Talk:Realbasic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is the same product?

I remember using a product called RealBasic on PC-DOS around 1985-1986. (It was a refreshing alternative to IBM's primitive Compiled BASIC (BASCOM), which we were using to build banking applications.) Does anyone know if the current REALbasic product has any lineage back to that (excellent) tool?

No, the current REALbasic product has no relation to the product you mention.

Problem with HTTPSocket example

The last example, using HTTPSocket.Get, needs a timeout parameter. Otherwise Get operates in asynchronous mode and the page data is received in a PageReceived event.

The example has been removed. Kiam 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Calls for a boycott

(Moved from main article Malcolm Farmer 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

BoyCott Realbasic 2005 on the Macintosh platform as it no longer uses a Macintosh IDE, but instead uses a Windows style IDE ported to the Macintosh, which is ironic since RB 2005 was originally developed as a Macintosh only product. Just goes to show you the lack of loyalty Real Software has for the customers who built their business (their Mac users; who must now either pay them a lot of money to work less effecienctly using a Windows IDE or throw away all the years of experience they have with Realbasic. An expensive prospect for Mac users of Realbasic either way). Aside from the missing Macintosh IDE a huge number features have been removed from Realbasic 2005 (RB 6) as compared to the last real Mac version, which is version 5.5.5.

Realbasic no longer uses a Macintosh IDE, but instead uses a Windows style IDE ported to the Macintosh, which is ironic since RB 2005 was originally developed as a Macintosh only product. Just goes to show you the lack of loyalty Real Software has for the customers who built their business (their Mac users; who must now either pay them a lot of money to work less efficiently using a Windows IDE or throw away all the years of experience they have with Realbasic. An expensive prospect for Mac users of Realbasic either way). Aside from the missing Macintosh IDE a huge number features have been removed from Realbasic 2005 (RB 6) as compared to the last real Mac version, which is version 5.5.5.

Just a few of the features removed from RB2005 include: the ability to open project items into separate Mac style windows; floating color pallet; the control pallet can no longer be moved anywhere the user wants it, but is stuck inside a large tabbed window; the properties pallet can no longer be moved anywhere the user wants it, but is stuck inside a large tabbed window; a Classic icon size has been removed from the build window; Classic icons no longer appear in compiled applications; this product no longer will run under the Classic environment (the original OS the product was developed for).

There are many other features that have been removed aside from those mentioned above; and there are many complaints about this product. For a small sampling of these complaints, which include removed features and items which do not work, look under Real Software's "feedback system", which is listed under support on their site. A quick search under the following categories "Realbasic: IDE: not listed": revealed the following list, which is only a small sample of user complaints:

Automated refactoring Reviewed Faster compile, run, debug cycle #2 Reviewed Option to build Palm OS applications Reviewed Ability to use XML files as the "working" files of an rb project to improve CVS behavior Closed Compiler Warnings for unused variables Open Please bring back the IDE extras folder from 5.5 Reviewed version control for the project manager Reviewed RB 2005 IDE - Option to detach Controls and Properties panels into a Floating Window Open Target - Deprecate Old Target Constants and Introduce New Ones Reviewed Restore Export Source function to RB 2005 Open Save Project as XML ideas for Encrypted and External items Open RB 2005 IDE - Option to Split the Editor Into 2 Sections Open External items in the Project Manager Open Smart linker Reviewed allow multiple projects simultaneously with shared external items Open 2005r3 won't keep license. Every launch requests key again. Not reproducible Easier printing desparately needed Open restore color palette to IDE in RB2005 Open RB project items should be bundled into a VFS-type file for easy distribution Open Memory Leak detection in Debug build Reviewed A way to see which plugins are installed & loaded and what version they are Open Add Applescript support to the new RBScript IDE scripting Open Support for notes in Events, Methods, Menu Handlers and Constants Reviewed IDE cannot find User Guide Fixed/Implemented Revert doesn't give a warning before performing the operation, even though you can't undo the operat Not reproducible Convert windows to "parent" instead of "main screen" for better support of multiple monitors Reviewed Real time access to the RB IDE through a plugin. Open Closing a project in r3 saves the changes when don't save is selected Open Need a bundle to create proper localization package Fixed/Implemented Errors Tab - Allow Replacing of Error-Causing Text On Multiple Errors Tab Like on Search Tab Open I want my cmd-alt-1 and cmd-alt-2 Reviewed Request for Scriptable IDE Open Interface For Creating Toolbar Items (proposal) Reviewed Use Spotlight to resolve missing external items in a sheet Open DataControl binding causes app to quit. Fixed/Implemented Write relative paths to XML Export of projects on OS/X for Windows users Reviewed Edit External Items within Project Editor, Resolving Custom Controls Appropriately Open failed assertion 4426, unable to load internal plugin 140 Closed Request: IDE-Scripting: add a way to communicate with external service apps Open Add a function similar to 'Collect for Output' to the IDE -- for easier bug reporting etc. Reviewed Please provide support within the IDE for SVN. Open Class Browser for REALbasic Open Missing External Items Not Handled Well in RB 2005b6 Open Crash Reporter should be included with RB and interface with REALbugs Open Scripts menu for the new RBScript IDE Scripting Open Add a command line option for executing IDE scripts Open The Info.plist packaged into the REALbasic IDE contain an error Verified Project loses image paths when copying a 2005 rbp project file to a new system Open HTMLViewer fails to load libgtkembedmoz.so Open External Code: Make internal option Reviewed Build an AETE editor into the IDE Open Undo/redo menu items not enabled Open The Rb2005 IDE does not properly save or restore project UI state Open Some quick and easy way to, at RB IDE launch, make a Pro version downgrade to a Std version Reviewed Undo does not show the code that did get changed back Open unhandled NilObjectException when compiling Open RB refuses to quit Open Project Manager for RealBasic2005 Open Failed Assertion: 4 on SUSE 9.3 Open Improve Class Interface creation in the IDE [2005+] Open Please provide support within the IDE for CVS. Open Boolean arrays do not show their correct values in the IDE Debugger Fixed/Implemented External Links Manager Dialog Reviewed Adding a pict file with reserved word causes runtime error: 4 Open RB2005 - Sheet windows in IDE have wrong focus Open What happened to the Extras folder? Open When trying to run from the IDE get error -10827 Open RB 2005 messes up RB file icons in OS 9 Desktop Database Closed Dynamic constants do not work Open Temp files left around by RB Fixed/Implemented Can't edit any code in external item in 2005 fc1 Closed Automatic Get/Set Method Generation Reviewed Quasi-External Items Open Deadly Auto-Encryption Bug Open Would like the ability to Export projects to text files Open IDE crashes during build process Open Faster compilation in RB2005 Open add Autocomplete for all officeautomation programs (word, excel,pp,etc) to IDE Closed XML exports "super" keyword twice per Control Open IDE Crashes on run/build Open Nilobjectexception RB2005r2 when updating RealSQLBD in IDE Open Loading REALbasic plugins Open Less UI chrome for auxiliary project windows and/or editor only display Open IDE crashes when trying to run project with incorrect constant type Fixed/Implemented RB2006r1fc1 - Some kind of visual indicator on methods that are marked as "Desktop Apps Only", Console & Desktop or Console only Reviewed The purpose of the Default Language popup menu in the Project Settings dialog is not obvious and is hard to find if you are looking for what it does do. Closed Launching the IDE results in an assertion Closed RB2006r1b2 throws Failed Assertion on start-up Fixed/Implemented Unable to add Icon in Icon Editor Fixed/Implemented Password protection on RB Projects Reviewed Adding dynamic constant causes IDE to crash Fixed/Implemented Project gets into odd unrepairable state with external items Open 2005 IDE NilObjectException and nondescript menubar syntax error Reviewed External Items -- Copying and Pasting to duplicate class really broken Open A graphical Toolbar Reviewed Importing external project items not working Reviewed