Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [libertybasic] LBB -a surrogate

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Austin
    I went to the LBB site and from my understanding this program takes LB code ,converts it to BBC code the compiles it. I am yet to see how this breaches
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I went to the LBB site and from my understanding this program takes LB code ,converts it to BBC code the compiles it.
      I am yet to see how this breaches copyright in any way.

      If it speeds up Liberty Basic I am all for it as I wrote a program to control christmas lights
      out the printer port and the only way I can get enough speed out of Liberty Basic is to run
      5 instances  liberty program and syncronize them to a flie (to keep timing right).
      I have 5 printer ports in my computer with 32 lights attached to 4  and relays attached to other port. I control over 500 strings of lights.
      I am all for speed.
      Trevor Austin

      --- On Tue, 1/11/11, green8819 <green8819@...> wrote:

      From: green8819 <green8819@...>
      Subject: [libertybasic] LBB -a surrogate
      To: libertybasic@yahoogroups.com
      Received: Tuesday, 1 November, 2011, 4:03 PM








       









      Sometimes good deeds backfire. Stopping to help road accident victims may be interpreted as owning up to the act. A recent incident in China showed people ignoring and walking by a hit-and-run accident victim. MYOB may be wiser.



      I usually share what I know, especially something good or useful. My recent act of generosity has backfired. I introduced LBB, and it turns out to be a hijacked version of Liberty Basic.



      What LBB does is, grab the LB code, make it better, and churn out as LBB code. This is not only unacceptable, but will be judged as copyright infringement in any Court of Law in any country.

      Find out by doing the same to Microsoft products.



      I urge the author of LBB, Richard Russell, to stop this piggybacking. He should also desist from developing and distributing LBB further, and remove any reference to it on the Internet or elsewhere. Instead, use your mighty mind to improve your own BBC Basic. Live and let live.



      I also hope future versions of Liberty Basic can run faster and its exe, a single file. More importantly, I hope it's built like Fort Knox so that no one can get in to hijack it. I've been with LB for so long that I feel it is as good as mine as it is Carl's. Those who feel the same, speak up.



      Neither Carl nor Richard is my uncle or aunty. Copying and distributing is just not fair.






















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul Gorton
      Good Morning, Like Trevor Austin, I ve been to the LBB site. I think that there is some confused thinking regarding copyright. The copyright in Green8819 s
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Good Morning,

        Like Trevor Austin, I've been to the LBB site. I think that there is some confused thinking regarding copyright. The copyright in Green8819's (sorry, I don't know your name) program is his own and by using LBB he is merely translating it into another language (much as one might use Google Translate to change text from English to German). It's also as well to remember that when LB compiles a .bas file into a .exe it is again an exercise in translation this time into processor/Microsoft speak

        I suspect that there is no bitter rivalry and that the creators of the various versions of Basic are tolerant folks.

        Regards, Paul



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Stefan Pendl
        ... It is not in any case a hijacked version of LB. It is a standalone converter and compiler like BCX for instance. ... I doubt that any conversion from one
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > I usually share what I know, especially something good or
          > useful. My recent act of generosity has backfired. I
          > introduced LBB, and it turns out to be a hijacked version of
          > Liberty Basic.
          >

          It is not in any case a hijacked version of LB.
          It is a standalone converter and compiler like BCX for instance.

          >
          > What LBB does is, grab the LB code, make it better, and churn
          > out as LBB code. This is not only unacceptable, but will be
          > judged as copyright infringement in any Court of Law in any country.
          > Find out by doing the same to Microsoft products.
          >

          I doubt that any conversion from one programming language into another is going to make the code better.
          A translator just has to change the code to allow compiling in the target language.
          The source code translated with the booster is your own, so the only copyright you will break is the one of your own and this is
          impossible.

          >
          > I urge the author of LBB, Richard Russell, to stop this
          > piggybacking. He should also desist from developing and
          > distributing LBB further, and remove any reference to it on
          > the Internet or elsewhere. Instead, use your mighty mind to
          > improve your own BBC Basic. Live and let live.
          >

          I think that Richard has done his best in the limits enforced by LB and the target language, so there is no need to be so harsh.

          Carl on the other hand has made his point clear in not endorsing the booster, so this aspect is clear too.

