|
|
Post by mikeukmid on Oct 2, 2007 9:16:31 GMT -5
Having only recently joined the forum, I have produced my first working RB program (see RB code sharing). The code may not be too pretty but the result I like!
What is confusing me is that I thought RB was to be a basic language but seems to need a mishmash of basic, html, css and javascript to do anything with eyecandy. That is not meant as a criticism but may put off a lot of potential users who have not met these before.
I may have this completely wrong but would it not be better to avoid css etc by building-in styling into basic...
as an example:
div myMainDiv(float:left,width:300,height:300,align:center,(font face:arial,size:2, color:blue) )
print "This would be rendered in a page area 300x300 in size 2 arial font."
end div
The styling becomes part of basic rather than css although behind the scenes it would be the same thing.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun and that is what later releases will be.
If so apologies, but if not then pontential customers may be thwarted by having to learn html, css et al.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlgundel on Oct 2, 2007 9:22:36 GMT -5
Having only recently joined the forum, I have produced my first working RB program (see RB code sharing). The code may not be too pretty but the result I like! What is confusing me is that I thought RB was to be a basic language but seems to need a mishmash of basic, html, css and javascript to do anything with eyecandy. That is not meant as a criticism but may put off a lot of potential users who have not met these before. I may have this completely wrong but would it not be better to avoid css etc by building-in styling into basic... as an example:
div myMainDiv(float:left,width:300,height:300,align:center,(font face:arial,size:2, color:blue) )
print "This would be rendered in a page area 300x300 in size 2 arial font."
end div
The styling becomes part of basic rather than css although behind the scenes it would be the same thing. Maybe I'm jumping the gun and that is what later releases will be. If so apologies, but if not then pontential customers may be thwarted by having to learn html, css et al. You have a point, but I think there's a balance to be struck here. Run BASIC is a creature of the browser after all, and so it is mired in web-isms. Have you tried programming using Apache and Perl? Run BASIC is amazingly simpler despite its foibles.  In the future we may have a second generation web BASIC that emerges from the lessons we learn with Run BASIC. I don't think we've learned them yet. BTW, your suggested CSS syntax is interesting and warrants some consideration. Thanks! -Carl |
|
rod
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by rod on Oct 6, 2007 13:18:52 GMT -5
I fully understand Run BASIC needs to use CSS and XML and HTML statements. I understand that Run BASIC adds scripting power to these markup syntaxes, I hesitate to use the word languages.
But it ain't BASIC, the discussions on this forum are as far removed from BASIC as I could imagine.
Now that isn't a bad thing but I believe you need to clarify your market. It is clearly for HTML aware coders and BASIC gurus enter at your peril.
Just sparking debate/thought.
In fact Run BASIC, as a literal, is pretty far off the mark. How about BASIC ML or BML. Now every programmer on the planet would recognise what BASIC ML meant. They might be surprised at how much HTML was in there but hey the scripting is BASIC.
I did kinda believe that I could paste BASIC page content but that isn't going to happen. I need to learn HTML before I could achieve anything with Run BASIC. Perhaps not a bad thing but something I did not expect from my perceptions of the product.
Don't get me wrong, BASIC scripting of web content has a million miles to run but I believe you need to seperate the two coding styles/camps
|
|
|
|
Post by carlgundel on Oct 6, 2007 13:57:27 GMT -5
But it ain't BASIC, the discussions on this forum are as far removed from BASIC as I could imagine. I could make the same argument about Liberty BASIC. It isn't BASIC because it has all this funky Windows stuff built into it. RB is BASIC, and in fact you don't need to learn any of the fancy web stuff to use it. It's perfect for an educational setting teaching programming in a contemporary setting because you can teach BASIC without even touching the web part, and you can then teach the web part after they learn BASIC. The reason I think there isn't much actual discussion of BASIC in this forum is because the BASIC part of the language needs no special attention. Everyone already knows how to use that part. -Carl |
|
|
|
Post by carlgundel on Oct 6, 2007 14:02:12 GMT -5
But it ain't BASIC, the discussions on this forum are as far removed from BASIC as I could imagine. I could make the same argument about Liberty BASIC. It isn't BASIC because it has all this funky Windows stuff built into it. RB is BASIC, and in fact you don't need to learn any of the fancy web stuff to use it. It's perfect for an educational setting teaching programming in a contemporary setting because you can teach BASIC without even touching the web part, and you can then teach the web part after they learn BASIC. The reason I think there isn't much actual discussion of BASIC in this forum is because the BASIC part of the language needs no special attention. Everyone already knows how to use that part. I should also add that Run BASIC programming is nothing like web programming in the large. Just look at the examples on the runbasic.com site for example. Do those examples have code that make you think they are written for a web browser? -Carl |
|
rod
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by rod on Oct 6, 2007 15:28:25 GMT -5
No and thats where my confusion originates. The product name perhaps focuses my dilema in understanding. "Run BASIC" implies a web based resource to code and run BASIC programs. The stuff that all Liberty and Just BASIC forum users love. spirals, tic tac toe etc etc. Just exactly the kind of thing your demo site hosts. And the language is BASIC with funky web stuff.
However, "BASIC ML", my own alternative product name implies a BASIC style language to script and "markup" web content. The user would never be aware they were viewing a Run BASIC scripted web page.
So, which is it? perhaps it does not matter one supports and allows the other.
I'll watch and learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Muelver on Oct 6, 2007 18:59:14 GMT -5
Don't get hooked on the name, Rod. The name of a language doesn't really matter. Some of the other languages I've used for programming don't tell a heck of lot by their names -- C, Lisp, Snobol, Pilot, Prolog, awk, Aurora, TCL, bourne, korn, AppleSoft, FORTRAN, Pascal, Postscript, runoff, troff, nroff, Perl, Squeak, Smalltalk.... the list goes on, and on. What do those names tell you? Think of Run BASIC as RB, and go with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by carlgundel on Oct 6, 2007 21:58:26 GMT -5
Don't get hooked on the name, Rod. The name of a language doesn't really matter. Some of the other languages I've used for programming don't tell a heck of lot by their names -- C, Lisp, Snobol, Pilot, Prolog, awk, Aurora, TCL, bourne, korn, AppleSoft, FORTRAN, Pascal, Postscript, runoff, troff, nroff, Perl, Squeak, Smalltalk.... the list goes on, and on. What do those names tell you? Think of Run BASIC as RB, and go with that. It's interesting that Rod associated the name Run BASIC with our site at runbasic.com in the way he did, because it makes sense that way. A site for running BASIC code. I picked the word Run because it is associated with the BASIC language (what old time BASIC coder doesn't remember typing RUN about 10 million times?), but it works well also the way he explained it.  -Carl |
|
|
|
Post by StefanPendl on Oct 8, 2007 17:20:05 GMT -5
One can start with Run BASIC and create web based applications easily. When time has come it is easy to add some eye candy using HTML and CSS |
|
|
|
Post by carlgundel on Oct 8, 2007 17:42:10 GMT -5
One can start with Run BASIC and create web based applications easily. When time has come it is easy to add some eye candy using HTML and CSS That's exactly what I did with the calculator and blog example programs. Make the program work, then add the visual tweaks. -Carl |
|