Missing edit-options-code editor-syntax highlighting Fixed/Implemented drag and trop a .rsd-File to a project and doubleclick the database causes a crash Verified Quiting RB without save changed program crashes RB Closed Resizing a an editor pane or window in Rb2005 can cause splitters and panes to get Open Setting of properties of instances of classes of Custom binds Open all pc-power consumed by RB5.2fc2 and closing RB cause a crash of the RB-IDE Closed Color printing is not available in REALBasic 2005 (r4) Open Display wish list Open Unable to Quit from IDE Open Would like a better and more accurate way of roating objects Reviewed Temp files left around by RB Closed Compiler Bug: Internal Error for controls with Super that no longer exists Verified Failed Assertion: 4 in texteditor from Realbasic tutorial Closed [release 4] still showing "Runtime error 4 - failed assertion" at the end of compilation Open Color Select button intermittently missing in constant window Open REAL SQL Database Editor - Changes reverting to Open Length of the name of the built applications Reviewed SQLite Database doesn't create on Linux Open Clicking the REALbasic Preferences dialog title bar corrupts the layout Closed FileTypeSets defined in IDE do not autocomplete Verified Please provide support within the IDE for RCS. Open SmallSystem.UTF8 FontSize Is Ignored in EditField TextSize Open XML Export uses "AltModifier" twice for different entities Fixed/Implemented .ico import feature messes up Millions mask Open Open project error "Internal Error: Assertion Failed, Cannot apply badge to non-existent picture" Open ODBC-plugin doesn't round doubles to single float, the binding does that Closed Unchecking "Show built application(s) in the Finder" doesn't stop it Open Localized constants not shown in IDE Open Clear All Breakpoints doesn't Closed Binding Objects Open external items are hard to relocate Open [2005r5a1 LNX] Unable To Set Constant Type Open IDE becoming very slow and unresponsive Open Renaming a menubar to begin with an underscore causes the menubar to disappear Fixed/Implemented errorwindow in IDE has no horizontal scrollbar Closed When entering a passowrd for Project Manager user account, hitting return to accept causes problems. Verified Setting breakpoints doesn't set the project's "dirty" status Open REAL SQL Database Editor - Saves Not Working Open Save a subclass and treat it like a plugin Reviewed Problems with imported sound files on Windows builds Verified Back and Forward buttons need contextual menus for navigation. Open Error in typing in serial number Open middle mousebutton doubleclick disabled in IDE and scroll right window in lang.ref. doesn't scroll Closed IDE disables doubleclick on middle mousebutton Closed Opening a RB 4.5 project leads to OutOfBounds exception in IDE Open Opening a plugin reference takes a long time Open Second Welcome-screen startup RB2005-b12 messed up with 1st one Closed REAL SQL Database Editor Graphic Glitches Open REALbasic2005 Release 4 and REALbasic License Server issue Open I have a simple project that I am unable to load, the IDE crashes Open Cursor vanishes in rb3dspace Open Complains when I go to run the application about SpeechComponentMBS having an item called Continue Open Retain single error in Errors tab when "Show multiple compile errors" is checked Open Error Listbox Uses Incorrect Highlight Colors on OS X Open Internal error in Constants Editor Open Bindings Dialog Occasionally Appears on Build Closed Include Errors Tab in Next/Previous tab history chain Open Simplified IDE for Kids, Beginners Open Project statistics & summary Open Autocomplete for Structures doesn't always work Open RB2005r4 IDE crashes Open Declare-types don't show up properly in the Structure editor Fixed/Implemented Trying to define a Structure parameter of the same type as the parent Structure breaks the IDE Fixed/Implemented Runtime Error 4: Failed Assertion Open bindings on tabspanels are not deleted when their tab is deleted (leads to Internal Error) Verified Structure input very tedious Open Eliminate scrolling in Preferences dialog Open cannot get away with Internal Error dialog Open XML project file is missing these new tags: WcmN WpNm WiNm Open "Comment" button in Editor toolbar active when editing Enumerations and Structures Fixed/Implemented Please provide support within the IDE for VSS. Open Starting RB6b2 IDE in WinXP: Runtime Error 4: Failed assertion Closed Tab Key Ignored in IDE's SaveAs Dialog Verified Items in Open Recent mount remote volumes Open Listbox GridLinesHorizontal 2 Thin Dotted do not appear in IDE or compiled app Open XML export creates downward-incompatible Property listings Open sprite surface unstable on Linux Open XML export suppressed Index of control arrays Open using the database editor can result in IDE not quitting correctly on Windows Open 'Listboxes' in the IDE fade on scroll Reviewed Editfield Outofboundsexception error Open top and bottom scrollbar widgits are remarkably slow; scrollbar elevator is fine Fixed/Implemented Revert dialog text is slightly wrong Closed XML export: Source and Notes are hex-encoded without need Open RB 2005 does damage RB 5.5 project: class has lost its name Open Encrypt/Decrypt Realsql Database Open OutofBoundsError on load Open Structure editor cannot cope with constants in arrays Fixed/Implemented Export Localizable Values Dialog Reviewed Folders in IDE can be nameless Fixed/Implemented Opening project file leads to "OutOfBounds" exception in IDE Open Saving a template should not change template project. Fixed/Implemented add ability to run console commands from ide scripts Open Importing localized values from Lingua sets wrong language Open autosaving disabiliting option Open Size and info in IDE Open

