Talk:Realbasic/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Realbasic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I've removed many of the screenshots in this article. After my removals, there are five, which I think is plenty for this product. Even five may be excessive. Compare to Visual Basic, a much more prominent product which has two screenshots. Vslashg (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are the outside links to verify text of this article and sample code? where are the outside photos from independent articles (i.e. not from Real software or publications whcih get advertising dollars from RS)? Based upon your past shilling I don't believe ay of the information you are are posting and want outside articles which say it is true. I don;t know you from "Adam" and have no reason to believe anything you have to say. Its time you live up to the standards and rules you wish to impose on other people - your univerfied information is going to be removed in the same manner. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.223 (talk • contribs) .

You've tried this stunt multiple times before. We were not amused. (And you're not really making your WP:POINT very well.) Please don't do it again. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They did it again. Warrens 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the same clown who's been banned from the REAL Software mailing list, the REALbasic user forums (on numerous occasions) and realgurus (a 3rd party user forum, also on multiple occasions). They've also been active on the REALbasic newsgroups with the same tripe. I'm not terribly shocked that you're running into issues with them on the Wiki. Unfortunately, there's no end in site as this person has absolutely no rational interest in conflict resolution -- they just want to stir up trouble.

I just want to say that I appreciate everyone's tireless efforts to stem the tide of vandalism on the Wiki from this one abusive person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs) .

The AfD template was still on the page (possibly due to a revert; I admit I haven't been following this dispute), even though the discussion was closed last month with a result of speedy keep. For the sake of reference, here's the link to the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/REALbasic -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 06:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Vslashg/TruthInAdvertising_Sockpuppets is a succinct summation of what's been going on with this article for the last several weeks Warrens 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article, it talks about the article itself and I don't know if it would belong in it even if it didn't. –Tifego^(t) _{06:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

The following features are a small sampling of features removed from this product since the introduction of RB2005 and will help consumers determine the long term stability of other features mentioned within this article, which is being wrongly used to portray that everyhthing is o.k. with this product. In order for this article to be truely fair it must portray both the pros and the cons of this product, not just Real Software propaganda.

1. The original Macintosh interface was removed, a interface which Mac users had been using for years.
2. The ability to open individual project items into seperate untabbed Macintosh windows was removed.
3. The ability to have the prperties pallet and the control pallet in seperate movable windows was removed as they are now permanately affixed within a project's main window.
4. The ability to export a project as a plain text file.
5. Color pallet window removed.
6. Code spliter removed.
7. A Classic Mac icon and mask (size 16 x 12) were removed from the icon build window.
8. The ability to read the built-in Language Reference as a book was removed. Instead of the former easy to read book format in which individual subjects were explained on one scrollable page the new format utilizes hundreds of pages to examine individual subject terms, forcing the user to constantly switch back and forth among many pages.

You are nothing but product shillers for this product as you do not even follow your own rules - you remove information posted by others, yet your won information does not follow the same rules or guidelines - then when trys to make you follow your own rules you call it vandalism. This article needs to removed from Wiki is is not neutral and is only advertisement for Real software and is not a discussion of REALbasic the programming language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.72.233 (talk • contribs)

Then why don't you make it a neutral article, instead of yelling at us about it? We don't have a problem with negative things being added to the article, but we do have a problem with unsourced and unencyclopedically-worded statements going into the article. What things make this article like an advertisement, specifically, besides everything? –Tifego^(t) _{07:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'd like to point out this revision, which shows a good example of what User:TruthInAdvertising was trying to add to the article. The three sections are "Application Size", "Prior IDE Version History", and "Historical Long Term & Existing Bug History". It's worth reading to see what we're dealing with.

I tried my best to address these in this talk page, but I failed. Application Size seems to me to be total WP:OR, unverifiable unless you obtain and install several versions of RealBASIC on your machine (I contend this is precisely the sort of burden WP:NOR is trying to prevent. If the application growth were notable, wouldn't it have been addressed in a verifiable source?)

The Bug History section seemed out of place as well. My take was that all applications have bugs, but I wasn't sure that these bugs were notable enough to belong in Wikipedia. As someone else put it, this is an encyclopedia, not a bug-tracking database.

Prior IDE Version History is probably the salvagable section in all of this. It appears that REALBasic has made a shift from being primarily Mac-based to primarily Windows-based, and this has affected the latest version's Mac IDE. This fact feels encyclopedic to me, and can probably be addressed more concisely and with an encyclopedic tone.

