LB Booster: Banned from the LB Community Forum

LB Booster
General >> General Board >> Banned from the LB Community Forum
http://lbb.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1425459777

Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 4^th, 2015, 08:02am

on Mar 3^rd, 2015, 10:37pm, Richey wrote:

Shame on them. Your efforts are not wasted Richard - your work has provided a faster, more stable and extended version of LB, which is developed and produced as promised and on time and (probably) bug free. It is a fantastic achievement and it is appreciated.

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. angry

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Phineas Freak on Mar 4^th, 2015, 09:11am

As Richey said, SHAME ON THEM! What are all these $%^&#, trying to kill LBB with every chance? Probably because of the fact that LBB is better than LB...

If you decide to stop development of LBB...it will be a sad moment for a lot of us cry

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by net2014 on Mar 4^th, 2015, 09:16am

I am so sorry that the LB community is being so antagonistic. I know that in its day, LB was an easy intro to windows applications but the developer was too slow in bug clearing and modernising. I understand that was due to other commitments but customers will only wait around a limited time. There is also of course a move away from windows to android tablets, smartphones etc so the demand for basic for windows will decline quite rapidly.

Also, as you will know, being a UK resident, schools are now teaching 'coding' (I hate that word!), not on PCs with basic, but on RaspberryPi with Linux and python. Wine will not run on the pi, although I understand there may eventually be a port, so at this time LB and LBB are none starters on the pi.

LBB has provided a very welcome enhancement. I have doubt that LB5 will ever appear, one of the forum mods made a recent announcement that there was no progress news about LB5 'and don't bother asking', which left me flabbergasted. Is that the way to keep followers interested?
So I only hope that ALL your supporters will make themselves known and give you encouragement.

I've rambled on long enough so LBB users, make your numbers count!

PS Why was there never any objection to LB to C translators? Or was there and that was the reason the project was abandoned.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by tsh73 on Mar 4^th, 2015, 10:21am

Quote:

PS Why was there never any objection to LB to C translators? Or was there and that was the reason the project was abandoned.

I could say reasons be "too long" and "too hard". And needs some knowledge too.

I know of two attemps
One is
GNU/Liberty Basic Compiler Collection
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lbpp/
Not sure why it was stopped.

Another is my try, http://libertylabs.proboards.com/thread/87/jb-translator
It started as "How far "naive" attempts could get us?"
Abandoned due to not enough commitment from my part. It just passed stage of "intersting" to "tasking".
And I never planned of doing GUI part anyway.

Feel free to look/use/modify, it woks in Just Basic.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by AAW on Mar 4^th, 2015, 10:51am

Richard, I respectfully request that you refrain from making accusations and assumptions regarding actions and motives of other people. Your claims regarding the reason for your ban are not true.

In fact, I have attempted to manipulate things so that you could continue to be a member.

I would prefer not to explain this in public. I would very much like to spare you any embarrassment. I would also like to avoid assigning motives to your actions which may or may not be true (as you have done to me and the LB forum staff.)

As always, you are welcome to contact me via email. I'm sure if you review our past communications (few though they may be) you will find that I have always treated you kindly, politely and respectfully. This I do in our interactions both public and private.

Perhaps we can solve this amicably.

-Alyce

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Jack Kelly on Mar 4^th, 2015, 8:48pm

Richard,
Thank you for the new release of LBB. Everything I have tried so far has worked just fine on my system. I appreciate the improvements to the IDE, and I look forward to learning and trying OOP as time allows. Right now I must admit that it is a complete mystery to me, but I'll accept your word that OOP is the modern way. I also truly appreciate the privilege and honor of having such direct access to you and your expertise. I realize that this open access must come at a high cost to you in terms of your time and sanity. I think it is most important that you enjoy your retirement and allow LBB to be a source of pleasure for you, not angst. We are grateful for anything you can do.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 5^th, 2015, 9:44pm

You will have realised by now that I have decided to abandon LBB. It was a difficult decision to take, and I know it will be a disappointment to some, but what it came down to in the end is that for over three years I have been hated by several members of the LB community, and I don't like it. sad

I have been fortunate to have had a fairly successful career and led a fairly quiet personal life, during which I haven't (I hope) acquired too many enemies. Now in retirement I have tried to keep my brain active by continuing to engage in software-writing activities; in that respect LBB has been both challenging and satisfying.