          Anyways everyone is free to use the tools he sees fit.

          In general you will be faster developing your program with the LB editor, since it is greatly integrated in the development process
          of the language.

          If you need a single file distribution or more speed you may check out the booster, but it has been reported to slow down execution
          in certain cases too.
          In some cases your program might not work at all, since it relies on features the boosted program does not support, like huge
          integers.

          Come on boys, Christmas and LB5 are on their way so lets be smart and gentle ;-)


          ---
          Stefan Pendl
          http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/

          Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
          Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe

          Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/

          Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
          Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
          Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC

          Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
          AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
        • Gordon S
          If any care to visit my site you will see how for some 30 years now I have dabbled in all sorts of versions of BASIC, and like most things NONE are perfect.
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            If any care to visit my site you will see how for some 30 years now I have dabbled in all sorts of versions of BASIC, and like most things NONE are perfect. Each has it own advantages and disadvantages. I am now an extensive user of the free LB Booster because it has enabled me to upgrade all my Freeware on my site by making it usually run faster, and compact it in much smaller EXE files. As a result a number of Distributors are now sending me reports complimenting me on the improvements.

            It should be made clear LBB works by using another version of Basic, which often works faster than LB anyway, and does not need the 12 support files or so needed by LB amounting to some 2 Mb. As explained here this is does not involve breach of copyrights, and in fact is not the only instance where a computer code has been made to run faster etc using a totally different language. However as a long term user of both languages I have always found LB has many advantages over the other Basic and vice versa.

            As to allowing free distribution of LBB I should point out Richard appears to produce his Windows version of Basic entirely on his own unlike the support provided for LB. This may explain why all major updates for LB have to be paid for while none have been ever been charged for updates for the other Basic.

            Gordon S.
          • Carl Gundel
            ... 12 support files? You do a disservice when you say that. Come on, be nice. It s 8 support files. ;-) ... It s true there s no matter of copyright at
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon S" <gordonsweet2000@...> wrote:
              >
              > If any care to visit my site you will see how for some 30 years now I have dabbled in all sorts of versions of BASIC, and like most things NONE are perfect. Each has it own advantages and disadvantages. I am now an extensive user of the free LB Booster because it has enabled me to upgrade all my Freeware on my site by making it usually run faster, and compact it in much smaller EXE files. As a result a number of Distributors are now sending me reports complimenting me on the improvements.
              >
              > It should be made clear LBB works by using another version of Basic, which often works faster than LB anyway, and does not need the 12 support files or so needed by LB amounting to some 2 Mb.

              12 support files? You do a disservice when you say that. Come on, be nice. It's 8 support files. ;-)

              > As explained here this is does not involve breach of copyrights, and in fact is not the only instance where a computer code has been made to run faster etc using a totally different language. However as a long term user of both languages I have always found LB has many advantages over the other Basic and vice versa.

              It's true there's no matter of copyright at issue here. Richard's LBB is a legitimate artifact. Feel free to use it if it suits your needs.

              > As to allowing free distribution of LBB I should point out Richard appears to produce his Windows version of Basic entirely on his own unlike the support provided for LB. This may explain why all major updates for LB have to be paid for while none have been ever been charged for updates for the other Basic.

              Wow, I'm quite stunned by this statement. Richard can do as he likes of course, but I should not expect to be reimbursed for my honest labor? Well, at least Just BASIC is free. You can always use that if you don't like to pay the modest price of Liberty BASIC.

              -Carl
            • Stefan Pendl
              ... No, I don t use LB booster, since I am perfectly happy with the current distribution package created by LB. My applications neither need improved speed nor
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > Stefan, you too? (It's cloned Shakespearean quote)
                >

                No, I don't use LB booster, since I am perfectly happy with the current distribution package created by LB.

                My applications neither need improved speed nor smaller distribution size, since they are mainly used in a corporate network at my
                work.