I think it's also fair to say that this article may be too large and leans towards an advertisment tone. I think the code snippets probably do not belong -- this is just another implementation of BASIC, and there's nothing surprising in the sample code that seems REALbasic-specific. And at one point there must have been a dozen screenshots. I've scaled them back and it still feels like perhaps too many. (Compare to Visual Basic which has two.)

But that said, these issues have mostly not been addressed, because the vast majority of useful edits here have been reverting one person's vandalism. User:TruthInAdvertising's response to my original WP:OR and WP:V concerns was to add screenshots, descriptive text, and unhelpful forum links to the article. This diff does a fairly good job showing what was added. One such addition:

To duplicate the above file sizes download a copies of REALbasic from REAL Software's web site (older editions can be downloaded from REAL Software's ftp web site). In each edition open a new default desktop project with a single window; do not add any code or controls to the project, and compile applications for the various operating systems.

Which I think misses the point of WP:NOR completely.

I'm not sure if we can resolve this issue through the talk page. Scrolling up will show my previous attempts at starting a discussion to resolve this. I still would be very pleased if we could come to an agreement with User:TruthInAdvertising on how to make this article feel less like an ad. I'm positive, though, that the solution is not sticking large, unencyclopedic rants into the article, nor is it removing all non-wikilink text. It's yet to be shown that User:TruthInAdvertising is interested in any other course of action. Vslashg (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It can see how it seems hypocritical, that there are absolutely zero references in this article and yet additions are being reverted using WP:NOR as justification. But I think that's not the main reason for rejecting these additions.

1. "Application Size" is simply not important. Someone who wants to learn what REALbasic is probably doesn't care about the executable sizes that different versions of it happen to generate. It's not all that much more OR than the rest of the article seems to be, but there is no agreement that it matters.
2. "Prior IDE Version History" actually looks OK to me besides lots of spelling errors and some irrelevant asides.
3. "Historical Long Term & Existing Bug History" isn't encyclopedic material. If somebody has said or published about these bugs, then it should probably go in the article, but listing bugs as if they are obvious facts is not good.

Also, the justification for leaving in the article's current content is that we feel it could potentially be cited, as opposed to something like "application sizes" where there is reason to believe that no reliable source has ever given that information. Several statements in the current article could do with some citation, but at least there is no reason to believe that such citation doesn't exist. That, and that some of the current content really shouldn't be kept, like some of the sample code and screenshots. But, I was hoping there were some specific statements in the article that are being claimed as too much like advertisement. –Tifego^(t) _{09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Let's see.

• I've removed most of the screenshots. I personally feel that the two screenshots - the one in the infobox, and the one at "Current Versions of IDE" - should suffice. It isn't necessary to post screenshots of every single feature of the program, so I've removed images of things like the documentation viewer (which just looks like an embedded HTML browser or something) and an empty code editor. If there's some important feature which isn't pictured, fix it!
• I've removed a lot of the sample code. As it stood, the example code was presented largely without explanation. The Complex class example, however, did explain the code somewhat, and - more importantly - demonstrated a feature unusual to this specific dialect (classes and operator overloading). I don't know RealBasic myself, so there may be other unusual features which bear explanation; if so, again, fix it!
• Finally, I've heavily trimmed the external links:
  • First of all, separate links to Real Software's main site, their forums, and their mailing list interface are unnecessary - so I removed everything but a link to the main site.
  • Then, there's the ten or fifteen links to tutorial sites. That's certainly excessive. I've removed most of them, picking the three that remain more or less arbitrarily. I did, however, avoid sites that were down, or which charge for their information, as those are less likely to be useful to the reader.