But what I don't need or want at this time of life is to know that a group of people despise me. I have tried to keep the emotional impact under control by telling myself that their hatred is unjustified - and I do genuinely believe that it is - but when it has practical everyday consequences such as preventing me from even reading the LB forum as a guest it becomes impossible to block out.

Accordingly I am going to cut my ties with Liberty BASIC. I do not at this stage propose to shut down the web site or forums, and nor do I intend to remove the LBB download; doing that would unnecessarily inconvenience people and provide no benefit to me.

However from now on I will not be monitoring those forums nor providing any online support for LBB. Of course if I receive a personal email I will reply to the best of my ability - anything else would be discourteous - so anybody wanting support may contact me that way if they wish. I would prefer not to be contacted by anybody connected with the LB Community Forum.

Goodbye.

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Alincon on Mar 6^th, 2015, 2:22pm

You left too soon, Richard.
They are saying good things about LBB over on the LB board.
I find it hard to believe that anyone there hates you

Please reconsider abandoning us.

r.m.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by CirothUngol on Mar 11^th, 2015, 01:31am

Mention of LBBooster has always been banned on the Liberty Basic and Just Basic Forums. I was immediately chastised and had my topic deleted when I tried to tell people about it three years ago. *sigh*

Right then I realized that the LB Forums weren't necessarily there to help users. How many users would LBBooser have helped over the last few years? How many of you reading this right now wish you'd have known about it for the last three years?

It was then that I (nearly) stopped paying attention to those forums. LBB was such a fantastic application that it not only successfully compiled my largest program (over 5000 lines) with very little modification the first time I ever used it (ver 1.x, I can't remember), but it also reduced it to a 300Kb executable that was at least 6 times faster! I wanted the entire Liberty Basic world to know of it's existence, but was brutally stymied in my attempts (incidently, I originally discovered LBB from LB's Wikipedia page).

I love what Carl has created. Just Basic was a excellent panacea for my personal middle-aged programming woes when I discovered it many years ago. I love the simple manner in which the GUI elements are created and manipulated. It was, without a doubt, the easiest and quickest way for me to create the Windoze apps that I desired using a programming paradigm that I happen to be implicitly familiar with (been doin' the BASIC thang since the early '80s).

I hate that it has come to this. I don't even know really what's going on (as stated, I don't pay attention to the LB Forums), but I can tell that it's not good. I hate that Richard, a guy who has freely produced what is easily the best Liberty Basic extension in existence, feels so maligned that he has decided to forsake what is apparently his favorite pet-project. Damn, that hurts.

However, I will reiterate what I initially posted in these forums years ago. Even if Richard chooses to stop development of LBBooster, every single Liberty Basic user will eventually find out about it, and every single one of them will choose to use it because...
It's much, much faster.
It produces tiny, stand-alone executables.
It has a better debugger.
It has a better IDE (when coupled with LB Workshop).
It fixes many of the GUI and syntax bugs in LB 4.x
It's complete and working software.
It's absolutely free.

I purchased a software bundle from Carl that included an upgrade to Liberty Basic 5 "when it was released". That was four years ago. Believe me when I say that even if it ever gets released I won't bother to install it. The whole lack of affinity for the true well-being of their end-users really put me off, and I've remained silent about it until now. I understand that the LB forums perceived LBBooster as a threat and wanted to protect their market, I just don't respect it because I feel that they did so at the expense of their users. Besides, I seriously doubt that it will work any better than LBBooster does already.

Richard's LBBooster is a threat to Liberty Basic not only because of it's aforementioned improvements, but also because of the simple fact that it's better at interpreting Carl's Liberty Basic dialect than Liberty Basic 4.x itself.
Hey, someone needed to say it.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Alincon on Mar 12^th, 2015, 2:50pm

Richard said he would reply to personal emails as the courteous thing to do. I did send him an email in the spirit of "all is forgiven, please come back!", but have not received a reply.
Has anyone else tried emailing him?
If we all did, would it make a difference?

r.m.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Jack Kelly on Mar 12^th, 2015, 3:21pm

I think we should all leave him alone for the time being. If nothing else, he probably needs a break from LBB for a while. He will read the forum posts when he's ready.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 13^th, 2015, 1:08pm

Just a temporary return here to give me a chance to reply to Alyce's latest claims, since I am unable to do so on her forum:

Quote:

If you read Richard's own words above, you will find that he knew we were blocking him from sending private messages and his response was to make new accounts to get around this block. He knew he was acting against our wishes and he used devious methods to get his way.

