Talk:Realbasic/Archive 2

This article is nothing more than product shilling by people who do not even follow their own rules:

Actions of these shills:

1. You remove screnshots others have uploaded, but then object to the fact people are removing your uploaded screenshots which are NOT linked to articles articles verifying the screenshots.

And top further shill this product you include multiple screenshots of this product on multiple operating systems as a way to sell this product instead of following Wiki regulations which say you should only use multiple os screenshots when there is a significant difference between the product on each. The purpose of the new IDE was so RB looks the same on all platforms, thus you ar enothing but shills.

To further illustrate this point you remove historical screenshots of previous IDE's of RB from the article, even ones linked to outside articles, and accorrding to Wiki guidelines mutliple screenshots of previous IDE's is justified because the product looked and acted completely different on different operating systems prior to the new IDE in RB2005.

2. You remove information as being controversial as opposed to neutral yet you link to articles which have their own "con", "controversial", and the like sections.

3. You remove any historical information about the redesign of this product and the removal of features with the introduction of RB2005. Lets see here a product is originally made for the Macintosh platform only, uses a Macintosh interface for the vast majority of its life, and thats not historical information. No you only want to provide free advertising to Real Software instead. The redeign of the product is a historical fact and people have the right to know exactly what they buying and what they no longer can do. Neutral means a balance of + and -, not all +, unless of course if you are nothing but product shillers.

4. You remove a complete set of instructions that any RB user can duplicate for testing for the problem of increased application sizes in RB as RB is updated under the grounds it would be too much of a burden on users to download RB and try it, yet on the other hand you provide code samples which are linked to outside articles, but which you say users can duplicate for themeselves - just how are they are suppose to do that without downloading Realbasic in the same manner.

5. You continually post information highlighting the supposed features of this product, yet provide no links to articles from independent sources to back this up. Instead you say RB has this and that feature and then just link to a generic subject on Wiki. Yet on the other hand you remove other people's work for the same reason.

You continually remove other people's work, but object when people remove your work for the same reason. For this reason this article should be removed from Wikipedia as its nothing more than product shilling for RS, instead of a HISTORICAL GUIDELINE TO THE REALBASIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. You do know Realbasic is programming language - not just the latest versions of the IDE for sale over at RS.


 * Your destructive changes are being reverted by a wide variety of Wikipedia editors who have likely never used (or even heard of) REALBasic, myself included. You have been classified as a vandal for your behaviour here, not because of your opinion.  You have been told this repeatedly, you have been warned repeatedly, you have had multiple accounts banned from Wikipedia for this destructive vandalistic behaviour, and yet you carry on with the blah blah blah.  Don't you get it?  YOU ARE IN THE WRONG HERE.  Nobody is going to give a sh-- about your stance on the subject matter if the sum total of your contribution is destructive vandalism.  There are over one million articles on Wikipedia, can't you find something productive to contribute to this project?  Wikipedia is, first, foremost, and solely an encyclopedia. It is not a platform for advocacy of any kind.  You know this and yet you wilfully ignore it.


 * You have absolutely no chance of winning any kind of concession with this kind of destructive behaviour. Edit constructively, or don't edit at all.  Warrens 04:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Verify or Remove Article
Once again we see the article has been reverted to a ad campaign for Real Software full unverified information. Instead of verifying information the RB product shills continue to use deceitful tactics such as this example under “Language Features”:

“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 C libraries 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.”

This entire paragraph makes claims about features in Realbasic, yet there are NO links to articles verifying that such features actually exist in Realbasic. Instead we see the shills only linking to generic articles on generic computer terms so as to convinve the user that Realbasic contain these features. This is deceitful behavior designed to provide advertising for Realbasic. If in deed these features are included in Realbasic as they claim then they should have no trouble linking to specific INDEPENDENT articles which state such.

We see the same thing repeated in the file format section:

“The source file format contains window and control placement data and is proprietary; however, XML import and export and Visual Basic import functionality is included. All source code can be contained in one project file, but it is also possible to have classes/modules in separate files in the same way as most other languages or dialects can. REALbasic compiles directly to machine language for each platform that it supports (Mac OS X, MS Windows, Linux).”

There are no actual links to articles which verfiy this information - only links to generic computer terms which are misued for the sole purpose of trying to convince potential customers to buy this product. Gee, you neglected to mention that versions of RB prior to RB2005 also included a much ore important feature than XML - the ability to export projects as a plain text that you could then open in any text editor as opposed to XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it.