Thoughts? Questions? Complaints? Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, you, uhh, shill and stuff! Nice work. Warrens 01:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Very well done. Vslashg (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My only complaint is that some of what's leftover is still not very neutral-sounding, but I'm trying to fix that a bit. –Tifego^(t) _{03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'm not sure what to do about the "Language features" section. I'm sure REALbasic can probably be used to do those things, but I highly doubt they can be called core features of the language itself; programming languages don't concern themselves directly with such high-level functionality as those. I changed it to say it "has libraries supporting" those features, but library support doesn't belong in the "language features" section even if they are provided with the language. I think maybe a few of the things in that list are language features, though. I'm having trouble finding a definition of the REALbasic language anywhere, even on REALbasic's website. –Tifego^(t) _{03:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)}

Yes, it's correct to say that those features are the features that REAlbasic framwork has. Still I think they should be listed, otherwise for every articles about an object-oriented programming language, you would write 2 lines of text. --Kiam 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph which describes a new feature of REALbasic (dynamic constants & Lingua), which was promptly removed by Vslashg due to "spam concerns." What are these concerns, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

Your paragraph was removed because it wasn't encyclopedic in tone. Wikipedia isn't a user's manual, a forum for product advertising, or a personal blog — it's an encyclopedia. When writing articles here, you don't talk to the audience (ie. use of the second-person "you"). The goal is to describe, in factual and verifiable language, the notable and important information about the subject. This is per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which we are all bound by when contributing. Warrens 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll keep it in mind for future edits. But wouldn't it have been friendlier for you to correct the mistake instead of simply removing it (since it sounds like it was more the tone of the addition than the content, to a certain degree)? I realize removing it is easier, but correcting it would be better, no? Regardless of tone, the information is certainly still useful to people reading the excerpt; removing it destroys any usefulness that might have been there (it also tends to irk a Wiki-n00b like myself who's simply trying to help add information and don't have the time or the inclination to read through 22 sections of information before trying to help out). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove the text. Someone else did. Warrens 03:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks for pointing the obvious out.  ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

So I notice there's a lot of talk about citation issues, which leads me to the question: how do you cite something which is factual in nature, and fully-verifiable by items NOT online/common knowledge?

For instance, someone marked "Its built-in framework supports [citation needed]" in the article. You can verify the information by either downloading the product and trying it out or downloading the language reference and reading it. How would you properly cite this (to appease whoever feels it needs citation)? I've read thru the citation guidelines, and they're not terribly helpful on the topic.

Can someone provide decent examples of how to properly cite parts of this article?

• Then why don't you cite the language reference? It is available in print, PDF and online so you could link to it and also mention the page number the framework is mentioned on. — Wackymacs 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what would be the proper format for the citation?

"According to the language reference, its built-in framework supports hash tables (page number), threads (page number), real-time 3D graphics (page number)..."

Would that format suffice? Or would it detract from the overall meaning of the paragraph (since there would be a lot of space devoted towards page numbers)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

I ended up doing it like that, but excluded Harvard referencing for brevity. The citations page was unclear as to the proper way to denote a list of facts all coming from different pages of the same source. And I figured it'd be better to over-document the location of the information instead of under-document it. If someone dislikes the way I've cited the framework stuff, then feel free to modify it as appropriate (perhaps an all-encompassing Harvard reference at the end of the list would suffice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

The language features section in the article is littered with (pg x) references. Which book is being referred to? If such a reference needs to be made it sould be just kept in the footnote references section. The section need not be crowded with such vague inline references. It makes it harder to read. --soUmyaSch 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Look up a few lines to the About Citations topic. That explains the page reference "littering." If it's improper citation (which is entirely possible), perhaps it'd be better to just put a true Harvard citation at the end of the list instead. In any event, the page numbers refer to the language reference (mentioned before the list starts) and is cited in the references section. I should also note that the reason I put in references at all was because someone put a citation needed tag in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.84.212 (talk • contribs)

Is there anyboody whom is able to make a more complete history section? I think it could list the features introduced with every release of REALbasic. --Kiam 15:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That would get long fairly quickly, so I'd recommend against it. Though a "latest" features section isn't a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.6.43 (talk • contribs)