                >
                > To all,
                > Try this little experiment:
                >
                > Install LBB, preferably on a computer which has no trace of LB.
                >
                > Type into the LBB code window:
                > For x=1 to 10
                > print x
                > next
                > end
                >
                > Shocking for me, it runs correctly.
                > What this means is, I don't need LB anymore.
                > I don't need to pay for LB Version 5 (due soon). Or any
                > future versions.
                >

                Richard even advices one to purchase LB at http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/lbb/lbb.html :

                <quote>
                LB Booster is Freeware; you are strongly encouraged to purchase the full version of Liberty Basic on which to develop, test and
                debug your programs prior to 'boosting' them.
                </quote>

                Your example is showing code that can be used in any traditional BASIC language, since it is an essential BASIC construct.

                The LB booster editor just makes it easier to highlight the problematic lines of code, so the user can change anything while he is
                boosting his LB program.

                In addition you need the LB help file to know all the commands available for boosting.


                ---
                Stefan Pendl
                http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/

                Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
                Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe

                Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/

                Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
                Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
                Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC

                Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
                AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
              • Gordon S
                Sorry Carl I make it 9 files needed to distribute LB of course, including the TKN but not including the renamed EXE. I should point below works on a number of
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry Carl I make it 9 files needed to distribute LB of course, including the TKN but not including the renamed EXE.

                  I should point below works on a number of other free BASICS such as QBASIC once supplied with earlier Windows. There is also GWBASIC, BASICA, FREE BASIC and once a free ASIC ( yes without the `B' ). Also there are umpteen Free emulators for the early computers which were around long before Windows and the Internet such as the UK BBC micro, and the Sinclair ZX81, also the Atari, Commodore, Amiga. All are capable if running various version of Basic. Although like me I think you will have problems getting hardware to work on many such as a printer.

                  Someone just emailed me for the address of my site which is http://www.sigord.co.uk/ Do as you like with any of my code, much in any of the Basics above. I am sure many of you will be able to improve on it.

                  Gordon S.

                  For x=1 to 10
                  print x
                  next
                  end
                • Carl Gundel
                  Gordon, I wasn t counting the runtime EXE as a support file. As for the free BASICs, so what? There have free BASICs for as long as I can remember. I don t
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Gordon, I wasn't counting the runtime EXE as a support file.

                    As for the free BASICs, so what? There have free BASICs for as long as I can remember. I don't understand how that makes it wrong for people to charge money for their work. Enlighten me.

                    Have I complained even once that Richard's LBB should not exist? I don't think so.

                    -Carl

                    --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon S" <gordonsweet2000@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Sorry Carl I make it 9 files needed to distribute LB of course, including the TKN but not including the renamed EXE.
                    >
                    > I should point below works on a number of other free BASICS such as QBASIC once supplied with earlier Windows. There is also GWBASIC, BASICA, FREE BASIC and once a free ASIC ( yes without the `B' ). Also there are umpteen Free emulators for the early computers which were around long before Windows and the Internet such as the UK BBC micro, and the Sinclair ZX81, also the Atari, Commodore, Amiga. All are capable if running various version of Basic. Although like me I think you will have problems getting hardware to work on many such as a printer.
                    >
                    > Someone just emailed me for the address of my site which is http://www.sigord.co.uk/ Do as you like with any of my code, much in any of the Basics above. I am sure many of you will be able to improve on it.
                    >
                    > Gordon S.
                    >
                    > For x=1 to 10
                    > print x
                    > next
                    > end
                    >
                  • william sprowls
                    My 2 cents worth, As Carl has pointed out, there is not much of an issue for copyright infringement between LB and LBB. Doing a cut-and-paste from one shell to
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My 2 cents worth,
                      As Carl has pointed out, there is not much of an issue for copyright infringement between LB and LBB. Doing a cut-and-paste from one shell to another would not get any Lawyer to start slithering.
                        I just wanted to point out that a general statement such as "LBB can take LB code and run it faster, better, etc." is just plain untrue. My 35 thousand lines of LB code stopped assembling in LBB on line #20 (talking to the LPT printer port). "Oops, I don't support the "out" statement". Gee, maybe there is a good reason that Carl has provided 9 or 12 or whatever number of support files.
                       You get what you pay for. Don't get me wrong, LBB might transition into something really nice. And I will probably download later updates to see if things improve.
                       Perhaps Carl can take all this hullabaloo as a wake-up call and improve the efficiency of LB. And of course, that takes time and money.
                       Best wishes to both of you in your endeavors.
                      WS
















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Gordon S
                      The point I was trying to make in your favour Carl for those who object to the idea of anyone distributing software like LBB for free, or updates, was that
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The point I was trying to make in your favour Carl for those who object to the idea of anyone distributing software like LBB for free, or updates, was that unlike Richard it appears you to have to pay Shoptalk or others to help you. So you have every right to charge for major updates of LB.

