LB Booster
General >> General Board >> Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
http://lbb.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1462097872
Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 1st, 2016, 10:17am

Does anybody know what the current situation is as regards mentioning LBB at the LB Community Forum? Some time ago it was stated that it was OK to post a comment to the effect that 'LBB provides a solution', with a link to a related post here.

The reason I ask is that even when a question appears for which LBB does provide a solution, nobody ever seems to post to that effect. For example there is currently a thread entitled 'graphics window text' in which the OP enquires whether it is possible to use an RGB color to set the background of a GUI control such as Statictext.

Of course this is one of the specific enhancements in LBB, but nobody has mentioned it there. All we seem to get is the entirely unhelpful "No it can't be done" kind of reply.

Richard.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by SarmedNafi on May 1st, 2016, 11:16am

Rod could be mentioned, I am sure he could.
At least on his site.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Jul 13th, 2016, 4:24pm

on May 1st, 2016, 10:17am, Richard Russell wrote:
Some time ago it was stated that it was OK to post a comment to the effect that 'LBB provides a solution', with a link to a related post here.

An admin at the LB Community Forum has, disgracefully, anonymously edited somebody's post to make it seem that they said something quite different from what they originally posted. Their post now reads "See the first rule on the list. Please do not promote competing products" but I'm quite certain that's not what was originally written!

It's one thing deleting somebody's post (if they are informed privately why) but quite another to edit a post in a misleading way. If the forum was based in or administered from the UK I would be seeking legal advice about this.

As I commented, it was made perfectly clear (by Alyce herself I think) that if LBB provides a solution - which LB doesn't - then it is permitted to post to the LB forum to that effect, so long as it does not gratuitously promote LBB. Several posts in that vein have been allowed.

Without seeing what the edited post originally contained I don't know whether this guidance has changed or not. It would be helpful if an admin from the LB Forum could update us with precisely what the current rules are.

Richard.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by tsh73 on Jul 14th, 2016, 2:39pm

Hello Richard
First on this one
Quote:
The reason I ask is that even when a question appears for which LBB does provide a solution, nobody ever seems to post to that effect. For example there is currently a thread entitled 'graphics window text' in which the OP enquires whether it is possible to use an RGB color to set the background of a GUI control such as Statictext.

Of course this is one of the specific enhancements in LBB, but nobody has mentioned it there. All we seem to get is the entirely unhelpful "No it can't be done" kind of reply.

To give such answers one should be fluent in both LBB and LB. As I see most of people either migrated completely and had no such problems, or tried and went back to LB (and me back to JB). Just because "good enough" is often enough. So to give such advice, there just not enough knowledgeable persons around.

Now this one
Quote:
Does anybody know what the current situation is as regards mentioning LBB at the LB Community Forum?

current situation as of 14 Jul 2016 (or as I understand it):
As I guess we (LB forum admins) do not pretend LBB never existed, so briefly mentioning LBB will not lead to post deletion. (But likely, following flame will lead)
- no discussion LBB in depth
- no saying LBB is better then LB
- no links to LBB
Threads started to discuss LBB is to be deleted on the spot.
Only thing I could say I'm really sorry.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Jul 14th, 2016, 10:41pm

on Jul 14th, 2016, 2:39pm, tsh73 wrote:
To give such answers one should be fluent in both LBB and LB.

I don't really think 'fluency' is required, simply knowing that LBB provides a solution is sufficient. After all, it is discouraged to give details on the LB forum, as that could be construed as 'in depth' discussion.

Quote:
As I see most of people either migrated completely and had no such problems, or tried and went back to LB

Do you actually have any evidence of that? "Migrating completely" is not necessarily satisfactory because of the things LB can do which LBB cannot (principally, arbitrary precision integer arithmetic). Trying LBB but going back to LB seems to me unlikely, given the range of benefits LBB provides.

Quote:
Just because "good enough" is often enough.

For that to make sense, there would have to be some inherent advantage in using LB or JB, and I don't think there is.