What happened to the images in the main article? They were there yesterday, but not today..209.198.132.66 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some technical problems with Wikipedia today. The images will come back soon, hopefully. Warrens 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool -- I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some new form of vandalism. Thanks! 209.198.132.66 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page due to constant disruption. Just letting you know. Sasquatch t|c 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I tried for a sprot a few days ago, but the request was denied. Ah well. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, there never has been a semi-protection standard but looking through the logs I can justify it. Sasquatch t|c 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As much as it pains me that this was needed (it means I can't modify the page for a while), I'm still glad to see it happen. 204.251.84.212 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You should make an account! It only takes a minute, you get some extra tools like being able to upload images and configure the appearance of Wikipedia, and future page-protections won't stop you from editing. Warrens 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, you've convinced me.  :-P BudVVeezer 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The schill was pointing out that the ExtremeBasic link removal was improper because it's not based on Java. Since I was the one who removed the link, I feel the need to justify its removal. From the [horse's] mouth. He's basing the entire runtime on Java, while keeping the language constructs. Since REALbasic is a commercial product whose apps use native OS controls, I don't think a pre-alpha, in-some-guy's-spare-time project which doesn't use native controls is terribly relevant to anyone reading this article. 204.251.84.212 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you have not heard about the concept of saving previous versions of web pages - I suggest you stop removing previously posted information, because your acts of vandilaism on th discussion page are against Wiki rules and can be easily proven by showing pdf versions of the web pages. By continually removing information which directly shows that the information in your article is false you are quilty of fraud! I think a lawsuit against Wiki and the said authors is warranted should the said parties continue to defraud potential customers of RB with false information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.66.27 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is official Wikipedia policy. You've also been deemed a long-term vandal whose continual destructive edits and legal threats are NOT WELCOME. Go away and find a more productive hobby than vandalising an encyclopedia. Warrens 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You and other so called neutral parties have removed information posted in this discussion section - not just moved, but permantely removed as verfied by saved pdf versions of the said web pages. You continue to post information about Realbasic which is not verfied and which is completely false.

I want answer to this this question Warrens. Is RB coded to run multiple threads at the same time as the register article states? Have you verified this fact with Real Software because they will tell you NO - an article on RB's own forum say this is not true. The author of the register article is not qualified as a RB source because to get something as fundamental as this wrong means he knows nothing about RB or is just lieing.

So then Warrens have you bothered to pick up a copy of Realbasic: A Definite guide by Matt Neuberg, aurely you have this book do you not - every long time RB coder has it. On page 192 of the second edition it clearly explains how RB is NOT coded to run multiple threads at the same time which completely disproves the register article.

No copy of the book on hand, and don't want to bother contacting RS to find out the truth, well then just seach for articles on threads RS's forum:

forums.realbasic.com

You you soon see that threads are cooperative in nature.

Biased Links:

Linking to Real Software is completely biased as they are the publishers. This is a clear conflict of interest and completely immoral.

Muliple Screenshots:

Wiki policy says not to use multiple screenshots - you choose one OS to use, especially when the program looks the same on all platforms. You do know the new IDE looks the same on all platforms do you not - that was the prupose of the new IDE. So why do we have a Mac screenshots inside Real Software's little information box and another windows screenshots down in the body of the article. This clearly shows you are only interested in selling Realbasic and violating Wiki policy.

The fact that Warrens and the other so called neutral editors include such false information either means that (a) they know nothing about Realbasic; (b) don;t bother to check their sources; (c) or are simply interested in including false information in the article so as to sell Realbasic. In any of these cases they should not be involved!

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, THE WHOLE THING, especially where it clearly states:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

A review on The Register is a far more reputable, verifiable source for information to be included in a Wikipedia article than some anonymous "contributor" who is hellbent on getting this article deleted. I mean, shit, you created sockpuppet accounts with names like "Boycottrealbasic", "FalseInformation", "BoycottRealBasic2005", and "TruthInAdvertising" for the sole purpose of making destructive edits to this article. Why should anything you say be taken at value after all this time? Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if Realbasic supports multithreading or not. I've never even used Realbasic except to try it out one day to see what all the fuss is about. I think it kindof sucks, actually. But my opinion isn't important here -- If you can provide a verifiable source of information that states that it doesn't support OS-level multithreating, then that is worthy of inclusion. That does NOT mean that you can remove the link to the Register review entirely, which contains other valid and useful information, and informs some of the content of this article in lieu of other published, verifiable sources. Your opinion on the matter is totally irrelevant. Remember: You are not a verifiable source. Warrens 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if the book says different or if other sources say otherwise its possible the Register article got it wrong. As Warrens says, wholesale deleting information isn't the way to go; discussion is. The link to Real Software exists per our external links policy. We cannot use first-party information (i.e. knowledge that you might have) because it contradicts our original research policy. Please consider talking about things; if you continue to delete information and debate in your edit summaries, you're not going to get very far with things. Wikipedia works on consensus, so trying to get something done to an article by edit warring simply doesn't work. Also, it helps if you sign your posts with ~~~~ so everyone can keep track of who's saying what. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the Wiki article is correct in that it says REALbasic supports cooperative threads. It does not say that it supports preemptive threads (because it doesn't -- not without 3rd party plugins). The register article did get it wrong, however, that hardly negates the entire article's information.

