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

Re: Still alive?

Expand Messages
  • eros_vc16
    ... Well, I see no *actually useful* bug fixes lol, all problems that were then, still exist now. RapidQ indeed is old, and works best on Win9x than on XP. And
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 31, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, Pøemysl Janouch <warriant@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello people,
      > I am just wondering how long you want to force
      > this language to live. As of now, it's nearly a decade
      > since the last version has been released. The community
      > has so far managed to patch the most annoying bugs in
      > the runtime libraries and the compiler, but that's all.
      >...
      > Million and one IDE's but still no progress.
      > (I've made one, too: Rapid-Q Development Studio; someone
      > else here uses this or very similar name for his IDE,
      > too, but I was first, LOL).
      >

      Well, I see no *actually useful* bug fixes lol, all problems that were then, still exist now. RapidQ indeed is old, and works best on Win9x than on XP. And indeed I wish to get my hands on some working IDE for it too.. as I see everybody here have a busy life and have no time to code a good one.

      But there are reasons why I like RQ: it's really simple to program with, but not only, it also has one more thing why I like it, if it didn't have that, I'd declare RQ as junk. And I won't tell you what it is lol.

      But I ask from RQ community, what IDE for RQ is currently declared as the *best*? How far is it, and what needs implementing. If you have no time, then maybe I can do something..
    • terry_prism
      ... I have been using Eayrq that hs a form designer a bit out of date now but god for small programs. David has thrown his hat in the ring with his and so has
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, "eros_vc16" <lord_skulldragon@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well, I see no *actually useful* bug fixes lol, all problems that were then, still exist now. RapidQ indeed is old, and works best on Win9x than on XP. And indeed I wish to get my hands on some working IDE for it too.. as I see everybody here have a busy life and have no time to code a good one.
        >
        > But there are reasons why I like RQ: it's really simple to program with, but not only, it also has one more thing why I like it, if it didn't have that, I'd declare RQ as junk. And I won't tell you what it is lol.
        >
        > But I ask from RQ community, what IDE for RQ is currently declared as the *best*? How far is it, and what needs implementing. If you have no time, then maybe I can do something..
        >
        I have been using Eayrq that hs a form designer a bit out of date now but god for small programs.

        David has thrown his hat in the ring with his and so has John

        I believe honestly hat if everyone throw their weight behind Johns one the community will have a real bobby dazzler

        Terry
      • terry_prism
        ... A Scott a I was born south of the border near the small town of London. I am now an adopted Australian of 40 + years and have to chuck in a few bits of
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, "cran0g" <wmaitken@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Absotively. Funny you should mention OS, Terry. Not quite the same hting but I am using RQ to design an IDE in which the users create their program completely graphically using a sort of organisational tree. No code AT ALL and all the instructions and prompts are separated out. It means they can be translated into any human language. I have a chap in Brazil ready to translate my Scottish into Portuguese, for example. Long live RQ, say I.
          >
          > BTW, I lve the "raw prawn" bit. Had me chuckling for a bit.
          >
          A Scott a I was born south of the border near the small town of London.

          I am now an adopted Australian of 40 + years and have to chuck in a few bits of Australian expression when it suits the occation.

          I will be interested in your version. I find most ide's come a bit unstuck when there are over 10 forms and I have not come across a form designer that can reverse engineer over 3 forms.

          One thing would be a uncompiler that could help demistifying some long forgoten programs.

          Terry
        • Bob Gee
          ... Of course I can. C is old ... even archaic; a low level programming language that s hardly human readable, its methodology is inconsistent, symbols may
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Přemysl Janouch <warriant@...> wrote:

            >You cannot compare it to C

            Of course I can.

            C is old ... even archaic; a low level programming language that's hardly human readable, its methodology is inconsistent, symbols may have multiple meanings depending on how and when used, forces programmers to do mundane and tedious things like worry about memory management, is strictly procedural without even a trace of OOP unless one uses semi-OOP library that attempts to achieve that goal with endless spaghetti code, etc. I could go on for quite some time about the faults and failures of C.

            OTOH, it IS a useful programming language that DESPITE its MANY faults and lacks is still used and preferred by some programmers for some tasks.

            <Sigh> Such arguments and debates can be made about most any programming language. Every single one of them has its faults, lacks, weaknesses and strengths, their elegance and their lack of grace, their advantages and their disadvantages.

            A couple or three years back I had this discussion with a guy I work with. We both do programming for a living. Now, our main specialty is a very specialized sort of programming. That is the control of mechanical, electrical, and electronic machinery. For this, we primarily use some proprietary programming languages. However we also must know and use some other programming languages for some tasks. Such as creating "front end" master control apps; to display data, to allow operators to use simple GUI screens to see what is going on and to make adjustments, to gather and analyze data for system management and trending/graphing, for historical record keeping, etc. We also set up web servers and services, create web pages and whole web sites containing hundreds of web pages, some of which can be very complex and advanced. That's so the facility owners/operators may look at whats going on, respond to events and make changes or whatever from where
            ever they are as long as they have access to an internet connection and a web browser. Etc.