Aside from missing features and items which are present, but which no longer work, there is a reliability question in regards to RB 2005. To date the various versions of this product (builds 1 through 4) have caused kernel panics on my Mac (build 1 and 2) and have continually crashed when certain normal activities have been attempted. These normal activities include anything from simply using the Undo menu to clicking a item link within the internal Language Reference Guide; which caused Realbasic to completely crash, both with and without generating error message windows (a typical error message window generated from the Language Reference will reference a "unhanded nil object", which typically means Realbasic tried to access a object that did not exist).

There is also a great deal of lost productively as compared to using the previous version of 5.5.5.. Just these 3 items alone will cost a full time Mac coder hundreds of hours in lost production, though of course there are many other examples available than these 3:

1. Instead of being able to open project items into separate small Mac style windows (and place those windows wherever the user wanted on their desktop) users must now open project items in large windows where items are stacked over the top of each other inside tabs. Windows contain window widgets which cannot be hidden and take up more space on a user's desktop because this makes windows larger. RB's ability to open a new window via the menu does not solve anything in regards to this as the new window is another large tabbed window.

In previous versions all one had to do to view a windows and its code was to double click the window in the RB's project window (which opened the window), and then click the opened window (which opened its code in another window). This was instant and one had two small resizable windows. Now this requires one to double click a window (which then opens in tab); then open another large RB window via RB's menu; then open another copy of 1st window in the duplicate RB window; then double click duplicate the copy to open its code inside the same tab.

2. Since the control and properties pallets/windows can no longer be placed where the users wants them the user must leave them open in a state that takes up a great deal of space on the right and left portions of the window; or the user must constantly waste time opening and closing these areas via the window widgets. All one had to do in the previous version (5.5.5) was place these pallets/windows in a out of way position on their desktop so that they could remain, or immediately hide them in the dock.

3. The new Language Reference is far less functional than the one included in RB 5.5.5 In the previous version the LR was arranged like a book in that each subject was included upon a single scrollable page, with links to related subjects. Now instead individual subjects form the LR have been subdivided into hundreds of separate pages so instead of trying to read the LR as a book you must instead click back and forth among hundreds of links. Trying to use the new LR is like trying to research a subject in a encyclopedia which lists every paragraph about that subject on separate pages scattered throughout the book, requiring you to turn back and forth between hundreds of pages.

Real Software Propaganda

Wiki is not a platform for propaganda for Real Software and their product Realbasic, which they are trying to portray as the second coming of Christ within their article by deleting any posts with point out the cons of the product. Other articles on Wiki permit pros and cons and this article should also permit such. This product was extensively reworked with the introduction of RB2005, the original user interface was removed and numerous features were removed or no longer work, which goes directly to the reliablity of this product. If Real software continues to fail to delete article pertaining to features that have been removed or which no longer work since the introduction of the product's new interface then this article should be removed from Wiki as wiki is not a free advertising platform for Real Software. The permanent section detailed lost features, non working features, the cons of the new interface, need to be allowed so consumers can make a fair decision as to wether to purchase this product and decide for themselves if Real software is a reliable company to buy from based on their product.

This page is not propaganda for any Real Software products, but it's merely a description of a programming language, with some screenshots of the IDE which permits to compile programs in that programming language. There is an equivalent page about Visual Basic .NET, but nobody thinks it propaganda for Microsoft products (nor does anybody thinks it about the Mac OS X page). Like any other Wiki pages, it should not show any personal judgment but just present a neutral description; any comment about the new user interface is simply a personal opinion that can or cannot be shared and it should not appear in the main page of a Wiki article. Kiam 11:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"any comment about the new user interface is simply a personal opinion that can or cannot be shared and it should not appear in the main page of a Wiki article."

That is entirely a false statement. A statement pointing out a major overhaul of the product is part of the product history. A statement pointing out that prior to the major overhaul of this product within version version RB2005 this product used a multi-window Macintosh interface in which individual project items could be opened into seperate windows by simply double clicking them is a fact as is the fact you cannot do this within RB2005. These are called version history and the fact that they may reflect negatively on REALbasic is the reason YOU are removing them. This article is suppose to be neutral and present facts, such as version history, but because there have been repeated attempts to remove factual information which may reflect badly on theis product this article is not neutral and should be removed from Wiki as it is nothing more than REALbasic propaganda to sell more copies of REALbasic. Its a fact that the color pallet, code spliter, and other features were removed from the product in verison RB2005 despite how much you would like to cover this up.

An encyclopedia entry is titled to describe the subject of an article, and not to list opinions (as to like or not a program interface is). The article, then, is about a programming language and speaks of the IDE just marginally (just to say that REALbasic can be used to make programs for three different platforms). Does a programming language have an user interface? --Kiam 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand the different attitudes for two things that basically are the same thing (in the specific case, two programming languages). Why should to talk of REALbasic be propaganda, while to talk of Visual Basic .NET (or any other programming language) should not be? --Kiam 14:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiam, REALBasic and Visual Basic .NET are not programming languages - they are programming environments/IDEs (Interface development environments) - they are based upon the BASIC programming language. — Wackymacs 14:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be that the programming language is named after the IDE tool, but Visual Basic .NET means both the IDE and the programming language that IDE compiles.

You are right, as it was first born the IDE (and who created it meant to create a new program, not a new programming language), but I think Visual Basic .NET is used like a short for "the programming language compiled by Visual Basic .NET IDE", as it can be used for "the Visual Basic .NET IDE". --Kiam 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Search comp.lang.basic.realbasic for posts by "kodze" or "icon128x128" sometime, and you will see a great many repetitions of the arguments made here by user "TruthInAdvertising". —This unsigned comment was added by 67.40.202.198 (talk • contribs) .