I think my personal favorite thing about this idiot is that he keeps referencing a book by Matt Neuburg that was published in 2001. To put it into perspective, the current version of REALbasic when this book was written was RB v3. There have been 11 major releases since then (3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 2005r1-2005r4, 2006r1-2006r2) which have included adding a Linux framework, porting the IDE to Windows, re-writing the entire IDE from scratch and porting it to Linux. Does he think that the features of the product stayed static during that time? *snorts* I'm glad for the IP ban, he seems like he deserves it. BudVVeezer 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Warrens, here is a link to Real Software's own Realbasic Forum about threads.

http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/010110A/http/forums.realbasic.com/viewtopic.php?t=3608&highlight=cooperative+threads

Notice the sentence from Aaron Ballman: "No, it has cooperative threads , which cannot (by definition) be used on multiple processors." which disproves the register article. And who is is aaron Ballman do you ask, but one of RB' chief software engineers (i.e., he's listed in the AboutBox).

This completely disqualifies the author of the register article as a RB expert. To get someonthing as fundamentally wrong as this means the author is a complete noob or is a liar! The article does not contain helpful information, it contains this guy's opions - who exactly is this guy, but someone writing an article for a publication, which in turn has Google ads for RB on the same page - a conflict of interest as they get money when people buy through those RB ads.

Helpful information, really, how can you ay that, you've jusy said you know nothing about RB, yet your opion is that the article is helpful. How much more of the information in the article is false / personal opionion? but then you would not know because you know nothing about RB as you claim.

Your continued inclusion of false information is fraud!

I'm not certain if you've seen our policy on personal attacks. Please comment on the content of the article, not on its contributors.

The forum link says multiple processors. This is different than multiple threads on the same processor. Regardless, the article currently says cooperative threads, so I'm not certain why you're continuing to rant in this direction? It would appear the article is worded in precisely the same manner as the thread you pointed out. Magazine and newspaper articles make mistakes all the time; this is why they print corrections. One error doesn't make the entire article incorrect. Is there anything else in the Register article that you felt was incorrect, or any other areas of our article it affected negatively? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, he's been vandalising this article and insulting other Wikipedia contributors since January, and has had these points made to him repeatedly. He continues to ignore them and carry on on this fashion. I mean, really, "this means war!"? What more does a person need to do to earn a permanent ban around here? Warrens 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried an RfC or mediation? There's certain channels of dispute resolution; people aren't typically just banned outright. Have any of his multiple socks been banned or has any kind of sanction happened? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's had four sockpuppet accounts blocked, for 3RR violations and for other reasons, and the page itself has been sprotected to stop him specifically from his problematic editing. See User:Vslashg/TruthInAdvertising_Sockpuppets. Warrens 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"The forum link says multiple processors. This is different than multiple threads on the same processor. Regardless, the article currently says cooperative threads, so I'm not certain why you're continuing to rant in this direction? It would appear the article is worded in precisely the same manner as the thread you pointed out. Magazine and newspaper articles make mistakes all the time; this is why they print corrections. One error doesn't make the entire article incorrect. Is there anything else in the Register article that you felt was incorrect, or any other areas of our article it affected negatively?"

What the hell are you talking about? The register article is worded to falsely state that RB runs multiple threads at the same time, when in fact it uses cooperative threading (i.e., sections of individual threads are run in turn a linear fashion, not at the same time). This clearly show this person is not qualified to write an article on RB - my God, that is such a fundamental part of RB that only a noob, or a completet liar, would get it wrong!

Lets look at the register article article futher:

"In its current incarnation, the Linux version is a true peer of the other platform releases"

Opion! Its commong knowledge that the Linux version is regarded as beta - thats why they give it away, because no one is willing to pay for it because its no where near the the Mac or Win version. Duh!

LOL! Here's a good one...

"Gone are the various floating palettes and windows of old, replaced by a slick single-window user interface that places controls, application window or code, and control properties into separate panes."

