Author |
Topic: Winding down LBB (Read 6429 times) |
|
CryptoMan
New Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 46
|
 |
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #19 on: Mar 2nd, 2014, 9:32pm » |
|
It will be very bad if you stopped LBB or you are not participating in LB Forum.
I believe LBB has an important place in the LB world. Each has it's better parts. Initial writing and debugging is easier on LB. However, once it is written I prefer to compile it and run it with LBB because one single EXE without any other files to bundle with.
Furthermore, my code which gives problems in TKN form has no problems properly running as LBB compiled EXE.
I have tried and actively using LBB and am very happy with it. I would love to see it evolving.
I also used the forum but because it was not forcing any registeration i did not register until now..
If you look at LB forum you will see that nothing much is really happening. Some topics are not updated for months and years. Some of the most important and useful contributions are your contributions in LB forum.
I think anyone who works seriously with LB knows LBB and it is one of the most useful tools for LB. i wish LB adapts some of LBB's features like INCLUDE statements and better USING formats.
I believe that LBB should be part of LBB in that it becomes the compile to EXE option and TKN format is scrapped. INCLUDE should be part of LB and a multiple source code tabs like Notepad+ is implemented.
So. I wish that you change your mind and keep up the good work.
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #20 on: Mar 5th, 2014, 10:39am » |
|
on Mar 2nd, 2014, 9:32pm, CryptoMan wrote:| It will be very bad if you stopped LBB or you are not participating in LB Forum. |
|
I can't even see the LB forum now, because the settings have been changed so you need to be a member even to view posts. 
Quote:| Initial writing and debugging is easier on LB. However, once it is written I prefer to compile it and run it with LBB because one single EXE without any other files to bundle with. |
|
Hopefully by adding the debugger and profiler to LBB v2.50 I have made it easier to use LBB (perhaps in conjunction with LBW) for the entire development cycle.
Quote:| I think anyone who works seriously with LB knows LBB and it is one of the most useful tools for LB. |
|
I hope you are right, but I am not so confident. The administrators of the LB forum go to great lengths to try to make sure LB users don't find out about LBB. Evidently they don't think it is a "useful tool", they see it only as a threat.
Quote:| So. I wish that you change your mind and keep up the good work. |
|
I will continue to support LBB, but I don't intend to develop it further to any great extent. If the senior members of the 'LB community' change their minds and acknowledge LBB as having some value I may reconsider, but at the moment that doesn't seem likely.
Richard
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TexasPete
New Member
member is offline
Excellance is a often a long path.
Gender:
Posts: 23
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #21 on: Mar 5th, 2014, 10:54am » |
|
Richard, I have a web site that I am happy to promote LBB.
I will be happy to support your site. I believe there is plenty of room out there for LBB and Lb. I don't know what all the fuss is about. I do visit the lbb site regularly. Some of the other people would be happy to to put a website up to contuinue to spread the word. I will be sending you some money soon.
Thank you for your efforts
Texas Pete
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #22 on: Mar 5th, 2014, 2:55pm » |
|
on Mar 5th, 2014, 10:54am, TexasPete wrote:| I have a web site that I am happy to promote LBB. |
|
The more widely LBB is promoted, the more likely it is that people will find out about it.
Quote:| I will be sending you some money soon. |
|
I have no need for any money! Really, I don't!! 
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richey
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 14
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #23 on: Mar 22nd, 2014, 7:39pm » |
|
on Mar 5th, 2014, 10:39am, Richard Russell wrote:I can't even see the LB forum now, because the settings have been changed so you need to be a member even to view posts.
|
|
Hi Richard - it looks like the settings have reverted back to enable guests to view the LB Conforum. Carl has also released Liberty BASIC v4.5 -  . Does that affect the current version of LB Booster in any way?
Edit: Hmm...not sure if he has actually released it yet (couldn't find a copy on the LB website or on the conforum) or if it is imminent?
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 22nd, 2014, 7:45pm by Richey » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #24 on: Mar 22nd, 2014, 9:21pm » |
|
on Mar 22nd, 2014, 7:39pm, Richey wrote:| Carl has also released Liberty BASIC v4.5 - . |
|
What now seems to be called version 4.5 is what was previously called version 4.05 (which was made available to a select few some time ago), by all accounts. The change to the version numbering may be to give the impression that it's more different than it actually is.
The most notable thing is just how many bugs have not been fixed in this release.
Quote:| Does that affect the current version of LB Booster in any way? |
|
There are a few new TEXTEDITOR commands which I could easily provide in LBB if anybody thinks they are useful.
The memory limit has been raised. LBB's current limit is 100 Mbytes; it could be increased to 500 Mbytes but I'm not sure that it's desirable to go to 1 Gbyte because the more address space taken by LBB (or LB) the less there is left for DLLs, bitmaps, sprites etc.
Quote:| Hmm...not sure if he has actually released it yet |
|
No, it's in Beta as far as I can see.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
CirothUngol
New Member
member is offline
Odie, Odie, cha cha cha.
