My Protest To PB Online Forms
SewardAdmin
Michael Mattias
property (the BBS). There is no member "right" to do anything with their
property, there are only privileges granted by the owner.
Free Speech? Hell, you've just posted your opinion on the Internet with a
potential audience of what, a billion people?
What more do you want?
--
Michael Mattias
Tal Systems, Inc.
Racine WI
mmat...@talsystems.com
"SewardAdmin" <m...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:vb91rit...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.sewardak.net/pb/
>
Tom
"SewardAdmin" <m...@gci.net> skrev i melding
news:vb91rit...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.sewardak.net/pb/
>
> Regards
Bob Zale is Carmel's local edition of Stahlin in former USSR.
Jimbo Jones
On Sat, 3 May 2003 19:22:35 -0800, "SewardAdmin" <m...@gci.net> wrote:
>http://www.sewardak.net/pb/
>
>Regards
>
Stephane Richard
about or ask questions concerning 3rd party products available for
PowerBasic ???
Since I'll be mentionning money and refunds I expect this message to be
delete (or altered) quickly lol. But if you gave the guy any amount of
money for a contract, then you must already have all the information you can
possibly need to trace him, no? if he came to see you to get the money did
you not ask him for all the nformation (address, phone, and other) essential
information you might need to get in touch? If he lied to you, then it's
your responsibility to make sure to verify information before giving any
amount of money. if he didn't lie to you (since he was your friend for
years) then any information you've had is good and you should be able to
trace him through him or friends of his.
A forum is no place, even if you didn't mention any thing bad or threatening
about that Jim fell, to start a trace on somebody. if he's your friend you
know where he works, if he does work, you know where he hands out, first try
to spot him there if really he tricked you in any way, friend or no friend,
it's time to see a lawyer or perhaps a colleection agency, especially if the
amount of the project is considerable. if you're prepared to forget about
the debt then why bother posting all together. And then still a programming
forum is no place to attempt such a thing, whether it's owned by powerbasic
Inc or not !?!?! It's just not the purpose of a forum.
You've only declared, publically that you've been screwed (or maybe not) by
your "Friend". what good did that do to you, jim or the situation?
Speaking of which, I am a software developer, send me money too, and I'll
program alright. :-). (innocent joke to prove my point) lol.
If you're mad at the situation, then channeling your anger at a forum is in
NO WAY the means to exteriorize your anger. If the moredators of this
greoup want to keep the contents of their forum clean of everything but
programmatical contents, it's their right. just like of you created your
own forum and didn't want porn on it, how fast would you get rid of any post
that mention anything peculiar? When you creat a forum, you first decide
on what you want the forum to be about, what can be said and what can't be
said. people that join the given forum need to understand that those are
the policies and the policies are there for a reason, and that's usually to
give a maximum of benifits to all users of the forum as per the stheme of
the given forum.
Please understand that there's no pund intended by this post, I think
everything was doen the way it should have been done by the moderators and
to me, if they didn't remove the post, then they weren't doing their job
right :-).
Stephane Richard
Software Developer
"SewardAdmin" <m...@gci.net> wrote in message
Stephane Richard
The only I could have this much time on my hands is if I moved to Jupiter or
something where days last about 37.9 Hours....LOL
"Jimbo Jones" <jimbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oe4abvglb35rk326a...@4ax.com...
Andrew McKay
I read your web page with some amazement, expecting to find some
really negative stuff about the folks at PowerBasic. I guess I was
disappointed and relieved at the same time!
The PowerBasic forums are the bona-fide property of PowerBasic Inc.
End of story. You don't have any rights whatsoever to post messages
there. And full credit to the moderators of the forum for having taken
the time to make a decision about something that was posted there, it
gives me confidence that if they are reading the messages on the forum
then when I need help they'll be along shortly to offer that help.
I am a relatively new user of PowerBasic and have sought help a number
of times over the last couple of months. Every single time I get a
response back within hours, and often multiple responses. PowerBasic
just has to be one of the best supported compilers I've ever used.