Let’s examine the introduction:

“REALbasic (RB) is an object-oriented dialect of the BASIC programming language developed and commercially marketed by REAL Software, Inc in Austin, Texas for Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux. Created by Andrew Barry, who has since moved on to creating ExtremeBasic, it was originally called CrossBasic due to its ability to compile the same programming code for Mac OS and Windows (although the IDE was Mac only). It was then redubbed REALbasic by REAL Software when they took over development in 1997. The IDE is now available for all three supported platforms (with exception, as of February 2006, of Intel”

Once again no links to actual articles which verfiy this information, just generic ones. The statement that this product is marketed for Mac OS X is false because with the introduction of Realbasic 2005 it no longer runs on any Mac OS X system from 10 to 10.2.6 (not to mention the fact it no longer runs on any Macintosh Classic platform - the original platform it was developed). Further more you cannot include blanket statements such as it runs on windows or Linux as that means nothing since there are only certain versions of these os’s it will operate on - or that given features will work.

And even more interesting is the fact that the shills behind this product continue to remove historical information about previous versions yet they include historical information within this section, while the remainder of the article only contains information about the latest features so as to sell the product to potential customers.

In the IDE Versions section: “There are two versions of the IDE:


 * The professional edition can compile programs for Mac OS X, Linux and Microsoft Windows (plus Mac OS) from the same source code file; it can also access databases (Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL etc.) including the built-in single-user REAL SQL Database engine based on SQLite; it compiles console applications and has numerous other features.
 * The standard edition only compiles programs for the platform that the IDE is running on (either Windows, Linux or Mac), and does not allow access to databases other than the built-in REAL SQL Database.

Both versions of the IDE permit building the application GUI by dragging the controls from a palette to their parent window. Layout of the controls is helped by the IDE that permits aligning them (both horizontally and vertically), and which gives informations about the distance between controls, or between a control and the window borders.

RB IDE can use plugins that extend the language with classes or modules and which permit to develop multiplatform code more easily.”

Once agian no verfification, only the misuse of generic links in an attempt to add legitimacy to the statements made. If the statements are legit then provide some links! The staement “Both versions of the IDE permit building the application GUI by dragging the controls from a palette to their parent window.” is false - previously versions of Realbasic allowed you to drag controls from a control pallet window with icons of all the controls - the newest versions allow you to drag controls from listbox which permantely affixed inside the main window as opposed to a floating window pallet.

Screenshots:

No surprise here - no actual pictures from online article, just picture some shill has uploaded!

Once again we see Wiki’s polcy of screenshots be broken. the article includes screenshots of both Mac and Windows so as to sell the product. Wiki states only show one operating system’s screen shots. The purpose of the new IDE was so the product looked the same on all operating systems so there is no justification for multiple screenshots with the new IDE.

I further object to their being any Windows screenshots - there should be Mac only screenshots as this was originally devloped as a Mac application, has existed for many years as a Mac only application, with Windows users late comers to this product.

And more interestingly the shills remove multiple screenshots of previous IDE’s when in fact Wiki’s policy about screenshots justifies the use of multiple screenshots for older IDEs because each WAS DIFFERENT - Windows versions of the product used MDI which Mac did not since the Mac has no concept of the (idiot) MDI interface, but of course the shills don’t want any such information here because reflects badly on the conduct of RS (i.e., willing to stab their Mac customers in the back by removing the original Mac interface and other features so as to sell copies to Windows users).

Example code:

No links to articles ocntianing such code, thus to verfiy this information the reader must download RB, which takes up 120MB of your hard drive when unstuffed/unzipped (not to mention additional MB for supporting documents). This is unjustified burden on readers and rather dangerous since anyone could post a few lines of code here which could actuually harm the reader’s computer if they didn;t know any better.

Summary:

Either fix this article by providing verfied information or remove it completely as it sntothing but free ad space for RS. The shills should have no problem verfifying the information if RB is a great as they claim for surely there are a multitude on online articles to back up their claims. Yet so far the only thing we have seen is continued misuse of Wiki to post unverified and false information about RB; the continued abuse of Wiki rules; the continued abuse of Wiki’s system by falsely censoring posters for the same actions the they have taken themselves, and total hypocrisy as they don’t practice what they preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.24 (talk • contribs)


 * 1) You are obviously concerned about this article, and thanks for providing some more detail, but please don't illustrate your points with disruptions like this or accuse everyone else who might be here of being hypocritical. You've violated quite a few Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia works largely by concensus, but you make it very hard for others to agree with you when you vandalize and make repeated accusations. I really think you should familiarize yourself with the main Wikipedia policies and remember Hanlon's Razor, and at least pretend to calm down a bit more.
 * 2) Note that many of the other programming language articles have somewhat similar problems with verifying information, because there is not that much that gets published about programming languages in anything mainstream, and little that could be called unbiased.
 * 3) "...XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it..." - How does XML not also qualify as plain text?
 * 4) Which of the language features in particular do you disagree with being in the article? I don't think anyone would object to removing a few of them if they're not significant or easily verifiable.
 * 5) Information from a company's website itself is generally considered acceptable for use as a source of information in describing that company's product, except when other notable sources dispute the accuracy of that information.