I made a correction to the article removing the sentance that said Rb used pallets, yet even this article, which you link to, says pallets were removed, yet my correction was removed by you shills who don't even bother to read the articles you link to! This is just one example of why this article should be removed until verfified sources are found - none of the information in the article is verified.

"It's neat, it's perfect for screening off all the desktop clutter that inhibits concentration, and it's more intuitive."

That's opion. Who the hell is this guy? I've seen no books on RB by him. Futher more, this article is written from the point of view of Window users - the new IDE is not more intuitive on the Macintosh side - what's more intuitive is the same IDE interface that Mac users have been using since RB was created. This article IS NOT a reference source - its the personal opionion of the reviewer, and the host of this article is benfiting from this false article via ggole ads which feature Realbasic ads.

"The layout mirrors the workflow: drag a control from the left-hand pane onto your application's window in the middle, then adjust its properties in the right-hand pane. The pane-widths can be adjusted, to suit your preference."

Opinion - he's saying this is a positive feature. The previous interface offered much more freedom in regards to pallets as they were in seperate windows and you could move them anywhere you wanted them on your desktop, not just stuck in one place.

"Double-clicking on a control, replaces the properties and application UI view with a code-entry pane, while a hierarchical list of the app's controls, methods, properties and menu handlers replaces the control palette. RB lists all the possible events the control can respond to, so it's immediately clear what behaviours you may need code for. Events you've provided code for are highlighted in bold text."

Opionion. The previous interface worked entirely different. Double clicking an item in project window opened it inside a seperate window which you could place anywhere - unlike the new interface which sticks everything inside a large tabbed windows. The old interface is far more effecient!

"There's a context-sensitive toolbar immediately above the panes. Clicking on the New Method button, say, allows you to enter the method's name, the list of values it will receive when called and what it will send back, and the instructions it will work through, all in the code pane."

Opinion! Previous interfaces allowed this via the main menu, not toolbars which take up your valueable screen space.

"Above the toolbar are tabs to quickly move from one application window to another"

Opinion! I suggest this guy try opening a large number of project items inside the tabs. He would soon see that the items inside the tabs scroll off the far right side of the main window requiring you to resize the main window across 2 screens, making the interface unusable. And there is no warning from RB that there are unseen items off far right edge of the screen - you have no way of knowing they are there. Of course you didn't have the problem with the revious interface as everthing was in a seperate window that you placed where you wanted. The fact that this guy doe snot know about this obvious design flaw says he knows nothing about the new IDE, let alone the old one.

"With objects and commands mixed, there's a lot for the novice to pick up, but RB provides a handy pop-up, example-packed language reference guide that's perfect for pinning down control parameters and sussing out syntax. RB's had this for some time, but the new release displays it browser-fashion, for easier navigation. It's jam-packed with code examples."

Easy to navigate? The new Language Refererence is sudivided into hundreds of web pages. To get some idea of how the new LR works, imagine trying to use Wiki whereas you look up a subject, but instead on an article being listed on one page in book format its subdivided into hundreds of sentances requring you to read a sentance, cick a link to read another sentace, then user your browser to move back to the orginal page, and click another link to read another sentence. I'd like this author, or anyone else. to demonstrate how this is more effecient than the previous interface which used a book format interface whereas everything about a subject was on one scrollable page. Once agian this is this guy's opinion, not a fact!

"RB also comes with a 560-odd page PDF manual, tutorial files and a Quick Start guide. They're worth a peek: I spent ages trying to figure out how use AppleEvents to get my application to fire up my browser and call up a specific web page, something that obviously won't work in the Windows version, only to discover RB already has a ShowURL command... Odd, but there's no reference to it in the User Guide only the Quick Start manual... ahem."

What complete idiot this author must be - this is what the built-in Language Reference is for! Showurl is listed clearly in the LR.

"The manuals also show a Mac bias, despite the profusion of Windows screengrabs. RB is cross-platform, so running the Mac release doesn't limit you to producing Mac applications - you can compile Win32 and Linux versions of your software too. RealSoftware does provide Windows and, now, Linux versions of the software, both of which will likewise generate versions of your app for other platforms. However, it remains best to develop code for platform A on platform A, such are the differences between them. With no runtime licensing issues, you're free to offer your apps commercially, or offer the code you've written under the GPL."

Wrong! You cannot develope commercial applications with the basic edition of RB, only the pro version which costs hundreds of dollars - you'd figure he's mention that to be objective.