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #25 on: Mar 25th, 2014, 01:44am » |
|
Well, this seems like the '2 cents' forum topic, so here's mine:
I used Just BASIC for well over a year before deciding to purchase Liberty BASIC two years ago. I was already using LBB at that time and bought LB for the IDE. But now, with the inclusion of a full (and better) debugger in LBB and the free availability of LB Workshop there's no need to use anything else.
LB Booster + LB Workshop = better, easier, and more versatile IDE + faster, smaller, and more powerful applications.
...and it's FREE! I paid for Liberty BASIC 4.04 and I no longer use it, ever.
We're very glad you've designed this application that so greatly extends the capabilities of the Liberty BASIC dialect that we'd already become accustomed to. It allows us to continue using all the simple GUI commands while affording us the benefit of quick and compact executables with all the bells and whistles. Yay!
As to the question about the inclusion of the new features in LB '4.5', you may want to add them just to keep the steady 'LB4' compatibility, especially if they aren't difficult to implement.
|
|
Logged
|
LB Booster + LB Workshop + LB Builder = My Programs on Google Drive
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #26 on: Mar 25th, 2014, 09:52am » |
|
on Mar 25th, 2014, 01:44am, CirothUngol wrote:| As to the question about the inclusion of the new features in LB '4.5', you may want to add them just to keep the steady 'LB4' compatibility, especially if they aren't difficult to implement. |
|
I agree. We won't know the exact syntax until Carl releases v4.5 so there's not a lot I can do immediately.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
terciops
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #27 on: Mar 25th, 2014, 8:55pm » |
|
Richard,
from my POV I would not be able to use and distribute my programs in LB alone. Even disregarding the speed increase of LBB, the single EXE file standalone facility is the significant feature of LBB for me. That we may get this facility in LB5 is something like 'good times tomorrow', and I am not getting any younger....
You mentioned the idea of porting to LINUX, would that include the MAC? If your LBB code ran on the MAC - well the sky is your oyster.... There is nothing (apart from certain important and useful body parts) that I wouldn't give for a MAC version of LBB.
Now that LB Workshop is freeware and LBB's run engine works straight from [F5] I have no doubts that this is the best option of all. True the BASIC market is saturated, but I think you have to consider the huge difference between what is being used 'in anger' as opposed to casual play.
I guess the idea of improving the LBB IDE is not so daft, but then the LBW environment is quite adequate (although I like LB Builder more for larger projects) and re-inventing a round wheel is sort of pointless unless you have absolutely nothing else to do.
On my relentless search for a language to teach at work I have tried many, even to the point of being given a full 'educational licence' for PYTHON from JetBrains. PYTHON is nice enough and has lots of features, but it is not a language to get your feet wet with. The learning curve is just to steep to start with and despondency sets in real soon. It is rather like having to build an aircraft before you can learn to fly.
However I can get my students up and running with LB / LBB from virtually day 1, and they get a single EXE for their trouble to take home on a USB stick for Show and Tell.
Rather like the old GWBASIC, LBB requires no install and the GUI is quite usable for starters. Perhaps this is the way to increase the user base. Rather than hanging LBB on LB's coat-tails, push it as a complete solution for beginners with LBW as an IDE upgrade as skill and understanding improves.
Just a few cents worth.
Ken
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #28 on: Mar 25th, 2014, 11:03pm » |
|
on Mar 25th, 2014, 8:55pm, terciops wrote:| You mentioned the idea of porting to LINUX, would that include the MAC? |
|
I know even less about MacOS than I do about Linux, and that's saying something! Realistically I don't think you can expect LBB ever to run on either platform, other than via a Windows emulator (e.g. Wine/Crossover/Parallels). Porting it is something I'm unable to do alone, and nobody has volunteered to help.
Quote:| Perhaps this is the way to increase the user base. Rather than hanging LBB on LB's coat-tails, push it as a complete solution for beginners with LBW as an IDE upgrade as skill and understanding improves. |
|
In my opinion that's a non-starter, as I think I've said before.
It would take a great deal of work to turn LBB into a language that could stand alone - the Liberty BASIC 'stupidities' would have to be stripped out for a start - and even if one could do that the market for BASICs is already saturated and it would be impossible for LBB (or something based on it) to carve out a worthwhile niche.
LBB's sole justification for existence is its compatibility with LB, and its only significant market is current LB users. The challenge is how to get it more widely known amongst that group.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rod
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 110
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #29 on: Mar 26th, 2014, 7:33pm » |
|
Quote:| The challenge is how to get it more widely known amongst that group. |
|
I don't know what Carl actually thinks but perhaps if he saw it as less of a threat and more of an enhancement it might get more airtime.
Currently it is positioned as a free alternative to Liberty BASIC, so destroying his market and intellectual property. What if it was bound to a Liberty BASIC purchase? The ide is the ide whether enhanced or not and matters less. But the core scripting simplicity is Liberty BASIC's power. You have not achieved that with BBC despite its computational advantage.