– Tifego (t)03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove article or verify - totally biased article!
"...XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it..." - How does XML not also qualify as plain text?

Are you serious?

Raw xml includes formatting tags like html, while plain text does not. Try dropping xml file into a text editor which does not parse xml and see what you get get when you try to print it - gee you get the text you want to print plus the xml tags - as opposed to simply taking a plain text file generated from RB and print that. This is a perfect exmaple of why people who know nothing about RB, or least those that pretend to know knothing about it, should have nothing to do with this article.


 * First of all, stop being incivil. Secondly, XML is perfectly editable in, viewable in, and printable from a text editor. I know very well it has formatting tags. Those tags are human-readable, so I'm not sure what your problem is with XML per se. Perhaps RB transforms it into atrocious XML, but your complaint was about the fact that it used XML insead of the quality of its use of XML. – Tifego (t)20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

“Note that many of the other programming language articles have somewhat similar problems with verifying information, because there is not that much that gets published about programming languages in anything mainstream, and little that could be called unbiased.”

Here we go again. first the shills remove information because there are no links to articles. then they remove information posted when there are links. Now when they are expected to be bound by the same rules they say there’s a general problem of obtaining articles about programming. What a bunch of bull - just get off your butt and do some searching on Google, but of course if you had severlal years of experience using RB you’d already have a large collection of bookmarks where such information can be found, but if you think I am going to provide you with such information you can forget it - just one to many falsehoods here.


 * Links to articles have nothing to do with it, we're talking about external reference links here. Why do you expect others to add this information that you're suggesting you know better? That seems hypocritical. If you are saying that there is no such information out there anywhere to justify anything in the article, then you would do better to argue that more directly. – Tifego (t)20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

“Which of the language features in particular do you disagree with being in the article? I don't think anyone would object to removing a few of them if they're not significant or easily verifiable.”

This article is beyond ridiculous as there is NOTHING in the article that is verified. The only thing in the article that is verfified are generic links to generic computer terms which are only included to trump up unverified statements and claims. This article goes beyond the bounds of ethical behavior - not a single verified thing.


 * Again, you're not being specific. If you think the article should be deleted as non-notable then put it up on AfD, there's a process for this and it doesn't involve insulting people and Wikipedia on the article's talk page. – Tifego (t)20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

“Information from a company's website itself is generally considered acceptable for use as a source of information in describing that company's product, except when other notable sources dispute the accuracy of that information.”

You have to be kidding. Above you say its hard to obtain articles which are unbiased, yet you now say its o.k. to use RS as a reference. How stupid do you think people are? Next you’ll say its o.k. to use reveiws of RB from magazines which get ad dollars from RS. Both sources are totally biased and the only way YOU are going to understand is to use RB for years, assuming of course your not feigning ignorance (but you never know when it comes to RS).


 * See WP:V. That is what I was referring to. – Tifego (t)20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not denying the possibility that they may be outright lying about every single feature of RB, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that so far. – Tifego (t)20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

“Thoughts? Questions? Complaints?”

Same unverified information. I really can’t believe this article - not a single thing in it is is verfied except for generic links to generic terms. I “real-ly” believe any claims of neutrality here!

Still has multi os screenshots! Duh! All os's use the same ide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.154 (talk • contribs)

Same old shilling!
“First of all, stop being incivil. Secondly, XML is perfectly editable in, viewable in, and printable from a text editor. I know very well it has formatting tags. Those tags are human-readable, so I'm not sure what your problem is with XML per se. Perhaps RB transforms it into atrocious XML, but your complaint was about the fact that it used XML insead of the quality of its use of XML.”

Are you really this dense? Prior to the introduction of RB2005 Rb could export a project as a plain text file - that means NO FORMATTING TAGS. You just take the resulting text file and print it as is - NO EDITING & NO WORK. Now drop the same XML into a plain text editor and try to print it - it will print both the text you want and print the tags. You really gives a damn if you can actually edit the tags - why in the hell I am many others want to edit the tags - we are not interesting in editing or viewing any tags what so ever - we want the project as plain text. Once again, anothe reason why people who openly say they know nothing about RS should have anything to do with this article. This is perfect example of the authors are trying to lie about RB - saying it has the ability to export projects as XML, but NOT mentioning that for most of its history it provided a much more helpful feature of exporting projects as plain text. This is is only one issue in a long history of RS continually adding new features so as to entice upgrades and new purchases, but not telling you that the said features which you’ve come to rely on and need may not be there in the near future (frankly rather unethical). An how does wiki reward Rs, by providing them with free advertising space in an article WITH NO EXTERNALLY VERFIED INFORMATION!