            So besides the proprietary programming languages we use, each of us is also more than passing familiar with a number of other programming languages. In fact, before taking this job, each of us had a history of previous mastery in at least a couple or popular, well known, general purpose programming languages. Had to in order to get this job. As part of the interview process was for each of us to prove our past accomplishments by producing samples of our work.

            Now, the fact that in the current job we were attempting to get we'd be programming MOSTLY in a programming language new to each of us meant nothing since what the employer was looking for was that each of us had a solid founding in the principles and theory of programming. As versus having done something like simply learn to USE a programming language well enough to pass some knuckle-headed college professor's course, while following whatever "rules of proper programming" he personally tended to favor for whatever arbitrary reasons he had in doing so. Not knocking college professors, but they deal in the theoretical ... while we must deal with real life. They deal in should be ... we deal with what is ... right now, today, this moment. In any event, the employer's thoughts were that an experienced and knowledgeable programmer could pick up and learn the differences in mundane things like syntax, context, function calling conventions, etc and so
            forth between this or that programming language in short order as long as he or she had a solid foundation in programming theory, understanding of good practices as versus bad, methodology, and so forth. And that is what the employer was looking for. The employer was NOT likely to find a ready supply of available people looking for work who were already knowledgeable in the particular proprietary programming languages we'd be using. Since there are NO publicly available courses or books about those languages. In fact you've got to put up about $12,000 (U.S) to even get a peek at them. More, a lot more, if you'd like formal classroom training in them. Most of us don't bother with the costs and expenses of the formal classroom training. In most cases, a waste of money and time. Just give us the docs and a copy of the compiler and IDE, and get out of the way we'll figure it out. We've had a lot of practice at doing that sort of thing.

            Anyway, this other fellow I work with favors C# for his general purpose programming language of choice. Tends to look down upon and make fun of things like vanilla C, any form of Basic, etc. <Shrug> I'd expect no more or less. Many programmers have a favorite language that they think to be better than any other. And can on a moment's notice think of endless ways to claim that their favored language is superior to others.

            So a while back I had a little contest with him. He routinely wrote a number of utility programs that we routinely used in our work. His versions worked fine, did the job. But just to tweak him up good and tight I started to replicate each of them using one form or another of Basic. Specifically, I'd use an OLD, aged, out-of-date form of Basic. Sometimes GW, sometimes QBasic, sometimes RapidQ, sometimes VB6, even used FreeBasic a couple times.

            Granted ... that often my apps didn't look as nice as his, didn't have that "nifty" factor. And sometimes I had to resort to calling Windows command line utilities and/or VBS routines. But that was neither here nor there. As concerns functionality, the ability to get the job done, they performed as well as what he'd created ... and routinely even better. (My versions were often preferred by our co-workers because I'd toss in better user input error checking, or output data verification, or more flexibility in choices, or whatever)

            My only point being was to show this fellow that programming useful, gets the job done and done right, applications has more to do with overall knowledge and skill than it does with the specific programming language of choice used by the programmer.

            Personally, I know of no "perfect" programming language that does everything well and that is without its faults, quirks, peculiarities, and drawbacks if used for any given purpose. They ALL suck at doing some things.

            It's just like the argument of procedural vs OOP programming methods. In truth, sometimes procedural methods are superior to OOP and vice versa. One is NOT inherently superior to the other in all given circumstances.

            <Shrug> RapidQ is a simplistic and limited programming language. Very true. Its no longer under development. Also true. But none of that means that it is useless.

            For some folks, it can do all that they wish to do. For others its a nice stepping stone to get them introduced to programming in general, in a simple and user friendly way. And from there they can move on to learning more and using other programming languages. And also learn new methods and techniques and so forth. For still other folks, its a challenge. They attempt to see how far they can push it and how much they can accomplish with it. Certainly there is no harm in that and its both entertaining and educational.

            For myself, I use it primarily for creating some fairly simple, single purpose utilities. At least I think they're fairly simple. Although I have coworkers who've wondered how the heck "he did that", since some of my utilities do things that are supposedly either "not possible" at all, or not possible without using some high powered (and high priced) development tools, or by buying commercial utility apps developed by a "team" of developers who're selling said app for a goodly price. (My answer to them when asked, is that if one actually knows how stuff works ... as versus just knowing how to call and use which library function of whatever programming language one favors ... its not really all that difficult)

            In any event, for what I call "simple", single purpose apps, often enough it is faster and easier for me to use RapidQ than other possible choices. Not that its always the proper answer or tool for the task. Depends on the task. I recently created a rather complex utility where the better choice was Java with several add-on, specialized libraries. The only other adequate choice in that case being one of the .NET languages (unless I wanted to spend inordinate amounts of time and sweat equity in generating my own special function libraries in some other language). And in this case, as the app was to be run on customer machines where some might or might not have the appropriate version of .NET on them ... but ALL had the most recent version of JRE on them ... Java was the logical choice. I do not have the luxury of TELLING our customers that they must have this or that installed on their machines. They're all commercial businesses or institutions and
            have their own rules and guidelines about which OS is installed, and what add-ons are allowed. I must deal with what the customer wants, has, and allows.

