in to answer your question.
This is not about the difference between "mentioning" and "promoting." Your code works in LBB, but not in LB. We prefer not to confuse readers, so code that does not work in regular LB will be discouraged. Mentioning that LBB offers a different solution, with a link to this forum would be fine.
Edited to correct typo.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2015, 6:07pm by AAW » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mystic
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 53
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #21 on: Mar 20th, 2015, 6:30pm » |
|
on Mar 20th, 2015, 6:06pm, AAW wrote:| Mentioning that LBB offers a different solution, with a link to this forum would be fine. |
|
Sounds good to me. 
I guess I can go over and make the reference... Might want to stick this code in a different forum though to avoid confusion even further.
I can do it later if I don't see Richard relocate it or start a new thread.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2015, 6:31pm by Mystic » |
Logged
|
- Rick
|
|
|
RNBW
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 106
|
|
Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
« Reply #23 on: Mar 22nd, 2015, 10:59am » |
|
on Mar 20th, 2015, 5:39pm, Richard Russell wrote:Somebody on the LB forum has followed up an old message from Stefan stating "You can't create controls in a loop". Of course you can create controls in a loop in LBB and this would make the task of the enquirer much easier.
So, would responding with this information about LBB be "promoting" it or just "mentioning" it? Would somebody who can still post to the LB forum like to put this to the test?
Here's some code for LBB which will create a grid of between 1 and 8 rows of textboxes as requested by enquirer RNBW:
Code: number.of.rows = 8
for row = 1 to number.of.rows
for col = 0 to 4
textbox #w.tb, 10+col*55, row*20, 55, 20
maphandle #w.tb, "#w.tb";row;col
next col
next row
open "Textbox grid" for window as #w
#w.tb42 "Some text"
wait
Richard. |
|
------------------------------------------
Richard
You are the only one of the respondents who understood my problem in that the number of rows could be any figure between 1 and 8. Your solution does produce a grid which can be varied as I require. I'm now investigating how I can best incorporate it into my program.
Whilst I am posting this might I add my support and say how disappointed I am that you have decided to stop supporting LBB. I use both BBC Basic for Windows and LB/LBB. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but LBB provides a wonderful link between the two.
Also being retired, I know how much programming keeps my mind active. Can I suggest that if you have currently made your mind up. Leave it for a while and then reconsider and if you still feel the same in 6 months time then fair enough. I'm sure you have a lot on your plate with BBC Basic for Windows, which you have recently updated. I think all we devotees can only thank you for what you have done so far.
Thank you
Ray :( :D
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
« Reply #24 on: Mar 22nd, 2015, 6:16pm » |
|
on Mar 22nd, 2015, 10:59am, RNBW wrote:| Your solution does produce a grid which can be varied as I require. I'm now investigating how I can best incorporate it into my program. |
|
I see from your most recent post at the LB forum that you've decided the LBB solution isn't ideal. That's fair enough, but it would be helpful to me to know what is lacking and how LBB could be improved to better meet your requirements.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RNBW
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 106
|
|
Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
« Reply #25 on: Mar 22nd, 2015, 9:24pm » |
|
on Mar 22nd, 2015, 6:16pm, Richard Russell wrote:I see from your most recent post at the LB forum that you've decided the LBB solution isn't ideal. That's fair enough, but it would be helpful to me to know what is lacking and how LBB could be improved to better meet your requirements.
Richard.
|
|
Hi Richard
It's not that it's not ideal. In my case not all the textboxes in a row are the same width. One accepts a description and is much wider than the others, so I've got some work to do to modify your code.
The reason why I've gone back to the LB Conforum is that I'd like to see if "pure" LB also has a solution.
Rod has responded with some earlier code that you provided, which he believes will help. I've not had chance to look at it yet. I'm currently watching tennis on the telly.
Ray
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
« Reply #26 on: Mar 23rd, 2015, 09:49am » |
|
on Mar 22nd, 2015, 9:24pm, RNBW wrote:| I've got some work to do to modify your code. |
|
It is a very simple modification. If you had described your requirement in more detail I would have written code which more accurately fulfilled it.
Quote:| The reason why I've gone back to the LB Conforum is that I'd like to see if "pure" LB also has a solution. |
|
I think we're losing sight of some fundamentals here. Rod has shown code in which there is only one genuine textbox, which is moved around according to which 'cell' is being used for entry (the rest is just graphics) and Stefan has shown code in which all the textboxes are generated initially but some are 'hidden' so there appear to be fewer.
But neither of those alter the fact that in LB4 if you want to have (say) 50 text boxes in a window you must have 50 TEXTBOX statements. If you don't mind having such a large number of statements to create the textboxes then certainly there are solutions in LB4 for varying the number that can be seen (either by hiding or moving the 'unwanted' ones, or by resizing the window).
But if you want to create a large number of controls without having an equivalently large number of statements to create them, only LBB provides a solution.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RNBW
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 106
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #27 on: Apr 1st, 2015, 5:14pm » |
|
Richard
I will set up a new thread for this, because I'm sure I'm going to need your help to overcome some of my problems. I'll set up the thread in the Liberty Basic Language section.
Ray
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RNBW
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 106
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #28 on: Apr 27th, 2015, 3:02pm » |
|
on Mar 4th, 2015, 08:02am, Richard Russell wrote:But what is the point when so few people will ever benefit?
I suspect the reason for being banned (without warning or explanation) was to make me so pissed off with the whole Liberty BASIC scene that I wouldn't want to continue to support the language. That's precisely the effect it has had; the way I feel at the moment I don't want to have anything further to do with LB or LBB. 