“Links to articles have nothing to do with it, we're talking about external reference links here. Why do you expect others to add this information that you're suggesting you know better? That seems hypocritical. If you are saying that there is no such information out there anywhere to justify anything in the article, then you would do better to argue that more directly.”

What are you even talking about? The authors of this article have provided NO independent EXTERNAL LINKS to verfy any information or claims they have made. No, instead, they just link to other Wiki articles about generic computer terms WHICH DO NOT VERIFY ANYTHING ABOUT RB.

So then is you are going to include statements and claims in a Wiki article it is YOUR JOB to provide external links to back those claims up. If you choose not to get off your but and do some Google searching to provide those links then the information should be removed.

“Again, you're not being specific. If you think the article should be deleted as non-notable then put it up on AfD, there's a process for this and it doesn't involve insulting people and Wikipedia on the article's talk page. “

At this point I don;t believe anything further you have to say. I am very being very specific. NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE, NONE OF CLAIMS, NONE OF STATEMENTS, NOT EVEN THE SCREEN SHOTS ARE VERFIED BY OUTSIDE EXTERNAL LINKS FROM A INDEPENDENT SOURCE (i.e., not Real Software OR any publication that gets ads dolalrs from RS).

Recently while looking at Wiki I found an article on Wiki with a framed warning box at the top stating that the article below the warning box was not based on any given sources. So then why has not such a warning been added to the top of this article? Neutrality - Yeah I really believe that is going on here.

I see the multi operating system screen shots are still there - or since you claim to know nothing about RS maybe you can't tell - the first one in the frame is Mac, and the additional one(s) are Windows. Of course if the real purpose of this article is to just sell Realbasic then I'll bet they'll stay. Hell why not include a Linux one also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.72.110 (talk • contribs)


 * Look, you need to chill out. I'm done talking with you if you're going to keep acting like that. And this article does have that warning box at the top, I added it earlier. – Tifego (t)05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Look, you need to chill out. I'm done talking with you if you're going to keep acting like that. And this article does have that warning box at the top, I added it earlier. "

Now I know you are an absolute liar. The box wasn't added until I brought it up. now your trying to make it sound like it was already there when I complained about it not being there. You are a complete liar and know I know you are also nothing but a shill for this product! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.72.216 (talk • contribs)


 * Why don't you check the edit history to see when I added it? I don't even understand why you're arguing with me when I actually agree that the article is too much like an advertisement and needs to be cut down and verified. Stop being a troll. Bye. – Tifego (t)09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The box was not there when I added my post, otherwise why would I have not mentioned it being there? Duh? Who cares about posting times since these can be changed, just as previous posts of mine have been changed, but not by me. LOL! Next you'll try and tell me emails can't be faked!

False Sources; Unjustified Burden to Readers; conflict of Interest
The Language Reference cannot be used as a source because:

1. There is a clear conflict of interest here as this document is written by the company that makes the product. Additionally, anyone fimilar with actually using RB for years knows the LR contains errors and knows that features often do not work as described in the LR.

For example, add a help tag to a control and then compile for Windows. As soon as the control is used once the help tag disappears forever. This defect, which runs contrary to what the LR says, is documented in RS's own feedback system, on RS's NUG, and on RS's own online forum.

And if you were to download say RB 2005 build 1 or build 2 and try to use the LR you would soon find that could actually use the LR for too long of time on the Macintosh because it caused RB to crash, even producing kernal panics on a Mac.

2. To verfiy the information in the LR this requires the user to download RB to use the built-in LR or a download a seperate pdf document. If you go with the RB option you are looking a major install - RB is 120MB by itself, not to mention the LR and other items that come with RB. If you go with the pdf document you are looking at downloading a 1,000 page document (as stated in the Linix.com reveiw you linked to). This is an unjustified burden to readers of this article - you really tink someone with a 56K line is going to sit in front of their computer while this downloads?

Register Review:

1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/13/review_realbasic_2005/page3.html

Exactly what qualifies this person as an accepted RS "expert"? Look at the above link and notice the statement:

"For folk with an eye toward multi-core processors, RealBasic is capable of generating multi-threaded code."