I have always been completely open and honest about the fact that I created new accounts at the LB forum in order to bypass the block on sending private messages.

Quote:

I received many complaints from people he contacted privately

Never have I been contacted directly (or indirectly) about such 'complaints'. Without exception the few private messages I sent were directly relevant to an issue the OP had raised on the forum, typically suggesting that using LBB might be a solution. I find it hard to understand how anybody could have any objections to such a communication; I wonder if Alyce challenged them on the validity of their complaints.

Quote:

I attempted to contact him privately to resolve this. He did not reply. He writes that he did not receive my messages.

I did not, and frankly I am doubtful that they were sent since as far as I know all my email addresses have been working at all times, and I am always careful to check my junk mailboxes etc.

Quote:

I joined his forum to attempt to contact him that way. I requested that he email me so that we could discuss it privately and "we can solve this amicably". If you read his words above, you'll see that he saw that message and chose to ignore it.

Certainly I saw that message (it is still visible here). You will note that it says "As always, you are welcome to contact me via email." which is by no stretch of the imagination a "request" that I contact her: it simply confirms that, should I wish to, I can. Since by that stage I had already been banned from the LB forum I had no wish to.

Quote:

Richard refers to the forum's rules. The first rule listed is, "This forum exists for the promotion and discussion of the Liberty BASIC language. Other programming languages may not be promoted here." That is exactly what he was doing when he was promoting LBB.

LB Booster is not "another" programming language - it is an alternative implementation of the Liberty BASIC language, in exactly the same way that there are alternative implementations of C (e.g. GCC and Visual C) and of Pascal and of BBC BASIC etc. It is ridiculous to claim that the rule quoted above applies to LBB.

Quote:

Carl is an outstanding individual who always treats others kindly, respectfully and fairly.

The implication here appears to be that I do not. I vigorously deny that, and I would challenge Alyce to present any evidence that I have ever behaved in an unkind, disrespectful or unfair way towards anybody.

Quote:

We are sorry that we must do so now, but this is our first and last post on this subject.

Note that once again Alyce has banned me before posting her message, making it impossible for me to reply to her false allegations. She even appears to have blocked the IP address of the anonymous web proxy which I was previously using to access the forum as a guest.

Quote:

Richard is banned for repeated misuse of the private messaging system to promote his competing product and for ignoring my attempt(s) to contact him to resolve the issue.

I find it very strange that only a few days ago Alyce posted at her forum that discussion of LBB there was now allowed; a very welcome and encouraging change of stance. I wonder what has gone on behind the scenes to trigger this U-turn.

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 14^th, 2015, 10:51am

Stefan posted this on the LB forum:

Quote:

LBB is not a different implementation of LB, it is a translator. LBB uses the LB syntax and language to convert it into BBC BASIC for Windows.

If you apply that argument, GCC is not an implementation of the C language, because it translates the C into assembler code. Similarly VB.NET is not an implementation of the Visual BASIC language because it translates the BASIC to CLR bytecode, and Jython is not an implementation of the Python language because it translates the Python to Java!

It's not relevant how a compiler works 'under the hood'; if it accepts Liberty BASIC source code as input and generates a runnable executable as output it is an implementation of the Liberty BASIC language.

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by lancegary on Mar 14^th, 2015, 9:48pm

on Mar 14^th, 2015, 10:51am, Richard Russell wrote:

Stefan posted this on the LB forum:

If you apply that argument, GCC is not an implementation of the C language, because it translates the C into assembler code. Similarly VB.NET is not an implementation of the Visual BASIC language because it translates the BASIC to CLR bytecode, and Jython is not an implementation of the Python language because it translates the Python to Java!

It's not relevant how a compiler works 'under the hood'; if it accepts Liberty BASIC source code as input and generates a runnable executable as output it is an implementation of the Liberty BASIC language.

Richard.

