Talk:PowerBASIC

Archives

Archive 1 (August 2006—April 2008)

Programming Language

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about a WIkibook project? Poetcsw (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing the unsourced sections

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)[reply]

I go with that. I think I have the PC Magazine ref tracked: this Russian site [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suggestion for improved description of the capacity of the PowerBASIC dialect of basic.

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)[reply]

Improving the Article

I agree, this article is an advertisement and needs to provide more complete information. I believe it is essential to add information about the controversy surrounding the treatment of customers of powerbasic. Many have been banned, including myself, and possibly defamatory statement redacted per WP:BLP by Gordonofcartoon. There are also many issues with the language that are not mentioned and need to be covered.

I would like to add a section in the article to this effect. Feedback is welcome.

MikeTrader (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is essential to add information about the controversy surrounding the treatment of customers of powerbasic.

Is it mentioned in any source that's reliable per WP:V? Stuff collected from a forum isn't usable -and please will you stop posting possibly defamatory statements. See WP:GREATWRONGS; Wikipedia isn't a venue for telling the world about some company's misdeeds. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your feedback. There are many examples on Wikipedia of such information. I will research and find some to quote. Again, this is the DICUSSION area. In my opinion, and that of at least one other, this article is an advertisment. I would like to discuss this further. I understand the information in the forums cannot be used a source for the article, but it is relevant as a base for discussion for inclusion.

Here is an example. "Some developers felt that the APIs of the EJB standard were far more complex than those developers were used to. An abundance of checked exceptions, required interfaces, and the implementation of the bean class as an abstract class were all unusual and counter-intuitive for many programmers." While this is disputed (and appropriately marked as such), it is very valid background and in the main article. As someone researching this, I now have more information.

This article would benefit from content like this especially when the owner of powerbasic is frequently making statements like these and there are numerous userbase issues. Your continued whitewash of this article and even valid contributions to this discussion leave serious doubt about your neutrality. Perhaps you should step aside and allow another senior member to manage this article.

MikeTrader (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, Bob Zale was a brilliant programmer, under each level as a businessman, and an asshole as a person! --193.83.133.228 (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Not list on page

External Link but No Third Party Discription

On the wiki page with External Links and Third Part Description

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Turbo Basic merge into PowerBASIC proposal

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)[reply]

An excellent suggestion which I support fully! --62.47.245.4 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Dadu (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Turbo Basic was merged into PowerBASIC on 10 September 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The end of PowerBASIC

It's a shame that the PowerBASIC website is offline! It is still a living language. 2003:DC:7F33:3EE7:5DB2:F630:93A6:E04C (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion re: User Community

Why is @Plasticwonder reverting legitimate, well-sourced changes to the “User community” section without explanation?

No edit summary or policy-based rationale has been provided (e.g., which content standards were allegedly not met). This section documents the user community, not an official PowerBASIC-owned entity.

Clarification of factual points:

The vendor-maintained PowerBASIC forums were not formally taken down; rather, they became inaccessible due to lack of maintenance. DNS records for the forum subdomain were allowed to lapse, and while the site could briefly be accessed directly via locally mapped DNS/IP address in hosts, expired SSL certificates ultimately rendered the forums unusable to the public. This distinction is factual and important.
In response, members of the PowerBASIC user community established a crowd-funded, independently operated forum to preserve continuity of discussion, technical support, and historical knowledge. This was a community-driven effort to prevent loss of accumulated expertise and archival material.

This information is directly relevant to readers seeking to understand the current state of the PowerBASIC ecosystem, particularly since many long-time experts and contributors transitioned to the new community platform. Its inclusion aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of accurately documenting notable developments surrounding a subject and its user base. Gbleck (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to summon me, at least:

1. Know that this has no source, which is not acceptable

2. Dont use AI, as you have clearly done here. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 14:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original text WAS human written and only gently smoothed using AI. If somone takes the time to examine the website themselves the issue is obvious to anyone technical (add this to hosts... 104.18.224.24 forum.powerbasic.com). The manual DNS entry gets you to the site, and the site reports the certificate error. As one of the aforementioned community, I am well-versed and positioned to report these changes and did so accurately and in a neutral tone as I lived them day to day. If you know anything about PowerBASIC at all, the brain trust of still active expertise is reflected here https://pbusers.org/forum/memberlist.php. This membership consists of the vast majority of active/remaining experts on PowerBASIC, all routinely posting at the new community site. Additionally, the corpus of searchable, archival posts from the now inaccessible vendor sponsored forum, is located here https://pbusers.org/forum/app.php/old-bb. Gbleck (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasticwonder - Perhaps these additional references will aid as sources. PUMP (PowerBASIC Users Meet-up Point) was a fail-safe location for the community to collect if the main PowerBASIC forums ever went down (this was routinely starting to happen due to lack of maintenance). The DNS issues are documented here: http://pump.richheimer.de/showthread.php?tid=57 (requires an approved account to view) and the establishment of a new community forum is documented here http://pump.richheimer.de/showthread.php?tid=62 Gbleck (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither meet the requirement, as forum posts are in no way reliable, nor do we use them. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 16:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, lets ignore forums posts, it is still definitively provable (as stated in those posts) and I did cite how, follow the process I supplied (more than happy to detail even further for those not aware how to update their host file) and it shows the site is actually still there, and it reports the certificate error. All factual statements in my edit. Counter to this, where is a citation proving that the site was taken down, why was this not challenged/redacted? Factually speaking, the owners of PowerBASIC specifically said they were to keep the forums open (https://web.archive.org/web/20250222191835/https://forum.powerbasic.com/forum/announcements-articles-and-support-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/833672-powerbasic-website-and-forums#post833672). The site is not, in-fact, gone; it is there, but not maintained, and inaccessible behind unresolved DNS and certificate issues. Also, not sure how (or WHY) I need to prove the existence of a User Community that does actually exist; this is a critical update so lost members can find where the flock went. Blocking this information is a huge disservice to those looking for where the community went, along with its collective knowledge. the intent needs to be understood clearly that we are looking to connect community. Gbleck (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]