            >... Plus Rapid-Q is a definitely dead project,

            And your point is?

            Standard serial line communications is thought of as a "dead project". But is very much alive and well, thank you. Used more places and more often than you might ever imagine. At this time there are more data networks installed using RS232 or RS 485 serial comms than there are those using ethernet ... by several orders of magnitude. And each day, even now, they are being installed far faster than new ethernet based networks. It is simply likely you aren't aware of it.

            >> It does what those who want to use it ... want it to do. And serves well

            >> for what it was meant to be.


            >That's discutable. "well enough" is a bit more precise.

            No, I said precisely what I meant.


            >> For fun I dabble in FreeBasic. But do not keep up with the latest
            >> releases. Maybe when they release a stable major version I'll try it.
            >> But I got tired of having to revise past code with all those minor >>releases.

            >The development of FreeBASIC has +/- stopped recently. (What a pity.)

            It is a pity. But one of the problems they faced is that more of the users debated it flaws and lacks and direction of development, than who actually chipped in and helped in the development.

            Criticizing something, anything, is always easier than actually doing something to help make it work.


            >I think that Rapid-Q learns bad habits. When people learn it,
            >they cannot use much of the knowledge they've earned from making
            >programs in it, because many things they'll learn are hacks.

            LOL ... then since I originally learned programming using first machine language, then later using Fortran and Cobol, and then Basic ... I was and am unable to learn newer methods and/or to change bad habits?

            Are you saying that anyone who ever learned to use Basic, and/or who prefers some form of it ... is by necessity just dumber than a rock and unable to learn anything else?

            Strange ... personally I think most folks are at least as bright and able as myself. I had no particular problems moving on to C, or learning Java, etc.

            >It's also a bit unsuitable for any bigger commercial use
            >(no support from anyone).

            I'm not aware of anyone who uses RapidQ in an attempt to produce high end advanced apps.

            >Just simple tools that could be often written in VBScript.

            True enough. I am quite familiar with VBS. But it is often simpler and quicker to develop that "simple tool" in RapidQ.

            Sometimes not ... in which case I don't use RapidQ.

            >In my school, they've stopped teaching Visual Basic 6 and started
            >to teach C#. And I think it's a step ahead...

            Great. A programmer that only knows one programming language is not much of a programmer.