                        Gordon S.
                      • Stefan Pendl
                        ... As far as I know Carl has started his business alone and wanted to get rid of his daily job when sales of LB raised, but that did not work out as expected.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          > The point I was trying to make in your favour Carl for those
                          > who object to the idea of anyone distributing software like
                          > LBB for free, or updates, was that unlike Richard it appears
                          > you to have to pay Shoptalk or others to help you. So you
                          > have every right to charge for major updates of LB.
                          >

                          As far as I know Carl has started his business alone and wanted to get rid of his daily job when sales of LB raised, but that did
                          not work out as expected.

                          Only recently with starting the development of LB v5 he added Scott to his one man show, so now there are two guys representing
                          Shoptalk Systems.

                          If I am not mistaken, Richard is now retired, so he might not need to make a living out of selling his product.

                          ----

                          The bottom line is, if you need support for LB ask here, if you need support for LBB ask at its own group.


                          ---
                          Stefan Pendl
                          http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/

                          Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
                          Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe

                          Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/

                          Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
                          Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
                          Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC

                          Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
                          AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
                        • Gary Passmore
                          Until now, all LB friends together. Wha hoppen here? As I see it, Much ado over nothing. My friends, Let s get back to BASICS   :) ...from the
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Until now, "all LB friends together." Wha' 'hoppen' here?' As I see it, "Much ado over nothing."
                            My friends, "Let's get back to 'BASICS'"  :)
                            ...from the world according to GaRPMorE

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Carl Gundel
                            Gordon, My apologies. I misunderstood you. BTW I am Shoptalk. My tools vendor is called Cincom, if that s what you were referring to. :-) -Carl Gundel
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Gordon,

                              My apologies. I misunderstood you.

                              BTW I am Shoptalk. My tools vendor is called Cincom, if that's what you were referring to. :-)

                              -Carl Gundel
                              Liberty BASIC for Windows - http://www.libertybasic.com
                              Run BASIC, easy web programming - http://www.runbasic.com

                              On Nov 1, 2011, at 3:47 PM, "Gordon S" <gordonsweet2000@...> wrote:

                              > The point I was trying to make in your favour Carl for those who object to the idea of anyone distributing software like LBB for free, or updates, was that unlike Richard it appears you to have to pay Shoptalk or others to help you. So you have every right to charge for major updates of LB.
                              >
                              > Gordon S.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Sam
                              LB badly, badly, badly needs speed improvements. PCs operate at many GHz, but every LB instruction seems to take a multiple of microseconds. And I gave up long
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                LB badly, badly, badly needs speed improvements. PCs operate at many GHz, but every LB instruction seems to take a multiple of microseconds. And I gave up long ago reporting bugs, because nobody seems to care. "Oh, it's due to a bug in Shoptalk" or "Oh, its because of the type of window used" or "Oh, its because that feature requires COM". Who cares? Fix the bug. If Richard improves the situation, I'm happy.
                                Sam W.