Carl is constrained by Smalltalk, you have broken those constraints. Its just a pity and our loss that you could not work together.
Or could you?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #30 on: Mar 26th, 2014, 9:44pm » |
|
on Mar 26th, 2014, 7:33pm, Rod wrote:| Currently it is positioned as a free alternative to Liberty BASIC, so destroying his market and intellectual property. |
|
Please don't suggest that I have violated Carl's Intellectual Property Rights, because that it totally untrue. No IPR exists in respect of the semantics or syntax of a programming language, only in its implementation. Anybody is free to write a clone of a language - consider how many implementations of BBC BASIC by different authors there are!
But it's important to me not only to adhere to the letter of the law but also the spirit. That's why, before releasing LBB, I consulted with Carl (and other senior LB enthusiasts) to make sure what I was proposing would be acceptable. It was as a direct result of that consultation that I (1) changed the name of my implementation from Liberty BASIC Booster to LB Booster and (2) agreed to include in the LBB documentation the comment "LB Booster is Freeware; you are encouraged to purchase the full version of Liberty Basic on which to develop, test and debug your programs prior to 'boosting' them".
Carl has subsequently stated publicly that: "LBB is a legitimate artifact. Feel free to use it if it suits your needs". If he was in any way unhappy he could have contacted me directly, but he has not done so. He could also have contacted me if he was interested in some kind of cooperation, but again he hasn't.
If Carl is finding that his market is declining then there are many possible reasons other than the existence of LBB. For example his failure to fix the large number of bugs in LB4, despite them having long been known and documented; his failure to address the security vulnerabilities in TKN files, which were drawn to his attention years ago; and then of course there is (or more to the point isn't!) LB5....
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack Kelly
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 106
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #31 on: Jan 20th, 2015, 10:32am » |
|
Richard,
I'm happy to be a new member of the LBB forum. Who could refuse your kind invitation? And most importantly, I have decided that LBB will be my BASIC of choice going forward. I will develop and maintain my programs entirely in LBB. Your work has added brilliance to a somewhat ordinary product. But Just Basic found an important niche among amateur programmers like myself. Years ago I was very happy with GW Basic and the first versions of MS Visual Basic, but these are now history for many reasons. JB was the best that we were left with, and I do like working with it. I don’t need complicated GUI development screens, network security, or enterprise features. Text based coding is the essence of BASIC programming and JB did the job. LBB does it better.
I have an idea for promoting LBB. Have you ever heard of Khan Academy? It's a sophisticated Web site tied to a hugeYouTube channel with thousands of short lectures on primarily math and science. The founder, Sal Khan, is a brilliant entrepreneur and educator. He has received millions of dollars of funding from the Gates Foundation, Google, and many others. But most importantly, Sal, like us, is a self-professed “lover of code.” KA has a Computer Science section that has an on-line Java interpreter for beginners. They were recently a sponsor of the international “Hour of Code” where young people were encouraged to try their hand at programming. Sal has created lectures on Python, and has enlisted people to lecture on HTML and CSS . But I think he should be teaching BASIC. Perhaps you and Sal might have something to talk about, by way of using LBB and promoting it at the same time. His staff probably screens his e-mail, but maybe they would pass on one from you. It’s worth a try, don't you think?
salman@khanacademy.org
I suppose I'm another one of your old school users, but at least I'm not using GoSub anymore. I feel like a part of computer history. Dennis Ritchie was a year ahead of me in high school in New Jersey, before he went on to Harvard. He worked at Bell Labs where he developed the C language and much of Unix. Sadly, he chose to end his life a couple of years ago. Sir Michael Bloomberg was in my class at Johns Hopkins. He knew everyone by first name, and was class president for several years.
In 1964 I visited Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, just when John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz released the first version of BASIC. This created much excitement on the campus, and was a source of pride for the entire community. Kemeny went on to become the president of Dartmouth for many years.
In the Air Force during the late 60s I was a maintenance technician on the Hound Dog missile inertial guidance system. The heart of the system was the stable platform with its gyros and accelerometers, but the brain of the system was the digital computer. I can only describe it as a PC made from transistors and discreet components. Its only memory was a small hard disk. I had no idea how it worked, but I could program it with machine language code. That was the start of my interest in computers.
During the 70s I worked as a maintenance technician for Burroughs, during the age of large “time sharing” mainframe computers. The B5500 ran an operating system called MCP (Master Control Program). It was a thing of beauty -- simple, elegant, innovative, and way ahead of its time -- created by one individual, I believe. Unfortunately the company could not compete well against IBM, and they never had much of a market share. I worked on small second generation computers that ran specialized back office banking operations. Today’s PCs could run circles around them.
Lately I've been working on a tutorial for BASIC programming. I have eight grandchildren approaching their teens, and I'm hopeful that at least one of them will become a lover of code, too.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