            A carpenter that only knows how to use a hammer, and only one kind of the many kinds of hammer, is also not much of a carpenter.
          • cran0g
            ... Excellent rebuttal. RQ does what it says on the tin. For some, that s all we need.
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gee <osiyo53@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Přemysl Janouch <warriant@...> wrote:
              >
              > >You cannot compare it to C
              >
              > Of course I can.
              >
              > C is old ... even archaic; a low level programming language that's hardly human readable, its methodology is inconsistent, symbols may have multiple meanings depending on how and when used, forces programmers to do mundane and tedious things like worry about memory management, is strictly procedural without even a trace of OOP unless one uses semi-OOP library that attempts to achieve that goal with endless spaghetti code, etc. I could go on for quite some time about the faults and failures of C.
              >
              > OTOH, it IS a useful programming language that DESPITE its MANY faults and lacks is still used and preferred by some programmers for some tasks.
              >
              > <Sigh> Such arguments and debates can be made about most any programming language. Every single one of them has its faults, lacks, weaknesses and strengths, their elegance and their lack of grace, their advantages and their disadvantages.
              >
              > A couple or three years back I had this discussion with a guy I work with. We both do programming for a living. Now, our main specialty is a very specialized sort of programming. That is the control of mechanical, electrical, and electronic machinery. For this, we primarily use some proprietary programming languages. However we also must know and use some other programming languages for some tasks. Such as creating "front end" master control apps; to display data, to allow operators to use simple GUI screens to see what is going on and to make adjustments, to gather and analyze data for system management and trending/graphing, for historical record keeping, etc. We also set up web servers and services, create web pages and whole web sites containing hundreds of web pages, some of which can be very complex and advanced. That's so the facility owners/operators may look at whats going on, respond to events and make changes or whatever from where
              > ever they are as long as they have access to an internet connection and a web browser. Etc.
              >
              > So besides the proprietary programming languages we use, each of us is also more than passing familiar with a number of other programming languages. In fact, before taking this job, each of us had a history of previous mastery in at least a couple or popular, well known, general purpose programming languages. Had to in order to get this job. As part of the interview process was for each of us to prove our past accomplishments by producing samples of our work.
              >
              > Now, the fact that in the current job we were attempting to get we'd be programming MOSTLY in a programming language new to each of us meant nothing since what the employer was looking for was that each of us had a solid founding in the principles and theory of programming. As versus having done something like simply learn to USE a programming language well enough to pass some knuckle-headed college professor's course, while following whatever "rules of proper programming" he personally tended to favor for whatever arbitrary reasons he had in doing so. Not knocking college professors, but they deal in the theoretical ... while we must deal with real life. They deal in should be ... we deal with what is ... right now, today, this moment. In any event, the employer's thoughts were that an experienced and knowledgeable programmer could pick up and learn the differences in mundane things like syntax, context, function calling conventions, etc and so
              > forth between this or that programming language in short order as long as he or she had a solid foundation in programming theory, understanding of good practices as versus bad, methodology, and so forth. And that is what the employer was looking for. The employer was NOT likely to find a ready supply of available people looking for work who were already knowledgeable in the particular proprietary programming languages we'd be using. Since there are NO publicly available courses or books about those languages. In fact you've got to put up about $12,000 (U.S) to even get a peek at them. More, a lot more, if you'd like formal classroom training in them. Most of us don't bother with the costs and expenses of the formal classroom training. In most cases, a waste of money and time. Just give us the docs and a copy of the compiler and IDE, and get out of the way we'll figure it out. We've had a lot of practice at doing that sort of thing.
              >
              > Anyway, this other fellow I work with favors C# for his general purpose programming language of choice. Tends to look down upon and make fun of things like vanilla C, any form of Basic, etc. <Shrug> I'd expect no more or less. Many programmers have a favorite language that they think to be better than any other. And can on a moment's notice think of endless ways to claim that their favored language is superior to others.
              >
              > So a while back I had a little contest with him. He routinely wrote a number of utility programs that we routinely used in our work. His versions worked fine, did the job. But just to tweak him up good and tight I started to replicate each of them using one form or another of Basic. Specifically, I'd use an OLD, aged, out-of-date form of Basic. Sometimes GW, sometimes QBasic, sometimes RapidQ, sometimes VB6, even used FreeBasic a couple times.
              >
              > Granted ... that often my apps didn't look as nice as his, didn't have that "nifty" factor. And sometimes I had to resort to calling Windows command line utilities and/or VBS routines. But that was neither here nor there. As concerns functionality, the ability to get the job done, they performed as well as what he'd created ... and routinely even better. (My versions were often preferred by our co-workers because I'd toss in better user input error checking, or output data verification, or more flexibility in choices, or whatever)
              >
              > My only point being was to show this fellow that programming useful, gets the job done and done right, applications has more to do with overall knowledge and skill than it does with the specific programming language of choice used by the programmer.
              >
              > Personally, I know of no "perfect" programming language that does everything well and that is without its faults, quirks, peculiarities, and drawbacks if used for any given purpose. They ALL suck at doing some things.
              >
              > It's just like the argument of procedural vs OOP programming methods. In truth, sometimes procedural methods are superior to OOP and vice versa. One is NOT inherently superior to the other in all given circumstances.
              >
              > <Shrug> RapidQ is a simplistic and limited programming language. Very true. Its no longer under development. Also true. But none of that means that it is useless.
              >
              > For some folks, it can do all that they wish to do. For others its a nice stepping stone to get them introduced to programming in general, in a simple and user friendly way. And from there they can move on to learning more and using other programming languages. And also learn new methods and techniques and so forth. For still other folks, its a challenge. They attempt to see how far they can push it and how much they can accomplish with it. Certainly there is no harm in that and its both entertaining and educational.
              >
              > For myself, I use it primarily for creating some fairly simple, single purpose utilities. At least I think they're fairly simple. Although I have coworkers who've wondered how the heck "he did that", since some of my utilities do things that are supposedly either "not possible" at all, or not possible without using some high powered (and high priced) development tools, or by buying commercial utility apps developed by a "team" of developers who're selling said app for a goodly price. (My answer to them when asked, is that if one actually knows how stuff works ... as versus just knowing how to call and use which library function of whatever programming language one favors ... its not really all that difficult)
              >
              > In any event, for what I call "simple", single purpose apps, often enough it is faster and easier for me to use RapidQ than other possible choices. Not that its always the proper answer or tool for the task. Depends on the task. I recently created a rather complex utility where the better choice was Java with several add-on, specialized libraries. The only other adequate choice in that case being one of the .NET languages (unless I wanted to spend inordinate amounts of time and sweat equity in generating my own special function libraries in some other language). And in this case, as the app was to be run on customer machines where some might or might not have the appropriate version of .NET on them ... but ALL had the most recent version of JRE on them ... Java was the logical choice. I do not have the luxury of TELLING our customers that they must have this or that installed on their machines. They're all commercial businesses or institutions and
              > have their own rules and guidelines about which OS is installed, and what add-ons are allowed. I must deal with what the customer wants, has, and allows.
              >
              > >... Plus Rapid-Q is a definitely dead project,
              >
              > And your point is?
              >
              > Standard serial line communications is thought of as a "dead project". But is very much alive and well, thank you. Used more places and more often than you might ever imagine. At this time there are more data networks installed using RS232 or RS 485 serial comms than there are those using ethernet ... by several orders of magnitude. And each day, even now, they are being installed far faster than new ethernet based networks. It is simply likely you aren't aware of it.
              >
              > >> It does what those who want to use it ... want it to do. And serves well
              >
              > >> for what it was meant to be.
              >
              >
              > >That's discutable. "well enough" is a bit more precise.
              >
              > No, I said precisely what I meant.
              >
              >
              > >> For fun I dabble in FreeBasic. But do not keep up with the latest
              > >> releases. Maybe when they release a stable major version I'll try it.
              > >> But I got tired of having to revise past code with all those minor >>releases.
              >
              > >The development of FreeBASIC has +/- stopped recently. (What a pity.)
              >
              > It is a pity. But one of the problems they faced is that more of the users debated it flaws and lacks and direction of development, than who actually chipped in and helped in the development.
              >
              > Criticizing something, anything, is always easier than actually doing something to help make it work.
              >
              >
              > >I think that Rapid-Q learns bad habits. When people learn it,
              > >they cannot use much of the knowledge they've earned from making
              > >programs in it, because many things they'll learn are hacks.
              >
              > LOL ... then since I originally learned programming using first machine language, then later using Fortran and Cobol, and then Basic ... I was and am unable to learn newer methods and/or to change bad habits?
              >
              > Are you saying that anyone who ever learned to use Basic, and/or who prefers some form of it ... is by necessity just dumber than a rock and unable to learn anything else?
              >
              > Strange ... personally I think most folks are at least as bright and able as myself. I had no particular problems moving on to C, or learning Java, etc.
              >
              > >It's also a bit unsuitable for any bigger commercial use
              > >(no support from anyone).
              >
              > I'm not aware of anyone who uses RapidQ in an attempt to produce high end advanced apps.
              >
              > >Just simple tools that could be often written in VBScript.
              >
              > True enough. I am quite familiar with VBS. But it is often simpler and quicker to develop that "simple tool" in RapidQ.
              >
              > Sometimes not ... in which case I don't use RapidQ.
              >
              > >In my school, they've stopped teaching Visual Basic 6 and started
              > >to teach C#. And I think it's a step ahead...
              >
              > Great. A programmer that only knows one programming language is not much of a programmer.
              >
              > A carpenter that only knows how to use a hammer, and only one kind of the many kinds of hammer, is also not much of a carpenter.
              >


