Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.projec
Author Message
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Dear alt.config people, I would appreciate it if you'd look
at this:

Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Charter

The purpose of this newsgroup is as a centralized source of
information for the ongoing project to create a free
QuickBasic 4.5
clone. QB4.5 is no longer supported by Microsoft and is
available in
very low quantities at high prices. We intend to create a
usable
free alternative.

However, posts related to (public -- private companies
should use
their own local, private boards) design of any BASIC
compiler will
also be considered on topic, as well as posts related to use
or
debugging of any product produced by users of the group,
requests for
inclusion of features, and so forth.

Posts of links to warez sites, commercial spam, and
questions about
use of other (commercial or shareware) dialects of BASIC
will be
considered off-topic, as will questions about programming in
general,
which should be posted to one of the *programmer* groups.

Announcements of releases of new versions of other dialects
of Basic,
however, may be considered tangentially related.

Announcements of new libraries or tools which may be used in
conjunction with any of the compilers which are on topic
will
also be on topic, as well as discussions related to their
use.

Justification of readership

Discussion of this project is currently taking place in
alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
microsoft.public.basic.dos.
Over the past few weeks there have been a total of:
152* individual (discounting crossposting) posts

(15 in comp.lang.basic.misc)
(17 in microsoft.public.basic.dos)
(120 in alt.lang.basic - this includes posts that were
crossposted
to c.l.b.m and m.p.b.d)

By over 30 individual posters.

*note that with over 20 posts per day on this topic, the
statistics
are liable to constant change.

23 of these posters have formally expressed an
interest in active participation in this project.
--
 O>
( )   http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~papnic
^ ^



Sat, 03 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:
> Dear alt.config people, I would appreciate it if you'd look
> at this:

> Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Why this particular name?

It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

Quote:
> The purpose of this newsgroup is as a centralized source of
> information for the ongoing project to create a free
> QuickBasic 4.5
> clone. QB4.5 is no longer supported by Microsoft and is
> available in
> very low quantities at high prices. We intend to create a
> usable
> free alternative.

What happens when you finish (assuming you start, even)?
Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups do) without
a purpose?

Quote:
> Announcements of releases of new versions of other dialects
> of Basic,
> however, may be considered tangentially related.

Are there not existing groups for this?

Quote:
> Justification of readership

> Discussion of this project is currently taking place in
> alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
> microsoft.public.basic.dos.

Seems reasonable.

Quote:
> Over the past few weeks there have been a total of:
> 152* individual (discounting crossposting) posts
> By over 30 individual posters.

how long will it last?


Sat, 03 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:
>> Dear alt.config people, I would appreciate it
if you'd look
>> at this:

>> Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>Why this particular name?

>It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be

shorter?

Personally I don't care what the name is, if you
can think of a better one that falls in the
alt.lang.basic hierarchy, I would be willing to
accept it. alt.lang.basic.compiler.design has been
suggested and personally I think that it is a good
alternative.

Quote:
>> The purpose of this newsgroup is as a

centralized source of
Quote:
>> information for the ongoing project to create a
free
>> QuickBasic 4.5
>> clone. QB4.5 is no longer supported by
Microsoft and is
>> available in
>> very low quantities at high prices. We intend
to create a
>> usable
>> free alternative.

>What happens when you finish (assuming you start,

even)?

The project is ongoing and will never end. The
charter also outlines that posts regarding the
building of other basic compilers are also
considered on-topic. There will always be interest
in this.

Quote:
>Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups
do) without
>a purpose?

There will always be a purpose, that of discussing
basic compiler design.

Quote:
>> Announcements of releases of new versions of
other dialects
>> of Basic,
>> however, may be considered tangentially
related.

>Are there not existing groups for this?

Yes, but isn't that the whole point of a
hierarchy? And besides, they are only
'tangentially related' and may at sometimes be
specifically relevant to the group's work.

Quote:
>> Justification of readership

>> Discussion of this project is currently taking
place in
>> alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
>> microsoft.public.basic.dos.

>Seems reasonable.

>> Over the past few weeks there have been a total
of:
>> 152* individual (discounting crossposting)
posts
>> By over 30 individual posters.

>how long will it last?

I am no sayer of sooth, and evidently cannot
answer this question accurately. But I do know
that there is interest and motivation NOW, and now
is when the project is taking place.

Cheers,

Ali



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project
On 18 Aug 1998 23:32:04 GMT, "pink daisy"

Quote:
>> Dear alt.config people, I would appreciate it if you'd look
>> at this:

>> Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>Why this particular name?