Revert war

I'm concerned about the revert war that's been going on in this article over the past week or so. I believe the intentions of all parties involved are good; however, an edit war with no end in sight is not a positive outcome for this article or this encyclopedia.

I think it's helpful to look at the Wikipedia policies here. Much has been made of NPOV, which "...requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted." There are certainly places where bias creeps into the article as shown, such as using terms like "a complete feature set", and these can be cleared up. I believe that User:TruthInAdvertising continues to repost his content because he feels the article is biased in favor of REALBasic. I don't see any major bias here, but I encourage User:TruthInAdvertising and all others concerned to rework the existing material where any inappropriate positive connotations or biases exist.

However, the problem with posting the complaints about bug history and product size is not with NPOV, but rather with verifiability.

It's best to read the verifiability criteria directly, rather than rely on my interpretation of it, but I believe the ideal of the verifiability policy is that anyone should be able to go to the library, check the sources cited in the article, and find that the cited sources support the content being posted. But the complaints about the UI and longstanding bugs do not cite any sources at all. Instead, we have to take the word of the poster, and this is unacceptable. Why? From WP:V: "Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?"

For now I am reverting the uncited additions. I see two constructive ways people in User:TruthInAdvertising's camp can respond. One is to locate and fix areas in the article as it exists today which are non-NPOV. The other is to find published sources (perhaps reviews in Mac magazines?) that mention the bloat, bugs, or other concerns, and then these can be included without violating WP:V.

I also strongly encourage both sides involved to discuss their concerns further here, rather that continuing to revert-war in the article. We clearly don't have concensus here, and we're not going to get it by shouting at each other. Both sides of this issue are violating the spirit of three revert rule, though not the letter of the law. Vslashg (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any other people in User:TruthInAdvertising's camp. The tone, style, and content of User:TruthInAdvertising's contributions are identical to that of a persistent troll who flooded the REALbasic mailing list with his rants, under a series of different names, as the moderators kicked each one off the list. When he got tired of that, or ran out of names, he switched to Real Software's web forum and did the same thing: endless off-topic rants, centering on the evils of Real Software and on the perceived deficiencies in the current versions of REALbasic. When he got tired of having his accounts banned, he switched to Usenet, and posted such a volume of criticism in this style to comp.lang.basic.realbasic that he rendered the group almost unusable. It is not unusual to see threads criticizing REALbasic on comp.lang.basic.realbasic, but the person I presume to be User:TruthInAdvertising took it far over the top, irritated everyone, and was mocked/booed vigorously until he finally went away. Now he seems to have found a new outlet for his outrage. Based on this pattern, I do not believe that User:TruthInAdvertising is looking for anything more than another soapbox. I'm sure he does believe that all of this is useful information, but he has a demonstrated inability to cooperate with other members of a public forum, or to discuss his concerns in a reasonable manner. If we let him keep at it he will fill this article with endless, unreadable pages of nitpicking complaints, none of which have been at all helpful to the denizens of previous forums he has invaded. Like I said above: search comp.lang.basic.realbasic for "Kodze" or "icon128x128" and you will see a lot of very familiar text and a whole bunch of unhappy usenetters. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.40.202.198 (talk • contribs) .

I see that User:TruthInAdvertising is back at it with yet another listing of his pet peeves. These changes are no more relevant or useful than anything else he's ever posted, but I'm going to leave them alone in the interest of ending the revert war. I appreciate that the wikipedia way of doing things calls for compromise, but he has no apparent capacity for reasonable conversation, so I'm not going to waste any time trying to work something out with him. Once again, I urge you to look into his prior posting history to better understand what's going on here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.202.198 (talk • contribs)