I'm sorry to hear that you have lost contact with someone, however if
it's that important if you bung some money to a private detective I'm
sure they will be happy to help you out, and not delete your request.
Andrew
JQP
news:02aabvc6l69eggbrk...@4ax.com...
> The PowerBasic forums are the bona-fide property of PowerBasic Inc.
> End of story. You don't have any rights whatsoever to post messages
> there.
Yes, if you're looking for a more open, free forum this might be the place.
> PowerBasic just has to be one of the best supported compilers I've ever
used.
The support is good and the compiler is well maintained with very few bugs.
Now for the bad news, the quality of the generated code is rather poor IMO.
As far as I can tell, no optimization is even attempted, No combining of
simple constants, no elimination of redundant code, nothing.
Example: A=1+1
The compiler isn't even smart enough to know that 1+1 = 2. It generates
code to add 1+1 together at runtime rather than just assigning A the value
of 2. You'd be hard pressed to find another compiler for a "high level"
language on the market today that can't do this and other simple
optimizations.
Michael Mattias
> them to publish things or their discusiion forum. He want's this to
> be done without charging him for it, but he does NOT want it to work
> the other way - he won't give PowerBASIC a place on his webpage to
> publish things that *he* doesn't want published.
My personal favorite anecdote for this thread: the text of what PB refused
to post, and upon which great expoundment is made justifying its veracity
and worth... is not included on the web page.
I guess we're not smart enough to read and judge ourselves.
MCM
SewardAdmin
I have no bones or complaints with PowerBasic, Bob Zale or any of the Sales
Department Team. I just think they have a Moderator Problem, and if members
think I'm wrong, then so be it! It's just my 0.02 cents worth!
You do have right to post, because it states so, when you join as a member.
However, you don't have a right to post anything you want. They reserve
that right, and justly so.
However, accusations and slander is not part of the job title of a
Moderator!
Regards
"Andrew McKay" <m...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote in message
news:02aabvc6l69eggbrk...@4ax.com...
Andrew McKay
>Now for the bad news, the quality of the generated code is rather poor IMO.
>As far as I can tell, no optimization is even attempted, No combining of
>simple constants, no elimination of redundant code, nothing.
Well I'll be losing a lot of sleep over that then.
For the sort of applications I am using PB for it really isn't a
problem. If you think this is a problem then perhaps you should be
using a different compiler?
Andrew
http://www.guymacon.com/ "03@spamcop.net Guy Macon
JQP <su...@888.nu> wrote:
>Now for the bad news, the quality of the generated code is rather poor IMO.
>As far as I can tell, no optimization is even attempted, No combining of
>simple constants, no elimination of redundant code, nothing.
And yet PB/CC still runs like a bat out of hell, as evindenced by
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbcc/ and by my own tests.
--
My email address is valid and RFC 2822 compliant - no changes needed.
<html><head><title>Guy Macon Electrical Engineer</title></head><body>
<a href="http://www.guymacon.com/" >Electrical Engineer</a> for hire:
Buena Park, CA USA Phone: 714-670-1687 Web: http://www.guymacon.com
Email: guymacon+" YOUR NAME GOES HERE "0...@spamcop.net</body></html>
JQP
news:k0qabvs3paaoomq14...@4ax.com...
> For the sort of applications I am using PB for it really isn't a
> problem.
Nor for the type applications I use PB for.
> If you think this is a problem then perhaps you should be
> using a different compiler?
I do<g>. That's why I have an understanding of where PB stands in relation
to other compilers
JQP
message news:vbb6tia...@corp.supernews.com...
> And yet PB/CC still runs like a bat out of hell, as evindenced by
> http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbcc/ and by my own tests.
Speed is relative; what did you compare it to?
PB comes up on the short end in comparison to just about every compiler I've
tried (Note: I don't own VB so I haven't tried it). Look at the code PB
generates and it becomes obvious as to why.