>It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

the name alt.basic.compiler.design was one of the original
suggestions, but some beleived that the folks in alt.config would not
agree to this name as it starts a new hierarchy. so we tried to find a
name to fit into the present hierarchy, and
alt.lang.basic.compiler.design came up.
yes, it's rather long and the only shorter alernative i can think of
would be alt.lang.basic.freeb, after the name of the compiler which
most seem to agree on for a name.

we can't just have alt.lang.basic.compiler, because that would invite
many posts like "where can we download QB4.5 compiler for free?" which
would be off-topic in the proposed group, not to mention very annoying
and counter-productive to our goal.

Quote:
>> The purpose of this newsgroup is as a centralized source of
>> information for the ongoing project to create a free
>> QuickBasic 4.5
>> clone. QB4.5 is no longer supported by Microsoft and is
>> available in
>> very low quantities at high prices. We intend to create a
>> usable
>> free alternative.

>What happens when you finish (assuming you start, even)?
>Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups do) without
>a purpose?

yes, it will continue to exist, but not without purpose, because the
compiler will continue to be supported and discussions on newer
versions and updates will take place here. also, once the compiler is
completed, discussions on the creation of an IDE for the compiler,
library support, compiler optimizations, addtional features, user
feedback and ideas, etc.. will continue in ths group as they are all
related to the project.

Quote:
>> Announcements of releases of new versions of other dialects
>> of Basic,
>> however, may be considered tangentially related.

>Are there not existing groups for this?

yes, but since the project is about a BASIC compiler, and is related
to BASIC issues, announcements of other versions of BASIC will be
tolerated.

Quote:
>> Justification of readership

>> Discussion of this project is currently taking place in
>> alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
>> microsoft.public.basic.dos.

>Seems reasonable.

well, for now, as we are just discussing the beginnings of the
project. the abovementioned groups are more for discussing BASIC
programming, but once our project gets started, posts will be more
about designing the compiler, which may or may not be done in a dilect
of BASIC, and would be off-topic for these groups. and as the project
grows, there will be an increasing number of posts on the subject.
there are already >20 posts a day as mentioned earlier, and readers of
these groups might get irate at the number of posts about the project,
taking up their bandwidth.

Quote:

>> Over the past few weeks there have been a total of:
>> 152* individual (discounting crossposting) posts
>> By over 30 individual posters.

>how long will it last?

well, designing a compiler is no trivial task, and that could take up
to over a year or more, not counting the creation of the IDE and
adittional library support.

 if you're asking about how long the interest in the project will last
however, then i can't pretend to know. all i can say is, i have been
part of a couple of online projects that failed even before they got
started. but none were ever so large enough, nor did they generate so
much interest, as to prompt the creation of a newsgroup solely for the
purpose of discussing the project. there is a lot of support right
now. how long it lasts will depend on how much we accomplish over the
next couple of weeks. gettin a new newsgroup will be a tremendous
support-getter. it's kind of chicken and egg right now.

- Rory

"Windows 9x is a real 'Operating System'. It does
 whatever the hell it wants to. Thus, all else
 should be called 'Co-Operating Systems'"



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

> > Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

> Why this particular name?

> It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

We considered several possibilities.

Most of them began with alt.basic, but we wanted
to fit within the heirarchy, so we added lang.
alt.lang.basic.compiler would not be specific enough,
and neither would alt.lang.basic.project.  We consider
alt.lang.basic.compiler.design, but it is nearly as long.
We are open to suggestions.  The name is not as
important to us as the communications it will
facilitate.  There are too many of us to use standard
email.  We considered a majordomo, but talk quickly
turned to usenet for a number of reasons.

Quote:
> What happens when you finish (assuming you start, even)?
> Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups do) without
> a purpose?

No.  We have considered this.  

Firstly, the topic has come up before but lacked
anyone with sufficent initiative to set it rolling.  We
believe we now have enough participation to make
it happen, but even if the project itself does not succeed
the idea is not dying any time soon.  There are
*incessant* requests on the other BASIC newsgroups for
a "compiler for QBasic".  The topic will keep coming up
until someone makes it happen.  Our intention is to
make it happen now.  The spirit is to use something
similar to the gnu license, with the exception that software
produced with the compiler will not be bound by the
compiler's license (although works derivitive of the compiler
itself would be).  Software under this type of license
tends to see perpetual development.