                                --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Pendl" <pendl2megabit@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > >
                                > > Stefan, you too? (It's cloned Shakespearean quote)
                                > >
                                >
                                > No, I don't use LB booster, since I am perfectly happy with the current distribution package created by LB.
                                >
                                > My applications neither need improved speed nor smaller distribution size, since they are mainly used in a corporate network at my
                                > work.
                                >
                                > >
                                > > To all,
                                > > Try this little experiment:
                                > >
                                > > Install LBB, preferably on a computer which has no trace of LB.
                                > >
                                > > Type into the LBB code window:
                                > > For x=1 to 10
                                > > print x
                                > > next
                                > > end
                                > >
                                > > Shocking for me, it runs correctly.
                                > > What this means is, I don't need LB anymore.
                                > > I don't need to pay for LB Version 5 (due soon). Or any
                                > > future versions.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Richard even advices one to purchase LB at http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/lbb/lbb.html :
                                >
                                > <quote>
                                > LB Booster is Freeware; you are strongly encouraged to purchase the full version of Liberty Basic on which to develop, test and
                                > debug your programs prior to 'boosting' them.
                                > </quote>
                                >
                                > Your example is showing code that can be used in any traditional BASIC language, since it is an essential BASIC construct.
                                >
                                > The LB booster editor just makes it easier to highlight the problematic lines of code, so the user can change anything while he is
                                > boosting his LB program.
                                >
                                > In addition you need the LB help file to know all the commands available for boosting.
                                >
                                >
                                > ---
                                > Stefan Pendl
                                > http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/
                                >
                                > Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
                                > Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe
                                >
                                > Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/
                                >
                                > Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
                                > Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
                                > Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC
                                >
                                > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
                                > AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
                                >
                              • Gary Purkiss
                                wow it s hot in here...hay guys it look like it s becoming a witch hunt...  look we all love lb right other wise we wouldn t use it..if people want to use
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 1, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  wow it's hot in here...hay guys it look like it's becoming a witch hunt... 
                                  look we all love lb right other wise we wouldn't use it..if people want to use llb then go a head am i sure what any body says on here we all end up doing what we want to anyways...
                                  yer lb mite not be the fastest basic around but it dose what it says on the tin reliably..if speed is really a problem to you then i'ver  use a Different basic or a Different programming language altogether...basic has never been a very fast  language even from the first days it was made back when or try and improve your code in the first place..
                                  i had time were i wished a few things would run that bit faster and i've come here a few times for your help and with that you guys have help me and in turn my programmes have become more efficient..
                                  i've never really thought that basic is a super power to me it was more for knocking up quick little programmes and for teaching..
                                  but i've seen some amazing things that you folks have done and i'm more than impressed by it..cool
                                  maybe lb5 mite be a little faster who knows..but i tell you some thing i can't wait to see it..lol..
                                  i think carl has done a really good job with lb and i really like it..yer i suppose we could all sit back and think of some things it could do better but again lb5 mite help with that...nothing is ever perfect in any language or in life for that matter..man you should see me make an omelet now i know that's not perfect...lol...ask my cat he ends up having it...lol
                                  i guess the point is do what you will and use llb/lb if you want to... now let put the fan on cool and chill down a bit..
                                  and lets get back to what you guys do best in helping others like you all do so much and thank you all for the help you've given me over the pass..

                                  gary :)

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Gordon S
                                  If Carl does not object to me pointing this out I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    If Carl does not object to me pointing this out

                                    I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied with LB and got the follwing readings. But I supect speeds will always vary according to the tasks invloved.

                                    LB test Elapsed time: 2078

                                    LBB test Elapsed time 203

                                    Gordon S.
                                  • Carl Gundel
                                    Well, as Richard has himself stated, LBB is designed to be faster than LB. No one should be surprised that it usually is. For some things LB is actually
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Well, as Richard has himself stated, LBB is designed to be faster than LB. No one should be surprised that it usually is. For some things LB is actually faster.

                                      Similarly LB5 is also designed to be faster, and usually will be for most things.

                                      I'm finding it interesting to follow people's speculations posted in the LBB list about what makes LB slow. For example there is a post claiming that LB implements integers like strings and this makes them slow. Only numbers larger than 32 bits require such an internal representation.

                                      I'm not going to go into a detailed explanation of how LB works, but suffice to say that simply guessing isn't likely to produce a correct explanation.

                                      Someone mentioned that the FOR/NEXT loop is slow. That's very true. Why is it slow? Because LB is saddled by implementation decisions made a very long time ago that can only be undone by a from scratch reimplementation. LB5 is that reimplementation. In my own testing it can be 10x faster for many things, and it may be that we can do even better than that.

                                      However once again LB5 isn't intended to compete with compiled C. It will usually be quite faster than LB, but I'm sure that there will be edge cases where it is not faster. Some kinds of GUI features may not benefit from the faster execution engine for example.

                                      By the way, work on LB5 is moving forward reasonably well. Private alpha testing should begin around the year's end and then we will have a more public beta testing period.