Hmm. The original LB also has a odd relationship with Smalltalk. But Mr Russell, why do you worry so much what these people think or say? The very small mindedness of their actions, and their self serving rationalisations of their pettiness should speak for themselves. They are not impartial judges of your work, and you should not let their inability to handle your exposure of the inferiority of their product and the hollowness of their promises of improvement as expressed in their vindictive ostracism of all who dare utter the name LBB, take away your peace of mind. It is precisely because your work is so good that they are so angry. In Shakespeare's terms, they protest too much...

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Mystic on Mar 17^th, 2015, 7:20pm

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!!!

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richey on Mar 17^th, 2015, 10:23pm

on Mar 17^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 20^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Mystic on Mar 20^th, 2015, 12:44am

on Mar 20^th, 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

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Mystic on Mar 20^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 20^th, 2015, 5:39pm

on Mar 20^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by AAW on Mar 20^th, 2015, 6:06pm

on Mar 20^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Mystic on Mar 20^th, 2015, 6:30pm

on Mar 20^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Mal on Mar 21^st, 2015, 2:57pm

Message, "LBB has a different solution" has been shared
at Reply #7 at

http://libertybasic.conforums.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=LB3&num=1340915130&start=0#1340915130

Its link points to Reply #19 on this page.

Malcolm

Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
Post by RNBW on Mar 22^nd, 2015, 10:59am

on Mar 20^th, 2015, 5:39pm, Richard Russell wrote:

    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

Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 22^nd, 2015, 6:16pm

on Mar 22^nd, 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.

Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
Post by RNBW on Mar 22^nd, 2015, 9:24pm

on Mar 22^nd, 2015, 6:16pm, Richard Russell wrote:

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

Re: Variable Number Of Rows Of Texboxes
Post by Richard Russell on Mar 23^rd, 2015, 09:49am

on Mar 22^nd, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by RNBW on Apr 1^st, 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

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by RNBW on Apr 27^th, 2015, 3:02pm

on Mar 4^th, 2015, 08:02am, Richard Russell wrote:

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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on Apr 27^th, 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 wink

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.

hurt

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 grin

), 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 embarassed

. Either way, good luck with life - have a good one!

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on Apr 28^th, 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 angry

), 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...

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by tsh73 on Apr 28^th, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on Apr 28^th, 2015, 1:05pm

on Apr 28^th, 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 sad

, 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 undecided

? 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!

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on May 2^nd, 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

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 3^rd, 2015, 09:40am

on May 2^nd, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on May 3^rd, 2015, 3:13pm

on May 3^rd, 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: grin

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Alincon on May 3^rd, 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

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on May 3^rd, 2015, 8:03pm

on May 3^rd, 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.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by datwill on May 4^th, 2015, 7:54pm

Can someone lead me to the proof of this banning?

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by tsh73 on May 5^th, 2015, 07:29am

Richard,
I may be wrong,
Quote:

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.

does this issue arise because LBB EXE contains BASIC source in some encripted form?
Then you probably could use some no-brainer encription for open source version.
Like XOR.
Obsfucated enough so one peeking through EXE did not see obvious BASIC source, but that's it - no pretense for being "secure".(as it is said, "Locks keep honest folks from mischief").

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 5^th, 2015, 08:25am

on May 5^th, 2015, 07:29am, tsh73 wrote:

does this issue arise because LBB EXE contains BASIC source in some encripted form?

It contains a tokenised/crunched and encrypted version of the translation into BBC BASIC.

Quote:

Then you probably could use some no-brainer encription for open source version. Like XOR.

I don't have that option because LBB programs are executed using the standard BBC BASIC run-time engine, which performs the decryption. I could choose to use no encryption at all, but not XOR.

It would perhaps be OK for an Open Source version of LBB to create unencrypted executables, because the translation into BBC BASIC and the tokenising/crunching operations provide a degree of obfuscation (exactly the same as you get if you create a .LBB file and execute it using LBBRUN.EXE).

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 15^th, 2015, 2:30pm

Somebody has posted a diatribe on the LB Community Forum (sorry, I am unable to link to it), knowing perfectly well that because I am banned I cannot respond. I will therefore reply here instead:

Quote:

Richard ... basically broke the rules on this forum

I vehemently deny that I broke any forum rules (certainly not the rules at the time; they have been changed since). I notice that the OP doesn't say which rule(s) he claims I broke.

