Author |
Topic: Banned from the LB Community Forum (Read 7054 times) |
|
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
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #30 on: Apr 28th, 2015, 08:54am » |
|
I think we should start an online campaign. Honestly, if LBB can call any DLL (and even LB does this!), why on earth is everyone messing around with language like Python and C++! The only reason/s you'd want to learn any other language is if you'd want to create a DLL (Ik C++ can do this, but it's quite complex ), or code other things (like android/iOS apps, webpages ext.) - stuff which LBB currently can't do.
So at these stupid schools, I hear they're learning... PYTHON!! WHY! LBB is simple, yet very powerful! Perhaps I'm missing something, but Python just seems a bit rubbish, especially compared to LBB...
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tsh73
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 210
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #31 on: Apr 28th, 2015, 12:24pm » |
|
First, please let this thread rest in peace.
(it's a polite request if you wonder).
If you have different topic - start new thread.
Quote:| I think we should start an online campaign. |
|
Go ahead, start, post a link.
Or better yet start a new thread and explain what kind of campaign it would be.
Quote:| Honestly, if LBB can call any DLL (and even LB does this!), why on earth is everyone messing around with language like Python and C++! The only reason/s you'd want to learn any other language is if you'd want to create a DLL (Ik C++ can do this, but it's quite complex ), or code other things (like android/iOS apps, webpages ext.) - stuff which LBB currently can't do. |
|
Really, if you do not see a reason, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote:| So at these stupid schools, I hear they're learning... PYTHON!! WHY! LBB is simple, yet very powerful! Perhaps I'm missing something, but Python just seems a bit rubbish, especially compared to LBB... |
|
>> Python just seems a bit rubbish
I've seen that said many times about BASIC. So what?
New language always seems weird because it's new and alien to you.
Then you master language, you'll see beautiful programs written in that language - and start to tell good code from bad code in that language.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #32 on: Apr 28th, 2015, 1:05pm » |
|
on Apr 28th, 2015, 12:24pm, tsh73 wrote:First, please let this thread rest in peace.
(it's a polite request if you wonder).
If you have different topic - start new thread.
Go ahead, start, post a link.
Or better yet start a new thread and explain what kind of campaign it would be.
Really, if you do not see a reason, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>> Python just seems a bit rubbish
I've seen that said many times about BASIC. So what?
New language always seems weird because it's new and alien to you.
Then you master language, you'll see beautiful programs written in that language - and start to tell good code from bad code in that language. |
|
Well, I was kinda joking about the online campaign thing, but I guess, if you think about it, making LBB products and distributing them is a campaign. It shows what awesome things you can do with the language.
I have a vague concept of python and understand some of it's syntax (for instance, I love it's idea of indentation being code within a function or code within an if statement), but what new does python have to give. In fact, what is a programming language if it doesn't cover/have a purpose. LB and LBB's is to make Windows programming easier (and it certainly taught me how the Windows OS works). C++ is a powerful language which, out of my experience, is great with memory handling and has a more powerful approach than BASIC (and is still growing today, unlike LB , versions like C++14 and C++16 and wotnot). HTML (although it isn't actually a programming language), CSS, Javascript and Ruby ext. help you with webpages and websites. Java is the mother of OOP in my knowledge. And other, more unpopular languages like GUI4CLI, which works with GUIs really simply (I've seen a programme which executes a file explorer in just 30-50 lines!!), and Assembly, which can manipulate the building blocks of a computer system, and you can make an OS I've heard (although it is a low-level language and not many use it)! And some of the first high-level languages like Fortran (great for mathematicians , and is STILL in use today even though it was designed all way back in 1957!!) and Cobol (a brilliant business language) helped a LOT with the development of all these languages.
Python is good for compatibility, but what's that good if it doesn't bring something new. LB 5.0 is supposed to do this! And any language can have 'compatibility' enhancements. This is my opinion and it's a matter of opinion. BASIC, on it's own (by this I mean versions of BASIC which don't allow you to access DLLs) is a bit rubbish. Take Just BASIC for an example. Without the use of accessing DLLs, or a programming language that isn't powerful enough, it soon grows boring and tiring. I may just be mistaken, but Python, doesn't do this. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because if it actually has something new, and it can do awesome things, then my long speech is worthless. For me, I don't need Python. But for other's, it built their coding lives.
Well I just looked up a bit more about it, and yeah it can call DLLs I think, but hasn't all this been done before  ? And many people and schools are learning Python, there must be something great about it that I'm missing. And if all that's good about it is that it's modern (for it seems to me a modern copy of BASIC), then why can't BASIC be just as good! BASIC was very popular back then, was that just because it was modern? No, it brought something new!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 28th, 2015, 1:18pm by datwill » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #33 on: May 2nd, 2015, 8:21pm » |
|
In fact, forget I asked for the code - I think it will be both too daunting and distracting from other projects I'm working on
|
| « Last Edit: May 2nd, 2015, 8:22pm by datwill » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #34 on: May 3rd, 2015, 09:40am » |
|
on May 2nd, 2015, 8:21pm, Daniel Atwill wrote:| In fact, forget I asked for the code - I think it will be both too daunting and distracting from other projects I'm working on |
|
I suggested some while ago that I might be prepared to release the source of the LBB IDE. As I explained then, there are a couple of sections of the program which would need to be 'redacted':
The TKN decoder. I don't think Carl would be too happy for the source of that to be released, even though TKNs are easy enough to reverse-engineer from scratch.
The code which creates a standalone executable. Releasing the source of that would reveal the details of the encryption used, damaging the security of everybody's compiled EXEs.
But the rest of the LBB IDE could be released, in principle. It's all fairly straightforward BASIC code (except for the syntax colouring added in v3.00, which is assembler).
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #35 on: May 3rd, 2015, 3:13pm » |
|
on May 3rd, 2015, 09:40am, Richard Russell wrote:I suggested some while ago that I might be prepared to release the source of the LBB IDE. As I explained then, there are a couple of sections of the program which would need to be 'redacted':
The TKN decoder. I don't think Carl would be too happy for the source of that to be released, even though TKNs are easy enough to reverse-engineer from scratch.
The code which creates a standalone executable. Releasing the source of that would reveal the details of the encryption used, damaging the security of everybody's compiled EXEs.
But the rest of the LBB IDE could be released, in principle. It's all fairly straightforward BASIC code (except for the syntax colouring added in v3.00, which is assembler).
Richard.
|
|
This is understandable and am glad you thought about this before releasing all the code! How do you learn about the .exe things though if it's so secret?
Richard: "Well, if I told you that, I'm afraid I'd have to kill you."
Daniel:
|
| « Last Edit: May 3rd, 2015, 3:16pm by datwill » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alincon
Full Member
member is offline
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #36 on: May 3rd, 2015, 6:02pm » |
|
I don't think LBB IDE source code s/b released to public domain.
Some idiots will make minor changes, or no changes, and try to sell it .
Inevitably some users will blame Richard for corrupted versions of his very fine work.
Please hang on a while longer, Richard.
rm.m
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #37 on: May 3rd, 2015, 8:03pm » |
|
on May 3rd, 2015, 6:02pm, Alincon wrote:I don't think LBB IDE source code s/b released to public domain.
Some idiots will make minor changes, or no changes, and try to sell it .
Inevitably some users will blame Richard for corrupted versions of his very fine work.
Please hang on a while longer, Richard.
rm.m |
|
Aye.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
datwill
Guest
|
|
Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
« Reply #38 on: May 4th, 2015, 7:54pm » |
|
Can someone lead me to the proof of this banning?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