                                      -Carl Gundel
                                      Liberty BASIC for Windows - http://www.libertybasic.com
                                      Run BASIC, easy web programming - http://www.runbasic.com

                                      On Nov 2, 2011, at 6:16 AM, "Gordon S" <gordonsweet2000@...> wrote:

                                      > If Carl does not object to me pointing this out
                                      >
                                      > I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied with LB and got the follwing readings. But I supect speeds will always vary according to the tasks invloved.
                                      >
                                      > LB test Elapsed time: 2078
                                      >
                                      > LBB test Elapsed time 203
                                      >
                                      > Gordon S.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Rod
                                      I got 874, using plain vanilla Liberty BASIC without double guessing two sets of bug reports. I wish someone would tell me the true worth of looping 25k four
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I got 874, using plain vanilla Liberty BASIC without double guessing two sets of bug reports.

                                        I wish someone would tell me the true worth of looping 25k four times faster, since at it's slowest it is over in less time than I can move my finger from the mouse to the keyboard and my eyes from the run icon to the results. I just wonder what you speed demons will do with the power?

                                        The strength of Liberty BASIC has never been it's speed. It's speed is adequate, it's strength has always been in simplicity of syntax, ease of coding and debugging and the sheer power in terms of GUI and Graphic controls per line of code.

                                        Long may it continue in LB5

                                        If Carl were to recommend LBB I would take more of an interest, since it is not endorsed and not supported and just about to be left behind by LB5 I don't.

                                        So I find discussions about LBB on this forum distracting and inappropriate. Take them elsewhere, Richard is happy to host discussions on his LBB forum.

                                        On that forum you can work out the kinks in serial and graphics and api programming which seem to be taxing LBB.

                                        To be clear, Richard's feat of coding is immense, I just wish it had been at a different time and with support. LB5 should be every Liberty BASIC coders focus.

                                        --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon S" <gordonsweet2000@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > If Carl does not object to me pointing this out
                                        >
                                        > I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied with LB and got the follwing readings. But I supect speeds will always vary according to the tasks invloved.
                                        >
                                        > LB test Elapsed time: 2078
                                        >
                                        > LBB test Elapsed time 203
                                        >
                                        > Gordon S.
                                        >
                                      • Stefan Pendl
                                        ... So the 2078 milliseconds of LB4 divided by 10, the speed increase of LB5, results in ~207 milliseconds for LB5, which is nearly the same speed as LBBs 203
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > >
                                          > > I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in
                                          > speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied with LB
                                          > and got the follwing readings. But I supect speeds will
                                          > always vary according to the tasks invloved.
                                          > >
                                          > > LB test Elapsed time: 2078
                                          > >
                                          > > LBB test Elapsed time 203
                                          > >
                                          > > Gordon S.
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > Someone mentioned that the FOR/NEXT loop is slow. That's
                                          > very true. Why is it slow? Because LB is saddled by
                                          > implementation decisions made a very long time ago that can
                                          > only be undone by a from scratch reimplementation. LB5 is
                                          > that reimplementation. In my own testing it can be 10x
                                          > faster for many things, and it may be that we can do even
                                          > better than that.
                                          >

                                          ---snip

                                          >
                                          > -Carl Gundel
                                          > Liberty BASIC for Windows - http://www.libertybasic.com
                                          > Run BASIC, easy web programming - http://www.runbasic.com
                                          >

                                          So the 2078 milliseconds of LB4 divided by 10, the speed increase of LB5, results in ~207 milliseconds for LB5, which is nearly the
                                          same speed as LBBs 203 milliseconds.

                                          Looking forward to test this on some of my parsing and file system clean up programs.


                                          ---
                                          Stefan Pendl
                                          http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/

                                          Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
                                          Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe

                                          Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/

                                          Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
                                          Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
                                          Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC

                                          Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
                                          AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
                                        • sharpdj5927
                                          Basic s trump card is the ease of use and its flexibility to do many types of tasks. I used to write in 6502 machine code years ago when speed was needed, but
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Basic's trump card is the ease of use and its flexibility to do many types of tasks. I used to write in 6502 machine code years ago when speed was needed, but its much harder work compared to Basic

                                            Anyway thats all well known stuff. What I'd like to ask is this: I have a program that has to print several hundred A6 size cards with information generated by my program. Each card has different text. The card is mostly text and has one small bitmap icon, but to get the mixture of fonts and accurate placement of text the whole thuing is generated as a graphic. Each card takes about 15 seconds to print. Times 15 secs by a hundred or so and it becomes a bit of a problem.