Quote:

I could, like Richard, pose as a different person on his forum.

I never once posted to the LB forum "as a different person". In fact I never posted to the LB forum at all subsequent to leaving at the beginning of 2014.

Quote:

But that is deception - which is totally WRONG.

There was never any deception. I did PM other users using alias accounts, but I always used my real name in those messages.

Quote:

LBB is a TOTALLY different language

Of course it's not. How would a "totally different language" be able to run something like 99% of programs without any modification? LB 4.04 and LBB have as much in common as Visual C does with GNU C, or as Turbo Pascal has with GNU Pascal. Nobody would say they are 'different languages'.

Quote:

LBB uses BBC BASIC code while LB doesn't translate to another high-level language at all.

The LB 4.04 IDE and interpreter are written in the high-level language SmallTalk, so how is that significantly different?

Quote:

I just want to know why Richard just gave up so suddenly.

Suddenly? I first announced my intention to 'wind down' LBB in February 2014 and I finally announced that it was discontinued in March 2015; I don't think a little over a year should count as "sudden"!

As for why, I have always made it clear that I see an association between the time and effort needed to develop LBB (which is considerable) and the potential user-base who can benefit from it. The reason for the wind-down and eventual discontinuing of LBB was because of the effective way in which I was blocked from promoting it to the wider LB user community. Even now the number of LBB users is tiny, and most LB users have never heard of it.

I have various calls on my time, and I do not think it is appropriate to put a lot of effort into developing a language which has so few current and potential users.

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by RNBW on May 15^th, 2015, 3:44pm

Quote:

I notice that the OP doesn't say which rule(s) he claims I broke.

Just for the record. Alyce Watson directed the writer to the first rule having been broken.

Also the message and the response have been removed from the board.

My feeling is that breaking that rule is a bit tenuous. LBB is pretty much the same as a library being written for a language, which must be included for the relevant code to work. The writer of the library will make reference to the library whenever it is used to write relevant code. I don't believe that Richard has done anything different.

Ray

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by AAW on May 15^th, 2015, 3:52pm

on May 15^th, 2015, 3:44pm, RNBW wrote:

And further for the record, I will include my response to Daniel. I did NOT speak to anything regarding Richard. I was telling Daniel that he(Daniel) should not be discussing other languages in depth. If I am to be quoted, I'd like it to be exact quotes.

Quote:

Please read all of these Rules with special attention to the first one.

Please keep in mind that we don't condone the trashing of other people. That includes Richard.

Do not assume that Carl is ignoring the development of LB when updates are slow to arrive. People have complicated lives. I do not know what is happening in Carl's life, but people in general must deal with medical problems and emergencies for themselves and their families, disasters, accidents, financial problems... the list goes on and on and on. If Carl is late with an update, assume he is unable to work on it, not that he doesn't care. Carl cares passionately about this language he created in 1992.

Also, and this is really important, do not speculate as to motives and actions of other people. You will often be wrong. Others will take your speculations as facts and you could hurt people. Kindness never goes amiss.

Can we let this rest, now?

And I removed the message to be fair (and I hope kind) to Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 15^th, 2015, 4:03pm

on May 15^th, 2015, 3:44pm, RNBW wrote:

Just for the record. Alyce Watson directed the writer to the first rule having been broken.

I take it that you are referring to "This forum exists for the promotion and discussion of the Liberty BASIC language by Carl Gundel. Other programming languages and competing products may not be promoted here." At the time of any claimed 'violation' the clauses "by Carl Gundel" and "and competing products" were not present; they were added more recently to cover LBB.

Presently, as I understand it, LBB may be mentioned at the LB Community Forum but may not be promoted. As that's a somewhat tricky distinction to make, there was a clarification that a response such as "LBB provides an alternative solution" (with a link to this forum) is permitted.

Richard.

Re: Banned from the LB Community Forum
Post by Richard Russell on May 15^th, 2015, 4:08pm

on May 15^th, 2015, 3:52pm, AAW wrote:

And I removed the message to be fair (and I hope kind) to Richard.

Indeed, without hesitation I would like to express my thanks for the post's removal.

To be fair to Daniel as well, I believe he is very young and inexperienced in life, and may well not have appreciated the impact his comments would make.

Richard.