[ANN]Run BASIC v1.0 released!
ca...@libertybasic.com
announce the availability of Run BASIC Personal Server v1.0!
Run BASIC is an all-in-one web appserver that makes it simple to
create and deploy web applications by writing code in a version of
BASIC with web features. Because Run BASIC has a built-in web server
you don't need a separate web server (like Apache or IIS) to use it.
Our focus in designing Run BASIC was to simplify everything as much as
possible. Now you can focus on the application instead of dealing
with web technologies and techniques that are not directly a part of
developing computer programs.
If you are a web developer, Run BASIC includes a web server, a web-
aware BASIC language, automatic user session management, transparent
state between web requests, a built-in SQLite database, XML parser,
graphics capability and more.
If you are a BASIC programmer, Run BASIC lets you leverage your BASIC
programming skills into the space of web programming right away
without needing to read several thick books on web technologies. You
can share your programs with friends and access them anywhere you have
a web browser including cell phones!
The price for a single user license of Run BASIC Personal Server is
$59.95.
Please come and check out our website at http://www.runbasic.com and
our forum at http://runbasic.proboards82.com
-Carl Gundel
author of Liberty BASIC and Run BASIC
Happy Trails
<ca...@libertybasic.com> wrote:
Carl, don't let those web wienies tell you what to do - cross-post
this to aww like the last one, and we'll all tell (ass-)wiper to take
a hike again.
At least you'll get a lot more attention that way!
Is there a 30-day trial version available? (I must admit I haven't
spent much time looking at your stuff yet).
John Fredrickson
Now that you have released Run BASIC 1.0, are you going to return to working
on Liberty BASIC 5.0?
John Fredrickson
<ca...@libertybasic.com> wrote in message
news:3e10fc7b-cc40-4b29...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
ca...@libertybasic.com
We don't have a trial version at this time, but we're definitely
considering it. It's also possible that we will have a free version
with some limitations. We'll see how that works out.
-Carl Gundel
http://www.runbasic.com
ca...@libertybasic.com
> Now that you have released Run BASIC 1.0, are you going to return to working
> on Liberty BASIC 5.0?
John,
After we've spent a couple of weeks pushing hard on promoting Run
BASIC we will begin writing more Liberty BASIC code. Of course we
never really stopped since RB and LB5 share the same core compiler and
execution platform. Before you see a Liberty BASIC v5.0 there will be
a v4.04. ;-)
-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com
Happy Trails
<ca...@libertybasic.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 10:20 am, Happy Trails <nom...@myplace.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:17:21 -0800 (PST), "ca...@libertybasic.com"
>>
>> <ca...@libertybasic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Carl, don't let those web wienies tell you what to do - cross-post
>> this to aww like the last one, and we'll all tell (ass-)wiper to take
>> a hike again.
>>
>> At least you'll get a lot more attention that way!
>>
>> Is there a 30-day trial version available? (I must admit I haven't
>> spent much time looking at your stuff yet).
>
>We don't have a trial version at this time, but we're definitely
>considering it. It's also possible that we will have a free version
>with some limitations. We'll see how that works out.
That would be nice. Web sites aren't my business, but I'd like to
play around with your stuff, only since it is BASIC.
ne...@rtrussell.co.uk
> Now that you have released Run BASIC 1.0, are you going to return
> to working on Liberty BASIC 5.0?
Hear hear! In my (personal and biassed) opinion prioritising Run
Basic over fixing the Vista issues in Liberty Basic was a mistake.
I must say I was most concerned to read somewhere that Run Basic has
inherited LB's Vista incompatibility, to the extent that it is
recommended to install it in a top-level directory rather than in
Program Files (presumably instead of providing the proper manifest to
establish correct User Account Control behavior). I would be
interested to hear Carl's justification for this.
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
ca...@libertybasic.com
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2:48 am, "John Fredrickson" <jaf...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Now that you have released Run BASIC 1.0, are you going to return
> > to working on Liberty BASIC 5.0?
>
> Hear hear! In my (personal and biassed) opinion prioritising Run
> Basic over fixing the Vista issues in Liberty Basic was a mistake.
Well, there are a lot of factors that go into those sorts of
decisions. It's easy to criticize from an armchair.
And, you make it sound like Liberty BASIC doesn't run on Vista. You
only have to install it in a folder in root directory and it works
fine. I know you take issue with this approach but I take issue with
Microsoft's approach. For now, until I rework LB for a maintenance
release it works fine for a lot of people. You are the only person
(seriously, the only one) who has uttered the slightest complaint and
based on what, a philosophical stance?
> I must say I was most concerned to read somewhere that Run Basic has
> inherited LB's Vista incompatibility, to the extent that it is
> recommended to install it in a top-level directory rather than in
> Program Files (presumably instead of providing the proper manifest to
> establish correct User Account Control behavior). I would be
> interested to hear Carl's justification for this.
Because Run BASIC is a cross platform system which will run on
Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. After I get them all released and out
there in the real world for a bit I will consider creating a
specialized code branch for Vista. Right now I want the code to be as
near identical for each platform as possible. So for now, they will
all install in a folder in root.
When it comes down to it the system works fine as it is. I just don't
think it is as important as you suggest.
Computers are supposed to get easier to use as technology advances,
but Windows is getting more and more intractable and difficult.