Secondly, our project need not be the only occupant
of the group.  Discussions of any free version of
BASIC would be welcome, particularly as they would
add to our sources for ideas in development.  

BASIC is one of the most prolific languages, with more
ports to more platforms than anything besides C.
There are sure to be other free versions out there.

So, perhaps we should call it something with free in
the name?  alt.lang.basic.free?

We though about this, too, but we are afraid of
constant posts about (and requests for) warez links.

Quote:
> > Announcements of releases of new versions of other dialects
> > of Basic, however, may be considered tangentially related.

> Are there not existing groups for this?

Yes.  But anyone reading this group would have an
excellent chance of being interested.  It is not the
purpose of the group, though.

Quote:
> > Discussion of this project is currently taking place in
> > alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
> > microsoft.public.basic.dos.

> Seems reasonable.

It is spread out.  I have to follow two groups (and my server
does not have the third -- a comp group -- although I am pretty
sure from the number of new groups all the time that it
automatically picks up new alt groups).  It would be nice
to gather it to one place.  Further, there is no real way
to determine where the project is on topic among the
three, and the discussion is likely to continue to be
crossposted to all three -- more than half of it has been
so far, but not all -- so I read two groups and much of
the information repeats itself.  It is not ideal, and I am not
alone.  At first, it was easy to pick out which posts were
related.  The original subject line "feeler" was easy to
pick out.  Now there are a dozen different subject lines
related to it.  We could try to get everyone to use a
subject-line tag, but it still leaves the repetition, the
crossposting, and the scattering over three groups.

Quote:
> how long will it last?

It seems to be long-term.  Compiler development is not
a short project, and we are talking about building it
in stages.  There have been some rather ambitious
suggestions about what could eventually be done.
I think the project itself could continue for at least five
years, and then you still have discussion of the
compiler it produces.  We are planning to implement
the compiler itself (not necessarily the IDE...) in C,
and we fully intend to include a compile-to-C option,
so then you have porting -- it is all very long-term.

--
At Your Service,
Jonadab the Unsightly One.




Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

>> Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>Why this particular name?
>It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

I don't agree that it is excessively long.  Not when there are
newsgroups like alt.alt.alt.alt.alt and alt.{*filter*}.hamster.duct-tape
and some of the other sillinesses I've seen in the alt family.

Quote:
>snip<
>What happens when you finish (assuming you start, even)?
>Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups do) without
>a purpose?

I'm certain that the project, if it gets off the ground, will continue
for several years.  Even after the 1st version of the compiler is
released, there will be upgrades and accessories to be added
for a long time to come.  There will also be a need for ongoing
support once it becomes widely accepted and used.

Quote:
> snip <
>Are there not existing groups for this?

No.

Quote:
> snip <
>> Over the past few weeks there have been a total of:
>> 152* individual (discounting crossposting) posts
>> By over 30 individual posters.

>how long will it last?

I would estimate that it should last at least 3 to 5 years
if the project gains critical mass.

jdm



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

>> > Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>> Why this particular name?

>> It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

>We considered several possibilities.

>Most of them began with alt.basic, but we wanted
>to fit within the heirarchy, so we added lang.
>alt.lang.basic.compiler would not be specific enough,
>and neither would alt.lang.basic.project.  We consider
>alt.lang.basic.compiler.design, but it is nearly as long.

Do you perhaps mean "compiler-design" and/or "compiler-project"? A
dash separates words in a newsgroup name; a period delimits hierarchies.
"compiler.project" implies the existence of other "alt.lang.basic.compiler"
groups.

That said, if the group is primarily for developers to communicate, I
*strongly* recommend a mailing list; it's seldom that that sort of
discussion lends itself to unmoderated Usenet.

  -Rich

--
Rich Lafferty ---------------------------------------------------------
IITS/Computing Services     |      
Concordia University        |    Nothing sucks like a Vax! (tm)



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project
On 19 Aug 1998 07:15:41 GMT, "Jonadab the Unsightly One"

Quote:

>It seems to be long-term.  Compiler development is not
>a short project, and we are talking about building it
>in stages.  There have been some rather ambitious
>suggestions about what could eventually be done.
>I think the project itself could continue for at least five
>years, and then you still have discussion of the
>compiler it produces.  We are planning to implement
>the compiler itself (not necessarily the IDE...) in C,
>and we fully intend to include a compile-to-C option,
>so then you have porting -- it is all very long-term.

Surely it will be implemented in itself?
Obviously, the first go will have to be in something else, but a
language that can't compile itself seems a bit silly to me.