I am not a REALBasic user, and I wasn't able to find much negative stuff about REALBasic with Google. If Truth In Advertising can make a specific bullet list of complaints, we can see if any reliable sources exist back them up. Otherwise, I am inclined to leave the article as it is.--SirNuke 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, this article isn't supposed to be a list of RealBasic's issues. It's a description of the program, no more and no less. If we were to list every possible issue with programs that we have articles for, the article for Microsoft Windows, for example, would be unmaintainable. :P Wikipedia is not a bug tracker. Zetawoof 06:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NB: Truth In Advertising has received a 24h block for WP:3RR violation. Zetawoof 09:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zetawoof and Vslashg have both reverted this article far more than 3 times and should be banned. Further more many of the past so called reverts by TruthInAdvertising were actually edits; however, on the other hand Zetawoof and Vslashg are simple reverts without actually reading any of the contents. So then you wanted proof about the helptag bug, well then, I have aprovided a link to an article, on Real Software's own discussion forum, that includes a statement from Aaron Ballman (one of Real software's own cheif engineers) acknowleding the bug; and I have provided a link to a archieved version of the discussion in the form of pdf document. Yet you remove this information. Further more links have been provided to published articles showing previous versions of RB"s IDE, which provide direct proof of the images I submited - including a reveiw of Realbasic by MacAddict magazine, yet you still remove this. First you say there is no proof, then when 3rd party proof is provided, you still remove the information. How about some proof for the information Real software has provided = I do not see any information from 3rd parties verifying that the information that they have provided is verfiiable - where are the links to the articles verifying their information? This article is about the REALbasic programming language, not an advertising space for Real Software. REAlbasic is a programming language not a product! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.71 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:3RR. The limit is on reverts per 24-hour period, not total reverts. Zetawoof 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that ban evasion is a serious offense. See WP:BAN. Zetawoof 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are the links to 3rd party independent articles which verfiy the information Real software has presented within this article? This article says "Redirected from Real Software" and it says it says Real Software is the "Maintainer" of this page, so where are links containing information which verfies the information from Real Software? There are none. So unless some are provided this article is in total violation of Wiki policy as all the information is unverified from Real Software. This article is totally biased as it uses unverfied information from Real Software. I want proof what they are saying is true! —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.38 (talk • contribs) .

On March 20th user Zetawoof completed 3 reverts (without reading the actual content as he removed direct links to articles which verfiy the text information within the article):

01:19, 19 March 2006 Zetawoof (rv TIA) 06:59, 19 March 2006 Zetawoof (reeVERT) 09:21, 19 March 2006 Zetawoof m (Revert properly this time - chose the wrong version earlier.)

Yet, we see Zetawoof has not been banned! It might be interesting for someone, say an Attorney General Office, to probe activities surrounding what is going on with this page. We have far more to fear from corporate terrorists than anything else.—This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.38 (talk • contribs) .

Three reverts in a 24-hour period is permissable. It's the fourth revert in that time period that will run a user afoul of WP:3RR. Warrens 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How can we end this edit war?

I am concerned with the state of this article and the continued edit war. User:Zetawoof and I are on one side, 67.0.72.0/23 and User:TruthInAdvertising are on the other, but both sides are just adding or removing large swaths of content. Clearly we all feel our actions are appropriate, and clearly we must stop and discuss our positions.

I believe the article on Visual Basic is a good reference point. I especially want to note that it does have a controversy section, with about as much content as the anti-REALbasic posters here are trying to add. However, this is probably because Visual Basic is, well, controversial. It's also a notable piece of software, and the non-controversy sections of Visual Basic are several times larger than those here.

REALbasic, on the other hand, is a minor player. It's not a particularly well known implementation of a less-than-sexy language. Its article's controversy section should be small for the same reason its main body is small -- it's not that popular, there's not much verifiable info to base the article on, and, frankly, users of an encyclopedia would rightfully expect a large article on Visual Basic, but not here.

Rather than revert again, let me share my concerns

1. The section on "Application Size" is clearly original research. The text in the article suggests that I or anyone can verify the content by installing several copies of the software on my machine, building several more executables, and comparing the size. It is my contention that this is a wildly unrealistic burden, and is precisely why WP:V requires published information from reputable sources.
2. The IDE history section reads much more like a list of gripes about omissions from the current version than an actual history of the IDE. The section contains eight screenshots, nearly twice as many as the current version, which I contend is excessive. I feel this should be pared down to one, or, at the most, two. I would be much happer with a much shorter section on this, perhaps a few paragraphs, and covering a real history of the product, if such a thing is desired. There is probably a place here for mentioning that the current version feels much less Macintosh native than previous ones, especially if a source can be found that mentions this.
3. The bug history section is perhaps the most worrisome of all. I do not doubt that the bugs exist, as almost every large piece of software has bugs. My concern is, are these bugs notable enough to warrant an appearance in an encyclopedia entry? Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a bug tracking database.

I have a proposal for the long term bug section, in keeping with WP:V. REALbasic is clearly notable enough for several reviews to exist. Can you locate a published review which mentions the flicker bug, or other bugs, as a serious problem with the product? If you can provide a link to one, then I believe this is exactly what WP:V calls for, and we can fairly mention it. If none exists, then I believe this supports mine and User:Zetawoof's feelings that this section does not belong.

I would really like to hear comment on this. We're not going to reach consensus by stomping over each others edits, but we might by actually talking about this. Vslashg (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The bigger issue, to me, is that the sections in question are basically just axe-grinding. While information on application size (for example) may be of some interest to someone, somewhere, it isn't information which is crucial to an understanding of what RealBasic is. Listing bugs? Even less so. (As I've stated, Wikipedia isn't a bug tracker.) If the language had significant failings, whether due to design or error, which made some basic operation (recursion, for example, or dynamic memory management) impossible, then that would be worthy of note. However, the errors noted (the "flicker bug", primarily) don't meet this criterion. A history of the language and an overview of the language's differences from BASIC are the two new component to the article which I believe might be of some value. However, the version history given is primarily a history of the IDE, not the language itself. Zetawoof 08:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for independent verification of any of the information provided on this page by Real software. I don't see any 3rd party articles referenced or linked to to prove the information they have provided. If no links are going to be provided to verfiy this information then this article needs to be removed as it violates Wiki policy.