              Excellent rebuttal.

              RQ does what it says on the tin. For some, that's all we need.
            • giovanniseregni
              ... Hi, my english is poor, so I write few things about my esperience. RapidQ is old, but a powerfull and quick language better than it is not born yet. I use
              Message 6 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, Pøemysl Janouch <warriant@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello people,
                > I am just wondering how long you want to force
                > this language to live. As of now, it's nearly a decade
                > since the last version has been released. The community
                > has so far managed to patch the most annoying bugs in
                > the runtime libraries and the compiler, but that's all.
                > Doesn't anyone of you have skills to at least
                > try to create a new compiler, new libraries etc.? If
                > you'll have a look at the technical side of Rapid-Q, it
                > is nothing extremely complicated, because it only
                > provides something like a front-end to Delphi. Or isn't
                > there anything similar and up-to-date?
                > It is even possible to translate Rapid-Q
                > code to FreeBASIC, when you have some GUI libraries
                > to use. eodor's made very nice libraries for FreeBASIC.
                > Of course it will not be 100% compatible because for
                > full compatibility, you'd have to clone Delphi libraries
                > with all the features and bugs, but without any change,
                > there would be no improvement. After all, rewriting
                > the programs to run on the "new RQ" should not be a hard
                > task.
                > Million and one IDE's but still no progress.
                > (I've made one, too: Rapid-Q Development Studio; someone
                > else here uses this or very similar name for his IDE,
                > too, but I was first, LOL).
                >
                > Pøemysl Janouch
                >
                > P.S. I am not a volunteer, I already have many projects
                > to complete and I rather use Python and PyGTK
                > for "rapid" coding. I am also a Linux user now. -_-
                > P.S.S. For the curious, I mostly code in C now and I'm
                > also trying to recreate a GUI framework in it. I must
                > say it looks *very* crazy in a non-OOP language.
                >
                Hi, my english is poor, so I write few things about my esperience.
                RapidQ is old, but a powerfull and quick language better than it is not born yet.
                I use it for my job but also to write tools about different kinds of things.
                Graphics, 3d, conversions, connections, chat, utility.
                My programs use the registry, asm, and a lot of API calls.
                Well, RapidQ has ten years and it is _BETA_
                But my programs are always working for my users.
                The same is not for application (not one of mine) in Python, VB and others.
                Alwais I read for trouble about needed DLL, new fixes, plugins, extension and a lot of stuff ALWAIS in extra-beta version versions not rumnning in the 60% of the OS's configurations.
                I uses others languages only if absolutely necessary (lisp in cad, ruby in sketchup etc etc).
                In the last times I use also XBLite, it s a serious basic, but because I want to be ready if MS changes really something.
                So I translated my 3D viewer that uses OpenGL. And I wrote a small template for standad windows, buttons, etc.
                But only because I want to be ready and to have support in the 2016, or 2017... lol
                Those codes have obviously a lot of lines, the same code that I wrote using few, fine-working lines, in Rapidq.