As you're going to make the source code available (well, I assume so,
given that you said it would fall under something lie the GNU
copyleft) and people who are interested are BASIC programmers, it
being a BASIC project, why are you doing it in C? Speed reasons? Is
time-to-compile *that* important compared to easy code
understandability? I'd love to get involved in this, but I can't code
in C, because I hate the blasted language. That's why I read clbm :-)

Question: is there some kind of wish-list somewhere? If there is, I'd
like a loko at it, since I've got a couple of suggestions. The main
one is the ability to cross-compile to other OSes; if you could do
that, and the compiler was written in itself, then ports would be a
breeze :-)

Aquarius


"I would not bet against the existence of time
 machines. My opponent may have seen the future and
 know the answer" - Stephen Hawking



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

> >It seems to be long-term.  Compiler development is not
> >a short project, and we are talking about building it
> >in stages.  There have been some rather ambitious
> >suggestions about what could eventually be done.
> >I think the project itself could continue for at least five
> >years, and then you still have discussion of the
> >compiler it produces.  We are planning to implement
> >the compiler itself (not necessarily the IDE...) in C,
> >and we fully intend to include a compile-to-C option,
> >so then you have porting -- it is all very long-term.

> Surely it will be implemented in itself?

That is an eventual possibility, yes, but the general consensus
is that while the IDE can be written in Basic of some kind,
the compiler itself will need to be written at least
partly in C or Assembler.  Since it will be compiling to both
of those languages, no one who does not know at least one
of them would be able to do much with it anyway.

Quote:
> Obviously, the first go will have to be in something else, but a
> language that can't compile itself seems a bit silly to me.

Depends what it is for.  

Time to let a wild kitty out of the proverbial shapeless
container:  I have been thinking strongly in terms of
*eventually* adding almost the entire C language into it
(once it already does all of QuickBasic, of course), so
that a programmer could mix Basic and C source code
at will and compile it with one compiler.  This would
obviously be a way-down-the-road feature, of course,
and, like all, would be implemented in stages, adding
in support for the easiest or most important C stuff
first.  Also, any C usage which conflicts with a Basic
usage would not be included, unless perhaps it would
need to be prefixed with a compiler directive to allow
it to be interpreted as C.  

In order to prevent new keywords from making old
code obsolete, we would simply have an OPTION VERSION
command, and each reserved word would be reserved
beginning with a certain version number.  So version
3 code would compile fine under version 11 if you just
insert the line OPTION VERSION 3 at the top.  Programmers
would be encouraged to always use the OPTION VERSION
directive even when using the latest version so as
to save trouble later.  

ADVANTAGES TO COMPILING BASIC AND C TOGETHER:

  1.  Basic programmers could learn C on-the-fly
      and as necessary -- similar to the way
      GW-BASIC programmers learn QBasic or the
      way QBasic programmers learn Quick Basic.
      You learn a new feature when you need it,
      but you already know a subset, so you can
      write actual programs as you learn.

  2.  Basic has some *really* nice features that
      C lacks.  C programmers do not like to
      admit it, but it is true.  Some of those
      "beginner's" features are very handy for
      advanced programmers, as well.

  3.  C has some very nice capabilities that
      most dialects of Basic rather lack.  

  4.  C programmers are used to writing things
      like compilers, so once we get a working
      version we can probably get a lot of help
      with the hard parts.

  5.  C is the ultimate in portability, unless
      you count 7-bit ASCII text.  More on
      portability later...

So I think we should keep C in the backs of our
heads and start adding features from C when we
run out of BASIC features to implement.  Of course,
the Basic takes precedence.  

For example, I would like to see
all of the following supported:

(Note:  these syntaxes may not be exact as I am rusty
 especially on my C syntax.)

Assignment:
--------------------------------
let a = b       (old BASIC)
a = b           (modern BASIC, C)
a := b          (Pascal)
--------------------------------

Comparison:
--------------------------------
if (a = b)      (Basic)
if (a==b)       (C)
(I do not remember off the top of my head how Pascal does this.)
--------------------------------

Both at once:
--------------------------------
if (a:=b)       (new hybrid form)
#LANG=C: if (a=b)
                (or somesuch -- the way to use C syntax in one place only)
OPTION LANG=C
...
if (a=b)
                (A whole program in C as the default language,
                with overrides for BASIC stuff.)
--------------------------------

Quote:
> As you're going to make the source code available (well, I assume so,
> given that you said it would fall under something lie the GNU
> copyleft)

Source code will be available once it is worth having.