Moron Warning: Do you really think a magazine that is paid advertising dollars by Real Software is really going to produce a negative review of REALbasic. do you think if they did RS would advertise in their magazine? Do you really think reveiwers of said short magazine article have years of experience with Realbasic over multiple versions? how many of these reveiwers actually market software? Nice way to misdirect from the truth product shiller! —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.66.47 (talk • contribs) .

I can assure you that I am in no way affilited with REALbasic, that I have never used it, and that I am not a shill. Vslashg (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I have never used RealBasic myself, although I've run into a lot of really bad programs written with it, which has tarnished its reputation in my mind - but I definitely have no connection with Real Software. Zetawoof 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on REALbasic, as all the articles in Wikipedia, is merely a description. Wikipedia reports what you normally read on an article of a printed encyclopedia, with the difference it's in HTML format. --Kiam 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd Party Article Links: Not Real Software Links

This is an article about Realbasic and the publisher of this product is the maintainer of this page according to the page (this should be removed as its a conflict of interest and not neutral). Earlier editions of this page even included a link at the top stating "redirected from Real Software". Some of the photos in this article are from Real Software, while others do not provide a link where they are from (apparently made and uploaded by someone on their own computer). Where are the 3rd party articles containing these images as Real Software having anything to do with this article is a clear "conflict of interest". Either provide information from neutral 3rd parties and or remove this article. And by neutral parties I don;t mean magazines which are paid advertising money from Real Software as there is a clear conflict of interest pertaining to their reviews. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.66.49 (talk • contribs) .

I believe you've said this before; however, it's incorrect. This page is neither written, approved, paid for, nor maintained by Real Software. The article Real Software redirects to this page, as this is their only product of note. Zetawoof 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All text and photos from this article which are not directly linked to 3rd independent articles have been removed. By 3rd party independent not Real Software or from reviews of this product in publications which receive advertising money from Real Software and THERE IS CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A simple link to Real Software in the article is fine because the article has to mention its author, but no actual material from Real Software can be included in the article as there is conflict of interest. The phots on the article were on uploads and had no links to a online source so then how can we really believe who uploaded them? There are no 3rd party links for the code samples - what articles did these come from? You cannot simply say Realbasic is "like this" or that "it supports X" - you need to provide links to 3rd part articles which say it does this or that or is like this or that. The only linked items in this article were in fact links to generic computer related terms, not articles backing up the claims made about REALbasic in thsi article. And interestingly the article linked to other article which contained "critism sections", yet on the other hand the product shills for RB don't want to see that type of information here - rather hypocritical. You want to remove other people's uploaded photos and text then you are going to have to live up the same standards as you preach - where's the verification? —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.72.158 (talk • contribs) .

It is quite clearly against accepted Wikipedia guidelines to remove content to make a point about policies. See WP:POINT. It is also against Wikipedia policy to not assume good faith on the part of other editors. See WP:FAITH. Now, are you going to quit acting in destructive fashion towards Wikipedia, or are you going to actually co-operate with the Wikipedia editorial process? Warrens 00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The screenshots included in the article are screenshots taken from the program while running on my PC. As stated by Wikipedia policies, they are qualified for a fair use under United States copyright law. There isn't any conflict of interest, as there isn't any conflict in the picturs showing the brand of a company, in the article which talks of that company.

I don't read in any Wikipedia policies what you are stating here and to delete an article is not the way to force YOUR policy in a web site that you don't even run. --Kiam 00:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No more product Unverifed Shilling!

(1) I suggest you reread the "faith" section:

"This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy . Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes."

(A) Lets see here, first you remove information and uploaded images from a long term user of Realbasic who owns multiple licenses for Realbasic under the guise that the information is not verfied or that that images are personall uploads of screenshots as opposed photos on the web. You also remove screenshots directly linked to articles.

(B) Then when someone makes you live up to the same standards by removing your unverfied information and images you try to invoke some kind of "faith" policy.

"Faith" is not a official policy of Wiki, but verfication is! I choose not to follow the SUGGESTION of faith because you product shills have proven to be untrustworthy in anything you have have to say regarding REALbasic.