                G.S.
              • Marios Vafiadis
                Hi all, friends! With all these replies to Long Life RapidQ I need also to say a word! I started programming with FORTRAN IV and I was really happy to have
                Message 7 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  
                  Hi all, friends!
                   
                  With all these replies to "Long Life RapidQ" I need also to say a word!
                   
                  I started programming with FORTRAN IV and I was really happy to have access to a  WANG computer with 8K memory and BASIC in 1981!
                  Well, Sinclair ZX81 followed, Spectrum, New brain, Apple IIe and finally a "IBM compatble" with GWBASIC..., a long and old story.
                  With Quick BASIC I produced in1992 two "commercial" programs that are still broadly in use [2009!]. And then came the MS Windows
                  with VB1, VB2, VB3, VB4 and so on, each one more or less incompatible with the previous one, with no real exe, with runtimes vbx, ocx and dlls to loose your mind...
                   
                  OK. If one is fun of the very modern or the "next generation miracle product", he can say for RapidQ, "buff..., old stuff", and then he can download and install some Gbs of MS Visual Studio, to write a simple hello!
                   
                  On the other hand for all of us that we like programming but also we like to produce usefull stuff, RapidQ is perhaps a one way road!
                   
                  I tried many other solutions, with BASIC flavor or not. I can program in C/C++ even in assembly. If one can organize well his libraries, then these languages are really at the top of efficiency.
                   
                  But... anyway RapidQ is more fun and easy. (Final point!)
                   
                   
                  Marios
                   
                   ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:06 PM
                  Subject: Re: [rapidq] Re: Still alive?

                   

                  cran0g wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In rapidq@yahoogroups. com <mailto:rapidq% 40yahoogroups. com>,
                  > Přemysl Janouch <warriant@.. .> wrote:

                  <snip>

                  >
                  > I'm curious, Přemysl, as to why you're in this group. It is for those
                  > who find that the language meets their needs. And the fact that it *HAS*
                  > been around in its present form (bar a few patches) shows that is is
                  > really good.
                  >
                  > I note, with a smile, how quickly you mae it clear that you are *NOT* a
                  > volunteer. Best not to pollute the threads on this site with this kind
                  > of message unless you want to get involved in doing something about it.
                  >

                  No, it doesn't show it is really good. It shows it's usable.

                  I'm just watching you and wondering. I started programming in RQ
                  (stopped in ~2007) and now the knowledge is nearly useless. -.-
                  It's not multiplatform, not opensource, very limited, slow...
                  (Yes, there are hacks to get around some of the problems, but that
                  is ugly.) Nothing for me anymore. But I haven't left this group
                  since the time I've stopped using it.

                • Slavko Kocjancic
                  Hello... my 02c here. RapidQ is easy. RapidQ have a lot of KNOWN bugs and workarounds. RapidQ have very good support here on forum. RapidQ is SLOW (my opinion
                  Message 8 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello...

                    my 02c here.

                    RapidQ is easy.
                    RapidQ have a lot of KNOWN bugs and workarounds.
                    RapidQ have very good support here on forum.

                    RapidQ is SLOW (my opinion as my applications do complex jobs)

                    So I use RapidQ as in this way I can satisfy fell&look of my software
                    very quick.
                    For sped I wrote dll's in freebasic/asm.

                    Eodor make few very good GUI api for FB but his seems to stop development.
                    Porting RapidQ sintax to FreeBasic can be good as both have many good
                    points.

