RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic 
Author Message
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
             unmoderated group comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.basic.powerbasic.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.

Newsgroup line:
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic      PowerBasic Inc. programming languages.

RATIONALE: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

PowerBasic Inc. has released several innovative programming languages
over time: The popular PowerBasic for DOS, A 16- and 32-bit 'Visual'
Basic for windows, and a newsly released console compiler for
Win95/NT. A previous version of the PB/DOS compiler has been
re-released as shareware.

While there is an alt.* relating PowerBasic, this has proven to be
inaccessible to a lot of interested people. By now, well over a
hundred people have already expressed their desire for a widespread
newsgroup specifically aimed at PowerBasic products. Newsgroups in the
comp.* hierarchy are carried by most newsservers, as opposed to a lot
of alt.* newsgroups. As such, the comp.* hierarchy is preferable since
it guarantees a much wider distribution or your questions / answers.

CHARTER: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

This newsgroup is a forum for the public discussion of all PowerBasic
Inc. programming languages -- PB/DOS, PB/DLL, PC/CC, PBDK, FirstBasic,
and related products. A meeting point to exchange programming ideas,
help one another, share sourcecode or point out available resources.

The group is intended for plain text or sourcecode only: no binaries.
Advertising is limited to PB-related issues, such as 3rd party
add-ons, new PowerBasic products, or PB websites. Commercial adds
should not be posted more frequently than once a week.

END CHARTER.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".  Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:

  news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
  comp.lang.basic.misc, alt.lang.powerbasic, alt.lang.basic




Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

[posted to news.groups and comp.lang.basic.misc]

Quote:
>                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>              unmoderated group comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.basic.powerbasic.

I don't believe that a comp.lang.basic.powerbasic group is needed, myself.
QuickBasic, the language covered most in comp.lang.basic.misc, is very similar
to PowerBasic and I don't think there are enough PowerBasic-specific posts or
questions to warrant a split. The traffic in comp.lang.basic.misc is just not
high enough for a new newsgroup to be necessary, IMO.

Most of the questions recieved in c.l.b.m are from beginners, and in these cases
there is often no difference between the PowerBasic solution and the QuickBasic
one.

All a new newsgroup is likely to achieve is a higher volume of crossposts and
spam to the comp.lang.basic.misc, alt.lang.basic, alt.lang.powerbasic and
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic newsgroups.

-EE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see my name in lights everywhere...


to the email address above)



Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

(alt.lang.powerbasic restored to newsgroups line.  Please don't trim the only
 newsgroup frequented by powerbasic users. a.l.pb readers; be sure to go to the
 news.groups newsgroup and comment on this newsgroup proposal.)

Quote:

>I don't believe that a comp.lang.basic.powerbasic group is needed, myself.
>QuickBasic, the language covered most in comp.lang.basic.misc, is very similar
>to PowerBasic and I don't think there are enough PowerBasic-specific posts or
>questions to warrant a split. The traffic in comp.lang.basic.misc is just not
>high enough for a new newsgroup to be necessary, IMO.

The traffic in alt.lang.powerbasic alone is high enough to justify
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic.  There is a demonstrated interest.

QuickBasic for DOS is a dead language. PowerBasic for DOS is fully supported
by the vendor.  Also, the differences are very significant.  PB has pointers
and inline assembly language with all PB structures defined for accessability
via pointers or assembly.  This is "C" territory, and no other Basic has this
kind of functionality.  PB for the NT console is unique among windows based
programming languages.  All of this justifies this new newsgroup, in my opinion.



Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic


Quote:


>>>                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>              unmoderated group comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

>>I don't believe that a comp.lang.basic.powerbasic group is needed, myself.
>>QuickBasic, the language covered most in comp.lang.basic.misc, is very similar
>>to PowerBasic and I don't think there are enough PowerBasic-specific posts or
>>questions to warrant a split. The traffic in comp.lang.basic.misc is just not
>>high enough for a new newsgroup to be necessary, IMO.

>You do have a point here when it comes to the 'entry-level' questions. In
>those cases, the popular basic flavours are almost completely compatible
>with one another.

>However, The proposed newsgroup also deals with PB/DLL and PB/CC windows
>programming, which is substantially different from QuickBasic.

>You are undoubtedly aware of the mixed feelings MS Visual Basic related
>postings can count on in alt.lang.basic and comp.lang.basic.misc.