Quote:
> and people who are interested are BASIC programmers, it
> being a BASIC project, why are you doing it in C? Speed reasons?

Speed, memory usage, flexibility.  I am a strong proponent of
using Basic to do stuff people do not think about doing in
Basic.  I do stuff in QBasic that normal people do in Perl.

But a compiler stresses the limit, and we do not want to
end up rewriting it in C when we find we need a feature
that is not available in Basic.  

Quote:
> Is
> time-to-compile *that* important compared to easy code
> understandability?

I sincerely hope we can include enough good comments in
our code to make it easy to follow even for those who
do not know C.

Quote:
> I'd love to get involved in this, but I can't code
> in C, because I hate the blasted language. That's why I read clbm :-)

My only experience with C so far has been bad, but at the
time I had no manual or text, so I give the language the
benefit of the doubt.  Also, I think C++ is worse than
C in this regard.

Quote:
> Question: is there some kind of wish-list somewhere? If there is, I'd
> like a loko at it, since I've got a couple of suggestions. The main
> one is the ability to cross-compile to other OSes; if you could do
> that, and the compiler was written in itself, then ports would be a
> breeze :-)

We definitely plan to include a "compile to C" feature.
Name a system you would want to port it to that does not have
a free C compiler, and we'll possibly consider the eventuality
of compiling cross-platform to binaries, but it would be about
500 times as much work as compiling to C and would be about
half as reliable when finished.  And it would be essentially
impossible for Unix-style OSes, since even a binary compiled
under one version of, say, Linux, will not work under a
different version of the same kernel, or with an earlier
version of the dynamic libraries, etc.  Basic has you spoiled,
but cross-platform is really quite hard, unless you are doing
text adventures and compiling in TADS or Inform -- and that
is only sort of cross-platform, because really you are
compiling for a Virtual Machine and running in an emulator.

But wouldn't the compile-to-C option allow easy porting if we
wrote it in itself?  Compile to C, and then compile that
result on any platform -- voila.  Incidentally, this is a
good reason to code it in C instead of Assembler.  Porting.
If we write the IDE in Basic and the compiler in C, then
we can compile the IDE using the compile-to-C option to
obtain C source for the whole thing, which can then be
ported.  Development of the IDE, of course, can continue
to be done in Basic, with the C being used for porting.

Some platforms would
still be extremely tricky (Acorn, for example, or Pilot),
but there is nothing we could do to make that any easier,
so far as I know.

Now, writing it in itself gets *much* easier once we have
it to the point where it can compile all of QuickBasic
code and a fair amount of C as well.  

Sticky points about porting, regardless of how
it is done:  
        DEF SEG
        CALL ABSOLUTE
        Compile-to-binary (We may only support this one for DOS
                and Windoze platforms, although it should be
                able, if ported to another OS, to compile a DOS
                EXE while running under that OS.)

--
At Your Service,
Jonadab the Unsightly One.




Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project
If some think this proposed name is too long, why not just shorten it up
a bit?

instead of

   alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

use

alt.lang.basic.cmplr.proj



Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:
>If some think this proposed name is too long, why not just shorten it up
>a bit?

>instead of

>   alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>use

>alt.lang.basic.cmplr.proj

Because it's butt-ugly and unclear? There's no concern about the length
of individual components of the name. Alt.lang.basic.compiler-project
would be a reasonable name for the group; if there are still some 14-char
sticklers out there, i'd go alt.lang.basic.compiler-proj.

The problem with the current name is that it creates a subhierarchy,
alt.lang.basic.compiler, and there probably won't be any other groups
in the alt.lang.basic.compiler hierarchy other than 'project'. It's
known as an 'orphan hierarchy' in the FAQs.

  -Rich

--
Rich Lafferty ---------------------------------------------------------
IITS/Computing Services     |      
Concordia University        |    Nothing sucks like a Vax! (tm)



Mon, 05 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

>> Dear alt.config people, I would appreciate it if you'd look
>> at this:

>> Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>Why this particular name?

>It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

It was chosen because it is descriptive of the cause and it does not create
another (unwanted) second-level hierarchy, and alt.lang.* already exists.

Quote:
>> The purpose of this newsgroup is as a centralized source of
>> information for the ongoing project to create a free
>> QuickBasic 4.5
>> clone. QB4.5 is no longer supported by Microsoft and is
>> available in
>> very low quantities at high prices. We intend to create a
>> usable
>> free alternative.