                                            Before this program the cards were made in Word which took some time, but they printed out fast. Now I've saved time in creating the card image but lost it in the time it takes to print. The printer is an HP LaserJet P1102.

                                            So on the theme of speeding up programs is there any way to speed this up? I assume the time delay is at the printer and its not LB slowing things down - or is it? I haven't tried the LBB on this as I'm doubtful in this case if it would help.

                                            Thanks Derek Sharp

                                            --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Pendl" <pendl2megabit@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I was sceptical of often noticing any great increase in
                                            > > speed using LBB, but I ran the Elapsed.Bas supplied with LB
                                            > > and got the follwing readings. But I supect speeds will
                                            > > always vary according to the tasks invloved.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > LB test Elapsed time: 2078
                                            > > >
                                            > > > LBB test Elapsed time 203
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Gordon S.
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Someone mentioned that the FOR/NEXT loop is slow. That's
                                            > > very true. Why is it slow? Because LB is saddled by
                                            > > implementation decisions made a very long time ago that can
                                            > > only be undone by a from scratch reimplementation. LB5 is
                                            > > that reimplementation. In my own testing it can be 10x
                                            > > faster for many things, and it may be that we can do even
                                            > > better than that.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > ---snip
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > > -Carl Gundel
                                            > > Liberty BASIC for Windows - http://www.libertybasic.com
                                            > > Run BASIC, easy web programming - http://www.runbasic.com
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > So the 2078 milliseconds of LB4 divided by 10, the speed increase of LB5, results in ~207 milliseconds for LB5, which is nearly the
                                            > same speed as LBBs 203 milliseconds.
                                            >
                                            > Looking forward to test this on some of my parsing and file system clean up programs.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ---
                                            > Stefan Pendl
                                            > http://stefanpendl.runbasichosting.com/
                                            >
                                            > Liberty BASIC 4.04 Pro ... http://www.libertybasic.com/assist.html
                                            > Liberty BASIC 4.04 ....... http://www.libertybasic.com/lb404setup.exe
                                            >
                                            > Liberty BASIC Bug Tracker ... http://libertybasicbugs.wikispaces.com/
                                            >
                                            > Books at http://www.lulu.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/
                                            > Alyce Watson ... APIs for Liberty BASIC
                                            > Carl Gundel .... Beginning Programming with Liberty BASIC
                                            >
                                            > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
                                            > AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2GHz, 4GB RAM
                                            >
                                          • Fritz Oppliger
                                            On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:18:43 -0700, sharpdj5927 ... me too, to help out CBM Basic V.2 ... You might try printing to file and then dump
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:18:43 -0700, sharpdj5927 <sharpdj5927@...>
                                              wrote:

                                              > Basic's trump card is the ease of use and its flexibility to do many
                                              > types of tasks. I used to write in 6502 machine code years ago when
                                              > speed was needed, but its much harder work compared to Basic

                                              me too, to help out CBM Basic V.2

                                              >
                                              > I assume the time delay is at the printer and its not LB slowing things
                                              > down - or is it? I haven't tried the LBB on this as I'm doubtful in this
                                              > case if it would help.

                                              You might try printing to file and then dump the files to the printer.
                                              theory being that there may be excessive handshaking going on. If
                                              generating the file is slow but printing is fast then that will be a clue.
                                              Cheers
                                              Fritz
                                            • Rod
                                              Just this morning my wife was beating my new HP Photosmart printer with her fists as it took all of two minutes to spit out one A4 sheet. Progress :) It did
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Just this morning my wife was beating my new HP Photosmart printer with her fists as it took all of two minutes to spit out one A4 sheet. Progress :)

                                                It did print beautifully precise and crisp graphics.
                                              • sharpdj5927
                                                I often used to see print to file as an option but seems to be replaced by spool printer documents so program finishes printing faster with 2 sub-options
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Nov 2, 2011
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I often used to see "print to file" as an option but seems to be replaced by "spool printer documents so program finishes printing faster" with 2 sub-options print immediately, or after last page is spooled. The alternative to all this is "print direct to printer". The printer spooling option is checked and it looks to be a default setting these days. So unless your "print to file" is something different it looks like that has been done anyway - but we did select "start print immediately" but as its printing from the spooled data I don't think it would make a difference.