>Considering the very recent release & current shipping of PowerGen, a
>RAD-tool for PB/DLL and a completely new windows compiler called PB/CC,
>the number of postings regarding visual programming is bound to increase as
>well - and most of these messages will not be helpful at all to people who
>use Quickbasic, which is still the largest group of programmers in clbm.

>But of course this is just my opinion, you're entitled to your own.

I suspect that the differences will become even greater in the future.
QB is a fine language, but there aren't any new versions coming out.


Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

|>
|> >                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
|> >              unmoderated group comp.lang.basic.powerbasic
|> >
|> I don't believe that a comp.lang.basic.powerbasic group is needed, myself.
|> QuickBasic, the language covered most in comp.lang.basic.misc, is very similar
|> to PowerBasic [...]

Actually, PB/DOS is a superset of QB45, with very significant
differences. Where most QB45 code can quickly be coerced into
compiling under PowerBasic, code written for PowerBasic by an
experienced PB-user often makes use of features that cannot be
translated to QB45 without mild-to-extreme pain.

I find that I tend to self-censor my PB-based knowledge when
posting to c.l.b.m., in order to make my answers more useful
to the QBasic/QB45 majority. For example, I never use CALL
INTERRUPT in any of my code, because PB/DOS allows me to use
an inline assembler. For this reason, I never post code
concerning interrupts at all, since my interrupt code would
be useless to most members of c.l.b.m., and probably
incomprehensible, too.

Because PowerBasic, Inc. products are increasingly aimed at the
MS-Windows OS, a great many articles that would be on-topic in
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic would be off-topic in c.l.b.m. anyway.
That provides a good rationale for creating such a group.

|> and I don't think there are enough PowerBasic-specific posts or
|> questions to warrant a split. The traffic in comp.lang.basic.misc is just not
|> high enough for a new newsgroup to be necessary, IMO.

At present, alt.lang.powerbasic receives the majority of PB-specific
posts. It is my belief that after the creation of c.l.b.p. that
c.l.b.m. would scarcely feel a ripple of change, but that traffic
in the powerbasic newsgroup(s) would see at least a mild increase, if
not more, as more Windows-based articles came on line, concerning the
use of PB/DLL and PB/CC compilers.

|> Most of the questions recieved in c.l.b.m are from beginners, and in these cases
|> there is often no difference between the PowerBasic solution and the QuickBasic
|> one.

That is true, but not entirely relevant. Comp.lang.basic.powerbasic
would serve a different client-group, because owners of PB products (aside
from FirstBasic) do not tend to be beginners, or ask beginner questions.
In c.l.b.m. the PB contingent tend to be the answer-givers, rather
than the question-askers.

|> All a new newsgroup is likely to achieve is a higher volume of crossposts and
|> spam to the comp.lang.basic.misc, alt.lang.basic, alt.lang.powerbasic and
|> comp.lang.basic.powerbasic newsgroups.

I cannot agree with this conclusion.

--
Brian McLaughlin, Technical Writer  |"Thanks to the Internet, misinformation
Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.| now travels faster than ever before!"
Beaverton, OR, USA                  | ---- Standard disclaimer applies ----



Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

Quote:


>>>>                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>>              unmoderated group comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

  Good idea. A moderated newsgroup would be evn better!

.



Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

It was Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:45:51 GMT, and in front of the crowd at
comp.lang.basic.misc, Marc van den Dikkenberg staggered up to the Chief
Commander and spilt the following into his trousers:

Quote:
> Considering the very recent release & current shipping of PowerGen, a
> RAD-tool for PB/DLL and a completely new windows compiler called PB/CC,
> the number of postings regarding visual programming is bound to increase as
> well - and most of these messages will not be helpful at all to people who
> use Quickbasic, which is still the largest group of programmers in clbm.

You have a point there, I suppose. But, how many posts would there be? If there
aren't going to be many posts on PB/CC and PB/DLL then is there much point in a
new newsgroup? (I don't actually know myself, by the way <g>)

Maybe it would be better to "wait and see"... or then again, maybe not.

I do not subscribe to alt.lang.powerbasic - how many posts does this particular
group recieve per day, on average? This would help in deciding whether there is
a need for a "mainstream" PowerBasic group.