>What happens when you finish (assuming you start, even)?
>Will the group continue to exist (as alt groups do) without
>a purpose?

It won't finish. Was Linux finished when version 1.0 released? I think there
is consent for that it will be released under the GNU General Public
Licence, and thus,anyone can suddenly jump on or off the project.

Quote:
>> Announcements of releases of new versions of other dialects
>> of Basic,
>> however, may be considered tangentially related.

>Are there not existing groups for this?

Yes, but that isn't the point here... The main point of ALBCP is the Free
QuickBasic replacement project, but this topic may be considered
tangentially related, as it is. It doesn't make it the main reason for this
group.

Quote:
>> Justification of readership

>> Discussion of this project is currently taking place in
>> alt.lang.basic, comp.lang.basic.misc and
>> microsoft.public.basic.dos.

>Seems reasonable.

>> Over the past few weeks there have been a total of:
>> 152* individual (discounting crossposting) posts
>> By over 30 individual posters.

>how long will it last?

How can we know?

--

Siggy
Federate rank - Private
Imperial title - Master
Elite rating - Average



Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:
>>> > Proposal for: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>>> Why this particular name?

>>> It is a bit long; is there a reason it cannot be shorter?

>>We considered several possibilities.

>>Most of them began with alt.basic, but we wanted
>>to fit within the heirarchy, so we added lang.
>>alt.lang.basic.compiler would not be specific enough,
>>and neither would alt.lang.basic.project.  We consider
>>alt.lang.basic.compiler.design, but it is nearly as long.

>Do you perhaps mean "compiler-design" and/or "compiler-project"? A
>dash separates words in a newsgroup name; a period delimits hierarchies.
>"compiler.project" implies the existence of other "alt.lang.basic.compiler"
>groups.

>That said, if the group is primarily for developers to communicate, I
>*strongly* recommend a mailing list; it's seldom that that sort of
>discussion lends itself to unmoderated Usenet.

>  -Rich

We ahve discussed the possibilty of a mailing list, but want to be more
"open". Note that a newsgroup lends itself more to users, who can post
feedback and report bugs in the newsgroup.

I believe there has been 100% consent among us to create a newsgroup, not a
mailing list. (Though I have to admit, my memory is, well - not the greatest
:-)

--

Siggy
Federate rank - Private
Imperial title - Master
Elite rating - Average



Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:

>If some think this proposed name is too long, why not just shorten it up
>a bit?

>instead of

>   alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>use

>alt.lang.basic.cmplr.proj

No. No-no-no-no-no... keywords are to be recogisable, so ppl looking for
them can use the actual keywords, not 101 abbreviations.

--

Siggy
Federate rank - Private
Imperial title - Master
Elite rating - Average



Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Proposal: alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

Quote:


>>If some think this proposed name is too long, why not just shorten it up
>>a bit?

>>instead of

>>   alt.lang.basic.compiler.project

>>use

>>alt.lang.basic.cmplr.proj

>Because it's butt-ugly and unclear? There's no concern about the length
>of individual components of the name. Alt.lang.basic.compiler-project
>would be a reasonable name for the group; if there are still some 14-char
>sticklers out there, i'd go alt.lang.basic.compiler-proj.

>The problem with the current name is that it creates a subhierarchy,
>alt.lang.basic.compiler, and there probably won't be any other groups
>in the alt.lang.basic.compiler hierarchy other than 'project'. It's
>known as an 'orphan hierarchy' in the FAQs.

Yes, but an orphan hierarchy is better than a new second-level hierarchy,
which seems to be the best/worst alternative.

--

Siggy
Federate rank - Private
Imperial title - Master
Elite rating - Average



Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 52 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Proposal: alt.lang.business-basic

2. alt.lang.basic.compiler

3. alt.lang.basic.compiler

4. alt.lang.basic.compiler control message sent

5. Thought for Proposal: alt.lang.powerbasic

6. alt.lang.powerbasic - Update on original proposal

7. Proposal: alt.comp.lang.visualbasic.ver3

8. alt.lang.powerbasic - Update on original proposal

9. Proposal: alt.binaries.examples.vb4 , alt.binaries.examples.vcpp , alt.binaries.examples.java

10. Proposal: alt.binaries.examples.vb4 , alt.binaries.examples.vcpp , alt.binaries.examples.java

11. comp.lang.basic.visual.3rdparty,comp.lang.basic.visual.database,comp., lang.basic.visual.misc

12. Events: ProjectBeforeTaskChange/ProjectBeforeTaskDelete

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software