                    Slavko.
                  • Jacques
                    ... Why are you doing this ? You want to sell us something ? You re looking for a revenge on your past stupidity ? Stupidity can be forgotten but not cured.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Přemysl Janouch a écrit :
                      >
                      >
                      > cran0g wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In rapidq@yahoogroups. com <mailto:rapidq% 40yahoogroups. com>,
                      > > Přemysl Janouch <warriant@.. .> wrote:
                      >
                      > <snip>
                      >
                      > >
                      > > I'm curious, Přemysl, as to why you're in this group. It is for those
                      > > who find that the language meets their needs. And the fact that it
                      > *HAS*
                      > > been around in its present form (bar a few patches) shows that is is
                      > > really good.
                      > >
                      > > I note, with a smile, how quickly you mae it clear that you are *NOT* a
                      > > volunteer. Best not to pollute the threads on this site with this kind
                      > > of message unless you want to get involved in doing something about it.
                      > >
                      >
                      > No, it doesn't show it is really good. It shows it's usable.
                      >
                      > I'm just watching you and wondering. I started programming in RQ
                      > (stopped in ~2007) and now the knowledge is nearly useless. -.-
                      > It's not multiplatform, not opensource, very limited, slow...
                      > (Yes, there are hacks to get around some of the problems, but that
                      > is ugly.) Nothing for me anymore. But I haven't left this group
                      > since the time I've stopped using it.
                      >
                      Why are you doing this ? You want to sell us something ? You're looking
                      for a revenge on your past stupidity ?
                      Stupidity can be forgotten but not cured.

                      Jacques
                    • burkleyd
                      -- BIG snip -- ... It s sad to think that someone with your intelligence would make that kind of statement. You just showed us that you have a one track mind
                      Message 10 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -- BIG snip --

                        >> LOL ... then since I originally learned programming using
                        >> first machine language, then later using Fortran and Cobol,
                        >> and then Basic... I was and am unable to learn newer methods
                        >> and/or to change bad habits?
                        >
                        > I didn't say this (or at least I think so).
                        > I see it as wasted time and unusable knowledge.

                        It's sad to think that someone with your
                        intelligence would make that kind of statement.
                        You just showed us that you have a one track
                        mind and that you are NOT seeing the big picture.

                        How can learning "anything" be considered a waste
                        of time? It doesn't matter if it's the right way
                        or wrong way. All that matters is that someone
                        learned something they didn't know before (and
                        probably even brought a smile to their face when
                        they saw their first program up on the computer
                        screen).

                        And how can you say it's an unusable knowledge?
                        If nothing else... everyone who's used RapidQ
                        has learned (or is learning) that when you
                        come across a problem that doesn't seem to
                        have a solution... you look for "a workaround"!
                        I belong to some other programming language
                        groups and in every one of them... the main
                        topics are always... "Such and such language
                        isn't capable of doing such and such... does
                        anyone know of another way of doing it???".
                        Learning to search for or create a workaround
                        has been a part of RapidQ for a very long time
                        and can be useful knowledge in ANY language.
                        Don't tell me... you don't believe that having
                        learned about workarounds hasn't helped you at
                        on time or another?

                        David
                      • Peter Degenhardt
                        Hello, I m not a professional programmer. 15 years ago I learnd the basics of basic programinglanguage. I do only need sometimes an easy, small
                        Message 11 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello,
                          I'm not a professional programmer. 15 years ago I learnd the basics of
                          basic programinglanguage.
                          I do only need sometimes an easy, small programinglanguage that create
                          exe-file that run
                          without installing and runtimelibrarys, mostly little tools for my job.
                          For my needs rapidq is the best
                          programminglanguage I ever tried. I just love rapidq! Thank you to
                          all of you who force rapidq to live.
                          Peter

                          Přemysl Janouch schrieb:
                          > Hello people,
                          > I am just wondering how long you want to force
                          > this language to live. As of now, it's nearly a decade
                          > since the last version has been released. The community
                          > has so far managed to patch the most annoying bugs in
                          > the runtime libraries and the compiler, but that's all.
                          > Doesn't anyone of you have skills to at least
                          > try to create a new compiler, new libraries etc.? If
                          > you'll have a look at the technical side of Rapid-Q, it
                          > is nothing extremely complicated, because it only
                          > provides something like a front-end to Delphi. Or isn't
                          > there anything similar and up-to-date?
                          > It is even possible to translate Rapid-Q
                          > code to FreeBASIC, when you have some GUI libraries
                          > to use. eodor's made very nice libraries for FreeBASIC.
                          > Of course it will not be 100% compatible because for
                          > full compatibility, you'd have to clone Delphi libraries
                          > with all the features and bugs, but without any change,
                          > there would be no improvement. After all, rewriting
                          > the programs to run on the "new RQ" should not be a hard
                          > task.
                          > Million and one IDE's but still no progress.
                          > (I've made one, too: Rapid-Q Development Studio; someone
                          > else here uses this or very similar name for his IDE,
                          > too, but I was first, LOL).
                          >
                          > Přemysl Janouch
                          >
                          > P.S. I am not a volunteer, I already have many projects
                          > to complete and I rather use Python and PyGTK
                          > for "rapid" coding. I am also a Linux user now. -_-
                          > P.S.S. For the curious, I mostly code in C now and I'm
                          > also trying to recreate a GUI framework in it. I must
                          > say it looks *very* crazy in a non-OOP language.
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • terry_prism
                          I have been going through these reply s with great interest. It seems all have come to RQ from some other programming experiance. I after being thrust into dos
                          Message 12 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have been going through these reply's with great interest. It seems all have come to RQ from some other programming experiance. I after being thrust into dos c and creating machine control. To me this speaks for itself. It is a fickle world and there would not be any support for RQ if it did not deliver for those using it. There are not many languages that can do so much for so least a drain on resources