Once agian who is this guy? He's an unknown author giving his OPINION! He's certainly not an expert because he makes a completely FALSE statement regarding thread usage! This in NOT a RB reference - its opinion from some guy pulled out of some other guy's ass.

""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

What I think really needs ot happen here is a class action suit by people againt Wiki for the continued posting of false information on Wiki designed to mislead others into buying certain products, and into believing false information about persons.

My God, I'd like to see you try publishing information in a newspaper or magazine or other such publication (like wiki is) - you'd get you ass sued off from here to the end of the world. Probably the best sort of legal action might be to talk to your local state's Attorney General - perhaps its time Wiki was shut down! I for one have become toally fed up with the product shilling here and the removal of information fromt he discussion page for this article - and no I am not talking about moving it to another link, but the removal of information by the so called named adminstrative editors in this article.

Regarding your comment (quoted from above):

"Gone are the various floating palettes and windows of old, replaced by a slick single-window user interface that places controls, application window or code, and control properties into separate panes."

I made a correction to the article removing the sentance that said Rb used pallets, yet even this article, which you link to, says pallets were removed, yet my correction was removed by you shills who don't even bother to read the articles you link to! This is just one example of why this article should be removed until verfified sources are found - none of the information in the article is verified.

Though the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia defines palette as "A toolbar that contains a set of functions for any kind of application" [1], thus distinguished from a "floating palette", I agree that the term palette seems to suggest a floating window. (I've never heard it used to refer to toolbars before looking it up.)

I'm having trouble coming up with a better term for the integrated listbox of controls, though. For now I put in "toolbar" but would happily hear anyone's suggestion for a better term. Vslashg (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Visual Studio calls this a "toolbox". Warrens 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on theregister is toally biased towards the windows audinece and totally disregards the Macintosh heritance of RB. The guy further insults Macintosh users by refering to the pallets as panes, which is what such things are called in Visualbasic.

Call them what you want, this article is totally immoral and it provides NO links to verfied information. Articles of opinion, especially ones which conatin completely false information, are not reference sources! The administraters working on this article are otally biased and want nothing more than to shill a commcerial product Realbasic. They do not even read the articles they link to and in their own words claim to know nothing about RB. You make the lairs at Real Software look like a bunch of kind hearted souls and their continues biased actions speak for themselves! Get a conscience!

If as you claim to be unbiased then you should have no problem including a link at the top stating that the article does not list its sources, but no you are not unbiased as you continue to remove this, but on the other hand you don't list any sources. you should further include information at the top of the article staing that reveiws of products should not be considered as fact and are OPINIONS, especially when author has no obvious idea what the hell he is talking about. A totally immoral article by totally immoral people!

Apparently Bigfoot have never heard of dialup service where you get a different ip each time. If your so concerned I suggest you send me some money to buy a statice ip address. But no you are only interested in shilling a commcercial product on Wikipedia and defrauding potential customers of this product by allowing false information to be posted in this article!

And you still haven't read WP:3RR have you. Sasquatch t|c 02:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you read this from Wiki's policy:

"It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that."

As you can see all my changes were in fact edits of previous versions - information added, changed, or corrected. And according to Wiki's rules reverting your own stuff is not included. Of course some of these edits wouldn't be necessary, but for the actions of others who revert the article while I am making corrections.

Once again we see that the adminitrators do not follow their own words or Wiki's rules. The authors of this article are nothing but shillers of a commercial product and are misuing Wiki by posting false and deceptive information. nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites.

And how does anyone know exactly who really made the edits. Perhaps the administrators involved in article can explain why information posted on the discussion page has been REMOVED - and no I am not talking it be moved to another page. So then what elese are the administrators doing to this page to shill this product. And before you deny removing information I suggest you do a little research on how easy it to save web pages as pdf files on the Mac from a browser window.

No violation of 3RR? than what's [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] all deleting certain text and only readding " whoes current creation is Extremebasic." which is MISSPELLED in ever single revert. I suggest you not lie again on here or I will lock this talk page too. Do you really want to start an argument on policy with an administrator? I think not. I'm very close to locking this talk page too if i see one more legal threat or insult. Thank you and have a good day. Sasquatch t|c 06:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I moved yet another of his lengthy dumps to the archive page. Warrens 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)