-Carl Gundel
http://www.runbasic.com
Adam
>You only have to install it in a folder in root directory
Is a root directory of a mapped (or SUBSTed) drive okay, or must it be
the root of a physical drive?
I install programs in a separate folder (which has a SUBSTed drive
letter) because:
1. It is easier to access at a DOS prompt because there are no spaces
in the path name.
2. To segregate things that I install from the preinstalled junk (in
the "Program Files" folder) which I might remove someday. Over time,
Windows tends to accumulate a larger haystack around the needles which
I might want to find. Keeping the preinstalled junk in its own
haystack might make it easier to identify and deal with later.
> I know you take issue with this approach but I take issue with
>Microsoft's approach.
Ditto. Several of their approaches.
Good reading:
http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/dll_article.html
No application should assume that it can copy DLLs
into the system directory
Adam
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
ne...@rtrussell.co.uk
wrote:
> And, you make it sound like Liberty BASIC doesn't run on Vista.
The entire LB Help system "doesn't run on Vista", by which I mean it
relies on WinHelp which is not supplied with Vista and is deprecated
on that platform. Yes, I know the end-user can download a patch to
enable that feature (something Microsoft conceded only at the last
moment) but in my opinion no application which needs WinHelp can be
properly described as 'Vista Compatible'.
> You only have to install it in a folder in root directory and it works
> fine. I know you take issue with this approach but I take issue with
> Microsoft's approach.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinions about
Microsoft's security measures on Vista, but I don't think you should
force those views on your customers. I agree with you that File and
Registry Virtualization (which is probably the feature which most
impacts on LB when installed under Program Files) is nasty, and I
would rather it not be there, but it is easily avoided by providing
the proper manifest.
> You are the only person (seriously, the only one) who has uttered
> the slightest complaint
Might I suggest you read more thoroughly the messages posted to the
Liberty Basic Yahoo group?
> and based on what, a philosophical stance?
Not at all. I am not a Microsoft apologist by any means, but I do
applaud their attempts to improve the security of Windows and stem the
tide of spambot PCs etc. The security measures adopted in Vista,
particularly UAC, may be flawed, but in my opinion it is the duty of
application developers at least not to sabotage them.
> When it comes down to it the system works fine as it is. I just
> don't think it is as important as you suggest.
I'm not complaining! From feedback I've received I know I've sold
more copies of BBC BASIC for Windows because of LB's perceived lack of
support and lack of recent updates (Vista-specific or otherwise).
ca...@libertybasic.com
Upon reflection I can see that I mistook your meaning. Regardless of
anyone's opinion about Vista and how it affects all of us, Liberty
BASIC does need an update, and there is certainly no disputing that.
I want to dispel the perception that Liberty BASIC will not be
updated. In fact we are going to release a Vista-targeted update in
the next couple of months and we will be asking for beta testers soon.
Thanks,
-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com
http://www.runbasic.com
On Jan 6, 5:49 pm, "n...@rtrussell.co.uk" <n...@rtrussell.co.uk>
wrote:
> Richard.http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
Stefan Pendl
wrote:
>
>That would be nice. Web sites aren't my business, but I'd like to
>play around with your stuff, only since it is BASIC.
You can already play around with Run BASIC at http://www.runbasic.com/
;-)
It does not include all the features of the Personal release, but it
is a good starter.
---
Stefan Pendl
Eric
> The entire LB Help system "doesn't run on Vista", by which I mean it
> relies on WinHelp which is not supplied with Vista and is deprecated
> on that platform. Yes, I know the end-user can download a patch to
> enable that feature
I have some freeware software in use by a lot of people, and many of
them had trouble with the free download that supports .hlp files on
Vista. Even I had trouble with it on one computer - it just never
worked, even with repeated re-installs.
I ended up converting my files to .chm. It wasn't hard. I used only
free utilities and a little hand-massaging. But the whole job was done
in a couple hours. I didn't use most of the advanced .hlp features,
though. The more advanced your .hlp files are, the harder it is to
convert them.
Once you're set with the .chm project, all your source files are plain
HTML with some assorted images and stuff stored separately. This is
much friendlier to linux users since you can distribute the HTML files
for them, and it elimiates the nasty .rtf format. You can also set up
online help using the HTML files. It's a big win all the way around.
Eric
Jon Ripley
> [CHM files are] much friendlier to linux users since you can
> distribute the HTML files for them, and it elimiates the nasty .rtf
> format.
Linux users can read HTMLHelp files using native applications such as
the free KchmViewer.
Regards,
Jon
--
http://jonripley.com/
Auric__
> Eric wrote:
>
>> [CHM files are] much friendlier to linux users since you can
>> distribute the HTML files for them, and it elimiates the nasty .rtf
>> format.
>
> Linux users can read HTMLHelp files using native applications such as
> the free KchmViewer.
You can also use certain apps to extract the HTML files out of the CHM
files. 7zip can do it; there is also at least one toolset for working
with them:
http://www.speakeasy.org/~russotto/chm/
Also, some HTML programs can do RTF -> HTML. Also also, many GUI word
processors can open RTF files. (Text editors can, too, but you get to
deal with fun things like "\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1".)
--
The truth, however, is not pertinent to the issue.