Don't just take my word for it, here's a recent example from PB's own forum.
I'm surprised they haven't removed it. They probably will once they see
this post.
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Forum4/HTML/008264.html
Here's another example you can try yourself. Repeat the following simple
line from my previous post; oh, say about 100,000 times and compile it.
Watch PB generate a few 100 kb or so of useless code. Run it and watch as
the PB executable spins it's wheels doing lots of useless work.
A=1+1
Most modern optimizing compilers would generate no code at all for this
line. Zero, none, nada. Why? Because most are smart enough to recognize
that the value of A is never used anywhere later in the program so there is
no point in generating a bunch of useless code. Not PB, it just plows right
ahead.
Sure, this is a dumb example but only a dumb compiler gets tripped up by it.
SewardAdmin
Where's your name and email address? or are you ashamed?
It's easy to leave comments - but declare who you are?
Regards
wrote in message news:vbb6fpf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> SewardAdmin wrote:
> >
> >I have no bones or complaints with PowerBasic, Bob Zale or any of the
Sales
> >Department Team. I just think they have a Moderator Problem, and if
members
> >think I'm wrong, then so be it! It's just my 0.02 cents worth!
>
> Why don't you put a copy of the post that was deleted on your web page
> so we can judge for ourselves? Do you have something to hide?
>
>
Andrew McKay
>I do<g>. That's why I have an understanding of where PB stands in relation
>to other compilers
I have no axe to grind with respect to PowerBasic, nor rewards on
offer for speaking positively about them.
As far as I'm concerned PB does a more than acceptable job of
converting my ramblings of source code into a user interface which my
users need. I'm not controlling a nuclear fission plant so the odd
couple of microseconds it might take longer with PB as compared to
<insert your favourite compiler here> is really of no consequence
whatsoever.
Besides which, the way CPU speeds are leapfrogging these days by the
time you've made a conclusive experiment the results are already out
of date <g>.
Andrew
http://www.guymacon.com/ "03@spamcop.net Guy Macon
JQP wrote:
>Speed is relative; what did you compare it to?
Visual C++ running on NT Embedded, running a headless (no keyboard,
monitor) robotics assembly line. Also note that I said PB/CC runs
like a bat out of hell; your examples are all of PB/WIN, which I
have no interest in.
I am not disagreeing with what you say about the lack of
optimization in PB/Win; just the importance of it. You may
be doing serious number crunching (but no serious enough to
where you are using inline assembly) but most wondows programs
spend most of their time inside code that is called through
the API.
Michael Mattias
message news:vbb6tia...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.powerbasic.com/products/pbcc/ and by my own tests.
Like , who cares how fast PB/CC - the COMPILER - runs? (as long as it
doesn't take ten minutes to compile a program).
Better the APPLICATION should run fast, and that is far more a function of
the programmer than the compiler.
It's not the paintbrush, it's the artist.
MCM
Stephane Richard
Even assembly programmers can make ridiculously slow code in assembler. :-).
and I HAVE seen it done where good old GWBASIC would run it faster, muich
faster at times.
Stephane Richard
Software Developer
"Michael Mattias" <michael...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:IVtta.7392$%_3.50...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
JQP
> Visual C++ running on NT Embedded. Also note that I said PB/CC runs
> like a bat out of hell; your examples are all of PB/WIN, which I
> have no interest in.
PC/CC and PB/WIN are essentially the same compiler. There is no difference
with respect to the quality of the code that is generated.
Maybe I need to clarify. I keep forgetting that some PBers think that
"optimization" somehow refers to compilation speed. As typically used by
most of the programming world, this term refers to the quality of the
executable that is produced; not to how quickly the compiler can produce it.
> I am not disagreeing with what you say about the lack of
> optimization in PB/Win; just the importance of it. You may
> be doing serious number crunching (but no serious enough to
> where you are using inline assembly) but most wondows programs
> spend most of their time inside code that is called through
> the API.