Richard. |
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I probably speak for all users of LBB that it is most regretable that Richard Russell (RR) should be banned from the Liberty Basic Community Forum and this has resulted in RR deciding to wash his hands of the whole LB scene and not develop LBB any further. It is important to remember that RR is the author of BBC Basic for Windows and doesn't need LB at all.
There is a difference of opinion as to why RR has been banned. Users will take sides or sit on the fence. LB Community have issues that they have decided mean RR has to be banned. Personally, I can't see (from what I have read) the justification for the banning. RR obviously had an interest in LB and contributed on numerous occasions to the forum. Presumably from using LB, he saw several deficiencies that made him decide to write LBB, as a benefit to all users. He has referred to LBB on occasions as a means to get over problems which native LB can't. I don't see anything wrong with that.
There are clearly a number of people at all levels who are members of both LBB and LB forums who contribute to both. So not everybody at LB is against him.
I think RR has made the point clearly that LBB is a tool of LB to help get over some of the inherent problems/bugs in LB. It is a free tool. It also provides a more secure and faster EXE than LB. All of these things are helpful to users of LB. There have been lots of independent extensions to programming languages over the years that have been welcomed by the authors of the original languages, even though they meant that using them led to incompatibilities with the original. In most languages that accept libraries, this is the case. If you want to use the code, you must have the library.
If RR wanted to take a different route, he could easily have set up LBB under a different name, with little reference to LB, other than to say it would run most LB code and was a lot faster. Basic is flooded with languages that have been developed in this way. He could still do that now, if he wished. He could set up the current LBB as say GUIBasic as a free program (like Just Basic to LB), which is no longer developed. GUIBasic Pro could then be developed and could be a paid for item. This would allow as much integration between LB and BBC Basic as RR wanted. I would certainly be prepared to pay for a version of LBB that was being developed. It would certainly be quicker than waiting for updates to LB. This would certainly involve RR in a lot of development work, which he may not wish to take on, particularly since he has already got BBC Basic for Windows to deal with.
In my opinion, LB was an easier way into GUI programming than BBC Basic. BBC Basic is otherwise a much better programming language than LB and is certainly more flexible and more powerful. Like many others, I had frustrations with LB that I found LBB could overcome. Even if RR decides not to develop LBB any further, it is still an improvement of LB. It certainly helps to write more concise and more easily understood code. In the code that I am currently writing, which RR has been very helpful in clarifying a number of issues, it has saved vast amounts of writing of individual controls, something that couldn't be done with LB.
Because LBB is a tool rather than a programming language (although many would argue that it is a programming language, simply using the syntax of another), I think it is being looked at by many as only tool. I think this explains why it has a smaller number of registered users on its forum. If LB won't allow the tool to be promoted properly in its forum then LB users have great difficulty in getting to know about it.
It is noticeable that Just Basic has a greater number of registered users on its forum than LB. If RR developed LBB as a separate programming language and marketed it as such, then it would enable him to get it noticed more in magazines and on the internet. This would likely have the effect of increasing the numbers of registered users on the forums.
At the end of this, I can appreciate that if there is no motivation on RR's part to develop LBB in whatever form, then this is his prerogative. He has done his stint at work and is now retired. It is entirely up to him how he wishes to spend his retirement and I wish him well whatever his decision.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #29 on: Apr 27th, 2015, 9:15pm » |
|
RIGHT - I'M QUITE SICK OF THIS. I am angry at the LB forum, and a bit on Richard (which I will explain later).
Firstly, I think LB forum is really STUPID to reject LBB in this way. They obviously cannot humble themselves. I definitely had problems myself. As Richard knows, when I used to be mskl, I would constantly use LB, even though I had this amazing tool/programming language (WHATEVER!), I hardly used it. But now I have converted  to LBBism  ! Anyway, Carl I think has just made a move which could drag LB behind in almost every way: he should've embraced LBB and be heavily influenced by it. But another thing pops up, which is too obvious to ignore: jealousy. Let's face it, LB forum is jealous of Richard's fine and exceptional programming skills, and don't even have to decency to congratulate him truthfully while THEY WERE EXCOMMUNICATING HIM OFF THE FORUM! The ONLY thing that would give them hassle, is if Richard advertised LBB (i.e. constantly shoving this new language into their faces, as they saw it), and simply got sick of it?
But I'm a little annoyed at Richard.
[1: As, I've mentioned somewhere here before, he is obviously creative. He's clawing himself away from this project (to which everyone can benefit), and because of his creative mind-set, it may hurt him in some way  ][2: Because of his decision, LBB users are bound to be irritated. Being an LBBist myself, I am sad  ][3: Could RR himself be over-reacting? Idk, he could be angry for a good reason - but maybe his anger is making him tell lies about it]
Well, as for if LBB is a 'tool' or 'language', I would say the latter! LBB now has major features (such as OOP) which LB doesn't have - it's not just an extended version any more with bug fixes.
Richard, I'm on your side so I totally respect your decision. But Richard, if you're truly giving up LBB, I am willing to help in ANY way possible. I can carry on with it. I may just be a 14 year old (I shoudln't really be on this forum, but my parents know and it's OK ), but I'm really sad that LBB is not going forward any more.
In other words, if it is your will, I hope that I may have the code to continue with it  . Either way, good luck with life - have a good one!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2015, 9:20pm by datwill » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