(2) "There isn't any conflict of interest" I suggest you reread my post, or learn how to read English. There is a CLEAR conflict of interest if the verfication you are using for article sections involves linking to Real software as they are the publishers. Understand the concept of "independent verification" - it means 3rd party articles from sources with no financial gain to be made from writing a favorable article - this includes Real software and any publication which accepts advertising fees from Real Software.

And you should read the part about "personal attacks" in the Wikipedia.

Basing on what you say, much of the articles in the Wikipedia would not exist, starting from the ones that describe a proprietary programming language (an example for all, Visual Basic .NET). Until I don't see you modifying those articles as well, I will take you just have something against REALbasic. Where does the "neutral point of view" go? --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(3) Well then you want me to follow a "suggestion" as with the concept of "faith", then you should follow the suggestion involving the use of screenshots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Screenshots

"“Where a piece of software runs on more than one Operating System , it should be decided which version to show. Where the difference in appearance between versions is minimal, one option is to simply remove the frame of the window (i.e. the part of the window drawn by the OS, rather than the application) from the image.“"

Why the hell are you including screenshots of RB in each operating system. The only purpose for doing this is to shill the product to potential customers because DUH! the purpose of the new IDE was to make the IDE look and act the same on all operating systems - there is no siginificant differenc ein the look of the IDE across platforms - unlike the earlier version of the IDE in 5.5.5

The editors of this article are more than one. To whom are you talking? --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(4) Still have ot got the concept of verification:

"“Hello world Dim Salutation As String Salutation = "Hello, world" MsgBox(Salutation)”

When you provide a link to something related to a hello world program it should be an independent article that verfies that this can be done in RB, not a generic article about Hello world program. I see no verification in this article that this can be done in RB.

See what there is in any articles about any programming languages and tell me if there isn't the same thing.

The example still is verifiable, as every people can compile it and see it works.

Refering to your previous sentence "learn how to read English", you should as well learn how to write it: I can find many errors in what you write (see "verfies", i.e.). --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(5) As in #4 we see the following statement:

"“RB is a strongly typed language with minimal automatic type conversion, that supports single inheritance and multiple interfaces ,class methods and class properties, reference counting (similar to Java ), definition of customized arithmetic operators (similar to C++ ). It has a complete feature set supporting hash tables ,threads , real-time 3D graphics , sound, XML parsing and generation (even through XSL ), full Unicode support, API calls to compiled Clibraries on all supported platforms, Visual Basic datatypes compatibility, regular expressions ,QuickTime ,serial ,TCP/IP sockets, SSL ,HTTP ,POP3 ,SMTP ,SOAP ,scripting language support through RBScript ,Apple events ,Address book ,Windows registry ,system tray icons ,ActiveX and OLE .”"

Where are the independent articles verfiying that each of these actually exist in Realbasic? There are none! Only generic links to general computer related terms. Thats not verification! That's like adding a paragraph about Realbasic containing monkeys and linking to an article on Wiki about monkeys - thus RB must have monkeys in it because there's a link.

I don't think you can force any of your personal policies on Wikipedia. The verification still there is, as everybody can verify what it's written in the article.

I don't read in any Wikipedia policies that an article cannot contains links to other Wikipedia articles, nor that for every sentence written there has to be an external link.

Like previously said, you should change all the articles about programming languages as well. --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(6) "“Controversy

The last change to RB IDE user interface in favor of a more Windows -ish style has not been welcome from the Mac programmers whom would like better the interface adopted from the other applications running on Mac OS . There are been complains about the new features introduced from whom would like REAL Software to first fix the bugs found in the IDE or in the applications created from REALbasic.

RB still remains one of the few IDE that permits to create GUI multiplatform programs from the same source. “"

That shows me right there you know knothing about RB and you are a complete product shiller, otherwise what's the last sentance in the this section doing there? The controvery is about FEATURES REMOVED, RS NEW PRICING SYSTEM, THE LACK OF SUPPORT TO ITS MAC CUSTOMERS SINCE RB2005, THE UNSTABLE NATURE OF RB SINCE RB2005, and a lot more things than you know anything about.

Here comes again your good skilling of writing English. And then you say the others should learn how to read English.

Just to let you know, I know of REALbasic. It's you whom does seem to know nothing about REALbasic, or you would not doubt what it's written in this articles. It seems you never used it, if you don't even know which classes are present in the class library REALbasic offers. --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(7) You want to put information in this article then you are going to be held up to the same standards as you wish to impose on others - I guess you should have thought about that before shitting on others in an effort to shill a product! —This unsigned comment was added by FalseInformation (talk • contribs) .

Until you don't change all the articles on programming languages in Wikipedia, I will take you have something against REALbasic. And in that case your point of view is not neutral at all.

Plus, it seems that is getting a personal attack against whom writes something about REALbasic. I think there is as well a policy about that, in Wikipedia. --Kiam 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No other article has ONLY wikilinked words in it. --Rory096 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)