Talk:PowerBASIC

message: I created the Programming Language section in hopes that it can be filled out by the community and on a latter date be moved to create a "PowerBASIC the programming language" Wikipedia page. --Cory Marshall (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cory, what structure do you have in mind for this section? Presumably the structure would be consistent with your proposed new page. That would help people to know where/in what form to contribute. --ChrisHolbrook (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This turned out to be allot harder question to answer then i thought.  After checking-out a smalltalk, objective-c, c++, and Java (programming language) I got even more confused,  however i did notice some similarities.  They have a History section with some type of principles/philosophy, syntax, standard library, and a criticism section.  Given the advancements in the language additional sections covering the DDT, GRAPHIC, etc. could also be included. --Cory Marshall (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What about a WIkibook project? Poetcsw (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming Language 

message: At present the article reads like an advertisement, and there is not much reflection on the quality of PowerBASIC by outsiders, except for the two book references that were added recently. The tone of the article would be improved, in my opinion, if the unsourced sections were removed:
*Notable language features
*Syntax
*PowerBASIC history
In the Reference section, I suggest removing Gerald Krug's book, which is available from Lulu, a self-publishing company. Per WP:SPS self-published material shouldn't be used as a reference for any matters of fact. I suggest removing Rick Knoblaugh's review in PC Magazine. Since no publication date is provided, the review can't be looked up for purposes of verification. Please let me have your comments on these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I go with that. I think I have the PC Magazine ref tracked: this Russian site  says Volume 12 Number 16 is Sep 28 1993, which is the issue cited here as the Editor's Choice review. But that connection is really WP:SYNTH and an explicit citation is needed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Approve what Ed said. I think its fair to remove them. Ive been bold and removed stuff as above. Five Years 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that Five Years is the personal mentor of Real World Experience, I guess this sort of behavior should be expected.PowerCoder (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In that case, the same standards should be applied to the Microsoft Visual Basic article - and a few others - Correct? PowerCoder (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF - since others think the same, there's no reason to assume any inappropriate motive. (I agree, though, that programming language articles are often poorly sourced - but we can't fix everything at once). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removing the unsourced sections 

message: I have just finished reading this extended "Talk" page and notice that a reasonable amount of polemic has been posted over time about the language and its capacity by persons who appear to be hostile to PowerBASIC and its product range.
First I am not an employee of PowerBASIC Inc. and I have no financial or commercial connection to the company apart from being a paying customer who has bought and used their products for over 10 years. I regularly use the language for non-critical code ad this often includes low level code within the published Microsoft Windows API functions and direct Intel mnemonic code (assembler).
The suggestion is to produce a list of proven verifiable characteristics of the language so that the Wikipedia reader can be more properly informed about the PowerBASIC dialects of basic. Note that my suggestion is current only to the last version of the PowerBASIC compilers, versions 8.04 and the matching console compiler. The following list is a bare outline of capacities that are directly verifiable.
* 1. The language is backward compatible to the line number form of basic, even though it is not a recommended style of coding.
* 2. The language properly impliments the command and function runtime components of legacy basic.
* 3. The language has a substantial number of extensions to legacy basic in a wide range of different capacities.
* 4. The language is routinely capable of using the full range of Windows API functions.
* 5. The language has an industry standard Intel notation inline assembler.
* 6. Late versions of the language support at least a number of COM and OOP capacities.
The later capacity of COM and OOP should be properly addressed by people who have more experience in that area as I don't use that capacity in my own code.
My primary programming language is 32 bit Microsoft Assembler and on that basis I am willing to argue that the PowerBASIC dialects of basic have easily verifiable capacity in writing low level code. I will not edit the page as any suggestions of this type should be addressed by people who have proven experience using the language and here I suggest either the Vendor or some of his staff members.
Steve Hutchesson
hutch at movsd dot com
Hutch48 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for improved description of the capacity of the PowerBASIC dialect of basic. 

message: Not list on page
* Hutch’s PowerBASIC Tools   
* IFX Group PowerBASIC Source Code   
* Davar PowerBASIC routines   
* Sam’s PowerBASIC programs   
* Gary Beene’s gbSnippets   
* René Kremer’s PowerBASIC code   
* John E. Carter’s PowerBASIC code   
* Robert Seidel’s DOS code   
* van den Dikkenberg’s PowerBASIC code   
* Shannon’s Tools
External Link but No Third Party Discription
* Börje Hagsten’s Files
* Don Dickinson’s PowerBASIC code
On the wiki page with External Links and Third Part Description
* PowerBASIC company website 
* PowerBasic Support Forums
* José Roca Software
Note:  Adding more than one link to the Wikipedia article may result in Wikipedia's XLinkBot deleting all the added links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHunterPB (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'v created a Third Party section to make it easier to list the external sites and to eventual move the external links to there own legitimate Wikipedia pages. --Cory Marshall (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Article itself states that Turbo Basic was renamed PowerBASIC when it was bought back by its author; in other words, the former is simply an early version of the same product. IMHO, it would thus make more sense to deal with them in the same article, and I would suggest that PowerBASIC remain the main title, as it was known by that name for far longer. Ubcule (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent suggestion which I support fully! --62.47.245.4 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

text: +1 --Dadu (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Turbo Basic]] merge into [[PowerBASIC]] proposal