-EE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see my name in lights everywhere...


to the email address above)



Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

Quote:

>It was 17 Jun 1998 10:30:54 GMT, and in front of the crowd at
>comp.lang.basic.misc, Guy Macon staggered up to the Chief Commander and spilt
>the following into his trousers:

>> QuickBasic for DOS is a dead language. PowerBasic for DOS is fully supported
>> by the vendor.  Also, the differences are very significant.  PB has pointers
>> and inline assembly language with all PB structures defined for accessability
>> via pointers or assembly.  This is "C" territory, and no other Basic has this
>> kind of functionality.  PB for the NT console is unique among windows based
>> programming languages.  All of this justifies this new newsgroup, in my opinion.

>You've got a point there, but are the differences big enough to warrant a new
>group? There are relatively few PB-specific posts appearing in
>comp.lang.basic.misc at the moment, which do not (yet) seem to cause any
>annoyance among subscribers. With the recent release of PB/DLL and PB/CC, how
>many more PB-specific posts are we likely to recieve? And how many of these
>posts will be specific to PB/DLL/CC and will not apply to PowerBasic 3.5 at all?

>At the moment, I don't think there are enough Powerbasic-specific posts
>appearing in c.l.b.m to make a split necessary. And if there were to be a split,
>I wonder how relevant PB(DOS) posts will be to the Windows versions of
>Powerbasic. Maybe there should be newsgroups for these Windows versions only?
>Perhaps something like comp.lang.basic.windows?

Why are you assuming that there need to be enough Powerbasic-specific posts
appearing in c.l.b.m to justify a Powerbasic newsgroup?  The guidlines say
that the proponent should demontrate traffic *somewhere*, be it a mailing
list, alt.* newsgroup, or whatever. There *is* enough traffic.  It's just
not in the comp.lang.basic.misc newsgroup.  Look at alt.lang.powerbasic
and at the web based ewsgroup at http://www.powerbasic.com/support/bbs
and you will see plenty of traffic.


Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

Quote:

>I have trimmed back to news.groups because these discussions aren't
>supposed to take place in the concerned groups.

Please don't.  There is no such rule in any of the RFCs or FAQs.  


Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:04:11 -0400, "Mark Stang"

Quote:

>I believe that this newsgroup is needed, for the reasons cited above.
>Powerbasic is now a large range of BASIC products, including a shareware
>compiler for DOS, a retail compiler for DOS and Windows, an console compiler
>for WIN32 (which no-one else has) RAD tools like PB/Vision and PowerGen, and
>other BASIC tools.  These BASIC tools are being actively developed, unlike
>Quickbasic, VBDOS, and PDS, and are consequently adding new features that
>are powerbasic specific.  Discussion of powerbasic specific issues need not
>take up bandwidth on other basic newsgroups.  Especially discussion of the
>new console compiler and the RAD tools, which have no close analogue in the
>other BASICS discussed on the generic BASIC newsgroups.  So for these
>reasons I believe the group should be added.

I think the newsgroup would be a good idea for a reason related to
something you said here:

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of all of the VB/Win articles that get
posted here. In a PB newsgroup this wouldn't happen except for thos
legitimate cases in which VB is being used with PB/DLL.

Gary J. Sibio
mr. travel, inc.



Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 RFD: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

It was 18 Jun 1998 11:39:07 GMT, and in front of the crowd at
comp.lang.basic.misc, Guy Macon staggered up to the Chief Commander and spilt
the following into his trousers:

Quote:
> Why are you assuming that there need to be enough Powerbasic-specific posts
> appearing in c.l.b.m to justify a Powerbasic newsgroup?

Because if there aren't that many, these posts could easily be accommadated in
the existing comp.lang.basic.misc.

I'm not saying that there AREN'T enough though, because I haven't got any
reliable statistics.

ee
--
Alex Warren, aka Emergency Exit

icq:   4043750

http://come.to/axe            - Axe Software: freeware for DOS & Windows
http://come.to/basixfanzine  - Basix Fanzine: magazine for BASIC programmers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

to the email address above)



Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 50 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 Relevant Pages 

1. RFD: comp.lang.basic.realbasic

2. RFD: comp.lang.basic.visual.{16bit,32bit,internet}

3. RFD: comp.lang.basic.business moderated

4. RFD: comp.lang.basic.visual.{16bit,32bit,internet}

5. comp.lang.basic.VB3 and comp.lang.basic.VB4

6. Should we create comp.lang.basic.powerbasic?

7. RFD: comp.lang.drainpipe

8. RFD: comp.lang.asm.x86

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

10. BASIC.FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions on comp.lang.basic.misc

11. REQ: comp.lang.basic.misc.FAQ and ini help

12. FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions in comp.lang.basic.misc

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software