PBs lack of optimization shows up in simple constructs like "if" statements,
"for" loops and "case" statements. See the example I gave from the PB
forum.
But execution speed is just one aspect of optimization.
Example: PBs lack of optimization makes any sort of code library
inefficient. Whenever a library file is included, the PB compiler blindly
sucks in the whole thing. An optimizing compiler/linker will only include
the functions/subroutines that are actually used and needed. With PB, extra
code can be included just by declaring certain functions, without ever
actually using them. Pretty amazing considering the "war on bloatware".
And yes, I'm aware that a few people have written apps to automatically
remove some of the unused code and declarations. The question is, if
others can do it, why can't the compiler?
JQP
> Besides which, the way CPU speeds are leapfrogging these days by the
> time you've made a conclusive experiment the results are already out
> of date <g>.
Today's hardware can hide a lot of shortcomings. That's why I always use
older, slower machines for development and testing. Problems are more
apparent and pronounced.
JQP
news:IVtta.7392$%_3.50...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Every artist is free to choose his own tools.
But don't expect others artists to accept that it's easier to produce a
Rembrandt using your fingers rather than a brush.
Michael Mattias
news:b95rm8$fjb$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>With PB, extra code can be included just by declaring certain functions,
without ever actually using them.
That sir, is incorrect.
A "DECLARE" by itself adds no code unless the procedure is called.
Michael Mattias
That's why we group artists into The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
MCM
http://www.guymacon.com/ "03@spamcop.net Guy Macon
Clarification: My tests found that the applications generated by
PB/CC run like a bat out of hell. I don't much care how fast the
compiler compiles, but it's peppy as well. I have no comment on
PB/Win, because I don't use that product.
http://www.guymacon.com/ "03@spamcop.net Guy Macon
JQP wrote:
>I keep forgetting that some PBers think that "optimization" somehow
>refers to compilation speed. As typically used by most of the
>programming world, this term refers to the quality of the executable
>that is produced; not to how quickly the compiler can produce it.
My usage is that of most of the programming world.
>But execution speed is just one aspect of optimization.
>
>Example: PBs lack of optimization makes any sort of code library
>inefficient. Whenever a library file is included, the PB compiler blindly
>sucks in the whole thing. An optimizing compiler/linker will only include
>the functions/subroutines that are actually used and needed. With PB, extra
>code can be included just by declaring certain functions, without ever
>actually using them. Pretty amazing considering the "war on bloatware".
>
>And yes, I'm aware that a few people have written apps to automatically
>remove some of the unused code and declarations. The question is, if
>others can do it, why can't the compiler?
I agree 100% on what you wrote above.
JQP
> A "DECLARE" by itself adds no code unless the procedure is called.
Yes, you're probably right.
The case I was thinking about probably had to do with constants declared for
use along with functions. The constants are included regardless of whether
they are used or not.
Michael Mattias
No, they are not. Constants ("equates" in Pb-speak) are used only as
literals at compile time. They are not stored in the literal pool.
What you may be thinking of are the 'helper' procedures provided by PB in
the Windows header files. If a procedure (SUB..END SUB or FUNCTION..END
FUNCTION) appears in the source code it is compiled, regardless of whether
or not that procedure is actually called in the current code module. This
inclusion MUST occur if the procedure is EXPORTed, but is not necessary if
not exported.
Of course, it seems to me that including an unused, non-exported procedure
in the current source code is simply bad programming technique. Which means
of course, this was IMO bad technique employed by the PB personnel who
created the BASIC versions of the Windows header files. I consider this
"negative" technique more than offset by the convenience afforded the PB
user who doesn't feel like creating his own version of each DECALRE of a
Windows API function. (And many of the included procedures can be bypassed
using the conditional compilation flags provided).
(Yes, I have explained this better than PB ever did. But documentation is
not and has never been PB's "long suit.")
(Also, I am not "probably right" on the DECLARE thing. I am "right").
MCM