                                                  So run out of road on this one. I had big misgivings being forced to make a graphics output just to get mixed fonts on a page as its well known that graphics are a pain to print. Its an annoying limitation of LB from my point of view. Does anyone know of a programming language out there that has fine control over mixed fonts and text placement and doesn't use graphics to slow the print down? Bit like LB with a Word interface.



                                                  --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Oppliger" <fritz@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:18:43 -0700, sharpdj5927 <sharpdj5927@...>
                                                  > wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > Basic's trump card is the ease of use and its flexibility to do many
                                                  > > types of tasks. I used to write in 6502 machine code years ago when
                                                  > > speed was needed, but its much harder work compared to Basic
                                                  >
                                                  > me too, to help out CBM Basic V.2
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I assume the time delay is at the printer and its not LB slowing things
                                                  > > down - or is it? I haven't tried the LBB on this as I'm doubtful in this
                                                  > > case if it would help.
                                                  >
                                                  > You might try printing to file and then dump the files to the printer.
                                                  > theory being that there may be excessive handshaking going on. If
                                                  > generating the file is slow but printing is fast then that will be a clue.
                                                  > Cheers
                                                  > Fritz
                                                  >
                                                • Norman Eskriett
                                                  Mixed fonts, font sizes lines line thickness and text placement can all be done with LB using APIRegards Nomps To: libertybasic@yahoogroups.com From:
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Nov 3, 2011
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Mixed fonts, font sizes lines line thickness and text placement can all be done with LB using APIRegards Nomps
                                                    To: libertybasic@yahoogroups.com
                                                    From: sharpdj5927@...
                                                    Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:27:18 +0000
                                                    Subject: [libertybasic] Re: LB and speed - a particular problem




























                                                    So run out of road on this one. I had big misgivings being forced to make a graphics output just to get mixed fonts on a page as its well known that graphics are a pain to print. Its an annoying limitation of LB from my point of view. Does anyone know of a programming language out there that has fine control over mixed fonts and text placement and doesn't use graphics to slow the print down? Bit like LB with a Word interface.



                                                    --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Oppliger" <fritz@...> wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:18:43 -0700, sharpdj5927 <sharpdj5927@...>

                                                    > wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > > Basic's trump card is the ease of use and its flexibility to do many

                                                    > > types of tasks. I used to write in 6502 machine code years ago when

                                                    > > speed was needed, but its much harder work compared to Basic

                                                    >

                                                    > me too, to help out CBM Basic V.2

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    > > I assume the time delay is at the printer and its not LB slowing things

                                                    > > down - or is it? I haven't tried the LBB on this as I'm doubtful in this

                                                    > > case if it would help.

                                                    >

                                                    > You might try printing to file and then dump the files to the printer.

                                                    > theory being that there may be excessive handshaking going on. If

                                                    > generating the file is slow but printing is fast then that will be a clue.

                                                    > Cheers

                                                    > Fritz

                                                    >


















                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • alyce_dubya
                                                    ... You can use multiple font faces, sizes and colors in a single document with a richedit control. The free DLLs on my site are easy to use and have a
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Nov 3, 2011
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, "sharpdj5927" <sharpdj5927@...> wrote:

                                                      > So run out of road on this one. I had big misgivings being forced to make a graphics output just to get mixed fonts on a page as its well known that graphics are a pain to print. Its an annoying limitation of LB from my point of view. Does anyone know of a programming language out there that has fine control over mixed fonts and text placement and doesn't use graphics to slow the print down? Bit like LB with a Word interface.



                                                      You can use multiple font faces, sizes and colors in a single document with a richedit control. The free DLLs on my site are easy to use and have a printing function, so you can send the output to your printer. If you need graphic objects such as shapes or images, this won't suffice, but for multiple fonts in a single document, it works fine.

                                                      http://alycesrestaurant.com/dll.htm#lbrtf2

                                                      -Alyce
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.