Author |
Topic: Winding down LBB (Read 6413 times) |
|
flotulopex
Junior Member
member is offline
 
Gender: 
Posts: 94
|
 |
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #15 on: Feb 28th, 2014, 1:59pm » |
|
Hum...
Everybody who has once tried LBB will not stop using it!
Still the problem is not solved about LBB's publicity and there are none so deaf as those who will not hear - if these people "refuse" to take that chance, who cares....
Everyday, new people look for a BASIC programming language. Why would people choose LB4 or any other similar language instead of BBC then?
When I was looking around the net, one year ago, about finding the (imo) "simplest possible" programming language, if found BBC and also LB4. I finally decided to go for LB4 because:
- LB4 looks a little bit closer to DB3/CLIPPER I was using 30 years ago;
- the better appearance of syntax and the language's command words;
- the overall aspect of the web site;
- the very small effort I had to make to find several comprehensive and simple code samples;
- the importance of the community (forum, Wiki);
- the tools (IDE) I wouldn't have to "provide" by myself.
The price was absolutely not an argument.
What about making BBC more "sexy"?
Your idea about making a powerful editor, debugger and more is just great. Newcomers love to be cocooned 
Make all that "attractive" and I'm sure you'll have new adepts ;-)
|
|
 Logged
|
Roger
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #16 on: Mar 1st, 2014, 09:30am » |
|
on Feb 26th, 2014, 08:52am, Richard Russell wrote:There are a whole load of reasons why very few Liberty BASIC programmers use LBB:
Not knowing it exists...
Loyalty to Carl...
'Not invented here' syndrome...
Better the devil you know...
Distrust of LBB's 'provenance'... |
|
Another, indirect, reason for the poor take-up of LBB is that Liberty BASIC's functionality is so often inaccurately documented, incompletely documented or not documented at all! To give an extreme example, the char[n] structure type, so vital to accessing some Windows APIs, is as far as I know not mentioned anywhere in the official LB docs!
This means that anybody trying to write a 'clone' of LB 4.04 has no reliable specification to work towards. This contrasts with a language like C which has a formal specification that should, in principle, allow a fully compatible implementation to be developed. Much of the functionality which LBB needs to emulate has been discovered by trial-and-error or, frequently, by an incompatibility being reported to me by a user.
It is human nature that somebody trying LBB for the first time, and encountering an incompatibility of this kind, is likely to give up and return to using LB, rather than going to the trouble of reporting it to me. If they did report it I would quite likely be able to offer a compatible workaround, or fix the issue in LBB at short notice.
I don't know how to overcome this, other than to emphasise that reports of incompatibility are always welcome, and are indeed an important way that LBB gets improved.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #17 on: Mar 1st, 2014, 2:28pm » |
|
on Feb 25th, 2014, 8:31pm, net2014 wrote:| I needed a Linux version of LB5 but I think that is impracticable now. |
|
I am looking for somebody to take on the task of porting BBC BASIC for Windows to Linux, which would be a first step towards porting LBB to Linux. If you know of anybody who might be interested in taking on that task, or at least helping with it, perhaps you could put them in touch with me. They would need a good understanding of Linux internals (i.e. APIs) and be able to code in C and/or x86 assembler.
Of course even if BB4W were ported to Linux, that still leaves LBB with exactly the same difficulty as LB5 - support for GUI widgets! Both LB4 and LBB rely on native Windows widgets, but under Linux one would need to use something like WxWidgets or implement them from scratch as Carl has been attempting.
A version of LBB with GUI support from WxWidgets could in principle be platform-neutral across Windows/Linux/MacOSX, but we 'just' need to overcome that initial step of porting BB4W! I don't have the time, energy or inclination to do it myself, but I would be happy to provide somebody else with the necessary information and support.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
Richey
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 14
|
|
Re: Winding down LBB
« Reply #18 on: Mar 2nd, 2014, 12:33am » |
|
on Feb 28th, 2014, 1:59pm, flotulopex wrote:Hum...
Everybody who has once tried LBB will not stop using it!
Still the problem is not solved about LBB's publicity and there are none so deaf as those who will not hear - if these people "refuse" to take that chance, who cares....
Everyday, new people look for a BASIC programming language. Why would people choose LB4 or any other similar language instead of BBC then?
When I was looking around the net, one year ago, about finding the (imo) "simplest possible" programming language, if found BBC and also LB4. I finally decided to go for LB4 because:
- LB4 looks a little bit closer to DB3/CLIPPER I was using 30 years ago;
- the better appearance of syntax and the language's command words;
- the overall aspect of the web site;
- the very small effort I had to make to find several comprehensive and simple code samples;
- the importance of the community (forum, Wiki);
- the tools (IDE) I wouldn't have to "provide" by myself.
The price was absolutely not an argument.
What about making BBC more "sexy"?
Your idea about making a powerful editor, debugger and more is just great. Newcomers love to be cocooned
Make all that "attractive" and I'm sure you'll have new adepts ;-) |
|
BB4W does nor need to become any more "attractive". It is by far a more capable language than LB. It has an established pedigree having been around since the 1980s and has been developed since then by Richard into a powerful and flexible language. It produces small and fast standalone exec's and is (as far as any software can be) bug free. Its graphics capabilities are outstanding and its IDE is far superior to that provided by LB.
The only advantages that LB offers over BB4W that I can see and the only reason why I give any of my time to LB are:
1) easier GUI programming. In LB, GUI programming is built into the language and it is really easy to use whereas you have to use libraries with BB4W. However, this is one of the reasons why LB produces such slow and bloated execs and why LBB is so useful.
2) larger, more active and supportive (if tightly controlled) community along with extensive learning materials; although BB4W comes with a good tutorial and documentation that is comprehensive and second to none (plus there is lots of older BBC BASIC material out there and it is compatible with BB4W).
Actually, I suspect the reason why LB is more 'popular' than BB4W is more to do with the fact that it is (one of) the language used in 'Beginning Programming for Dummies' and 'Programming for the Absolute Beginner' books.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