                            I am not a great programmer but believe I create great programs. I am surprised that no one specified java, perl, php, cgi etc. I must admit a bit of c knowledge helps with these.

                            David came up with the best gem. Mentioning that no knowledge gained is a waste.

                            Terry
                          • Bob Gee
                            ... I understand. I was making a point about things that are considered old and no longer being developed . There are a lot of such things, which are still
                            Message 13 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- On Tue, 9/1/09, Přemysl Janouch <warriant@...> wrote:

                              >> Standard serial line communications is thought of as a "dead project".
                              >> But is very much alive and well, thank you. Used more places and more
                              >> often than you might ever imagine. At this time there are more data
                              >> networks installed using RS232 or RS 485 serial comms than there are
                              >> those using ethernet ... by several orders of magnitude. And each day,
                              >> even now, they are being installed far faster than new ethernet based
                              >> networks. It is simply likely you aren't aware of it.

                              >That's not a programming language. That's a hardware communication
                              >protocol...

                              I understand. I was making a point about things that are considered "old and no longer being developed". There are a lot of such things, which are still very useful and being used every day.

                              >P.S. Do you have some special reason to write such long e-mails?
                              > I get nearly lost in this amount of both relevant and irrelevant
                              > information. It must take a lot of time to write such long
                              > responses. So... thanks for your time. :)

                              No particular reason, except that I'm given to long periods of never saying much, and then when I do ... I tend to be too wordy. It's a bad habit.

                              As to the amount of time ... I type fairly fast. So it probably takes far less time for me than you might think.

                              I read even faster.

                              My best to you and yours.
                            • terry_prism
                              ... Ahh!Bob I can relate to that. The older you get the more knowledge you pick up. Something akin to a snowball running down hill. So when someone of such
                              Message 14 of 22 , Sep 1, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gee <osiyo53@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > No particular reason, except that I'm given to long periods of never saying much, and then when I do ... I tend to be too wordy. It's a bad habit.
                                >
                                > As to the amount of time ... I type fairly fast. So it probably takes far less time for me than you might think.
                                >
                                > I read even faster.
                                >
                                > My best to you and yours.
                                >

                                Ahh!Bob I can relate to that. The older you get the more knowledge you pick up. Something akin to a snowball running down hill.

                                So when someone of such accumulated knowledge speaks or types it is a honour to read or listen. In my experiance I have learnt much from the shared experiances of others. It is like a travel log into part of someones life.

                                Bob, you make up for those who sit on the side lines and fail to contribute.
                              • mrspy1001
                                ... I ve been a lurker on this forum ever since it was a Yahoo Club. I started using RapidQ just a few months after William stopped working on it and have used
                                Message 15 of 22 , Sep 3, 2009
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, "terry_prism" <terry_prism@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In rapidq@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gee <osiyo53@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > No particular reason, except that I'm given to long periods of never saying much, and then when I do ... I tend to be too wordy. It's a bad habit.
                                  > >
                                  > > As to the amount of time ... I type fairly fast. So it probably takes far less time for me than you might think.
                                  > >
                                  > > I read even faster.
                                  > >
                                  > > My best to you and yours.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Ahh!Bob I can relate to that. The older you get the more knowledge you pick up. Something akin to a snowball running down hill.
                                  >
                                  > So when someone of such accumulated knowledge speaks or types it is a honour to read or listen. In my experiance I have learnt much from the shared experiances of others. It is like a travel log into part of someones life.
                                  >
                                  > Bob, you make up for those who sit on the side lines and fail to contribute.
                                  >

                                  I've been a lurker on this forum ever since it was a Yahoo Club. I started using RapidQ just a few months after William stopped working on it and have used it ever since. In that time I have not become an expert in programming with it, I simply don't have the time to program allot. I have however watched RapidQ grow over the years, I have seen the things people have done with it, I have seen the programs that could be made. Even now RapidQ programs can run in Vista, and to think it was made in the days where Windows 98 was king. No other program that I can think of has lasted this long and still have a following like this one does. Is RapidQ still alive? I would say so. Yes.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.