Quote:
no links to LBB

A link to this forum was specifically encouraged, as the way of providing the detailed information which is not allowed to be posted at the LB forum.

The offending edited-by-admin post at the LB forum now seems to have been deleted, but it should never have happened in the first place.

Richard.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by tsh73 on Jul 15th, 2016, 07:08am

Ok I tried to quote it but prevoius quote didn't catch.

Quote:
I don't really think 'fluency' is required, simply knowing that LBB provides a solution is sufficient.
To "know" one need to practice it. Me not.

Quote:
Do you actually have any evidence of that?

No, it's just my guess (based on new LBB users posting "I'll never come back". I wonder where they are now.)

Now this
>> Trying LBB but going back to LB seems to me unlikely, given the range of benefits LBB provides.

>> >>Just because "good enough" is often enough.

>> For that to make sense, there would have to be some inherent advantage in using LB or JB, and I don't think there is.

1) old users get used to LB/JB quirks, so they almost never thred on it. So benefit from bugfix rarely used
2) using LBB improvements makes your program incompatible. It is OK if you share EXE - but on BASIC forum we share code. So it makes you cut from JB/LB forum.
See Bluatigro. He posts on JB /LB /LBB forums. My guess that he is using lowest common denominator of the languages, never LBB improvements.
Personally I think this is most important point.
3) now about "some inherent advantage". This is strictly personal but here at my job (were I spent most of my lifertime) I have some production program eating memory. So LBB almost always says "Cannot create screen bitmap" (until I reboot)
Also,
- it is easily to copy stuff from a JB/LB mainwin
- "they were here first". Folks got used - it is an advantage. Actually, with "good enough" notion - big one.

That was my 0.02$.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Jul 15th, 2016, 09:44am

on Jul 15th, 2016, 07:08am, tsh73 wrote:
1) old users get used to LB/JB quirks, so they almost never thred on it. So benefit from bugfix rarely used

Even if that is true (and there are some LB bugs that are difficult or impossible to work around) bugfixes are only one aspect of LBB's advantages. I suggest you re-read the benefits section of the LBB help file to remind yourself of what else it does for you.

Quote:
2) using LBB improvements makes your program incompatible. It is OK if you share EXE - but on BASIC forum we share code. So it makes you cut from JB/LB forum.

LBB's improvements do not always make a program incompatible. For example these features don't impair compatibility:So whilst it's true that retaining compatibility with JB/LB restricts your ability to take advantage of LBB's improvements, it by no means eliminates it.

Quote:
So LBB almost always says "Cannot create screen bitmap"

This is an issue which (as far as I am aware) affects only Windows XP, which has a ridiculously small 'pool' of kernel bitmap memory which is easily exhausted. From Windows Vista onwards there is either a much bigger pool, or possibly no limit at all, so I have never seen the problem on those platforms.

But if you are having any problems with LBB you should either post here or contact me personally. I am sure you remember that I added the ability to customise the amount of memory reserved at startup (with a setting in the INI file) specifically for you because you wanted to run it on a machine with Virtual Memory disabled.

Unlike Carl Gundel, who doesn't seem to care how many bugs LB has nor how they affect his users, I will always fix bugs reported in LBB. It's true that long ago I abandoned further developments of LBB, and I am still not motivated to add to the language, but bugs are another matter entirely!

Quote:
- it is easily to copy stuff from a JB/LB mainwin

It's equally easy to copy stuff from the LBB mainwin (by pressing Ctrl+Tab), so long as it hasn't 'scrolled off the top'. You could just as well point to any of the other issues listed in the Compatibility section of the LBB docs and say that it's a reason not to use it. But you have to weigh these against the advantages.

Richard.
Re: Mentioning LBB at the LB Forum
Post by tsh73 on Jul 15th, 2016, 11:17am

Thank you Richard.
I read all this, and looked to helpfile too.
As for reporting "Cannot create screen bitmap" thing I pretty sure this is my setup problem, should be really rare thing (and XP is dying off anyway - I'll get something newer with eventual upgrade).