This is completely false statement designed to market RB. I suggest anyone get a hold of REALbasic: A Definite Guide, 2nd Edition, by Matt Neuberg, and look on page192 for this statement:

"Unless you got multiple processors and a pro-gramming language that (unlike Realbasic) knows how to take advantage of them, seperate threads do not really execute simultaneously; instead, the computer polls threads, executing some of one thread before preceeding to execute some of another thread, and so on."

This guy is not an expert to get such fundamental knowledges and as such as opposed to Matt's book which is generally considered to be the Bible of RB. And please do not let anyone tell you that the information in the book is out of date because in this article on RS's won forum a RS engineer acknowledges that RB does not support multi processor threads:

http://forums.realsoftware.com/viewtopic.php?t=3608&highlight=thread

The article states that this is a review for Mac, Windows, and Linux, yet the this soc alled expert has forgot to mention major defects in the product inherit with the RB2005, which he is reveiwing, which obviously tells me he actually used the IDE for all the operating system, but as the article's tone would suggest, only for Windows.

2. There is aother information in this article which is false. This article sounds like the reviewer is describing RB to sell it as opposed to actually having several years experience using it.

3. There is clear conflict of interest as this site is posting advertising for selling Realbasic per Google ads.

4. There are no screenshots in this article - they have bad links.

Linux Review:

I object to this article be placed here because there is conflict of interest here. Linux.com is receiving free exposure on Real Software's site:

http://www.realsoftware.com/news/pr/2005/

If I recall correctly when this article first came out is was listed on RS's home page. I also recall some RB advertising on Linux.com, though the banner ads appear to have gone since.

Just to let you know the game works:

1. A company buys advertising in a publication (paper, online) and in return the publication wirtes a article about the companies product.

2. And as often the case the company and the publication self-promote each by listing each other's site on their won web page. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Summary:

If you want o use online references they can't be Real software or aby any publication which has RB advertising or has a cross promotion agreement with RS.

If you want to use documents as sources they can't burden the user and have to be from independent sources, not RS.

April 29 2006
The Smith Reveiw contains false information as the review insinuates that RB is coded to take advantage of dual processors - that it, it runs multiple threads at the same time, when in fact RB does not runs multiple threads at the same time - it runs a small part of one thread, then another small part of another thread. Even Real Software will tell you that RB is does not run multiple threads at the same time. And page 192 of Matt Neuberg's book Realbasic: A Definite guide tells you this. the ocnitnued intsertion of this false information into this artilce just shows how perverted the authros of this article are and it shows their non neutral statis. This article needs to be investigated bythe Attorney General of certains states for product shilling and false advertisement as it continues to list no sources for the information!

What happned to the paragraph at the top inside a frame which says this article doe snot list its sources? Just goes to show that the authors of this article are nothing but shills for Real Software!

This means means war!

Added No Sources Box
This article still does not provide links to independent sources for tis material as such a warning needs placed on top for all potential purchasers of this product, unless of course if the sole purpose of this artilce is really to sell more licenses for this product.


 * You again, "Boycotrealbasic"? All you ever do around here is a push a clear anti-Realbasic POV. Warrens 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Boycotrealbasic"? - Who is that? Realbasic? thats Funny - I own multiple licenses and currently use 5.5.5 pro. Unlike you, who either don't have have clue about RB or or simply a shill for Real Software.

Perhaps you don't get Wiki - it requires verfied sources - and strangely there are none in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.201 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the register.com article
1. What qualifies Tony Smith an a RB expert? Never heard of him and have never read a RB book by him.

2. I object to this article being placed here as the main point of article strongly appears to be to link to a page which included Google ads for Realbasic, which is clicked benefit the author and company hosting the article as opposed to being objective.

3. This person clearly is NOT an RB expert because his review contains completely false information:

"For folk with an eye toward multi-core processors, RealBasic is capable of generating multi-threaded code."

In the above statement he clearly says RB is capable of running multiple thread on multi processor computers - that is, the seperate processors work on different threads at the same time in order to complete them faster than running the threads in linear fashion.

Under no circumstances does RB run multiple threads at the same time; it runs a small part of one thread and then a small part of another thread to give the appearance of running multiple threads at the same time. This is clearly stated on page 192 of Matt Neuberg's book Realbasic: A Definite Guide (2nd Edition).

4. This article contain biased information which is directed against the original Macintosh users who do not agree with the Windows centric views this author has expressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.201 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Warrens - Stop Defraduing Realbasic Cusotmers
If this article continues to be written from the point of view of only selling Realbasic then the authors of this article should be held liable for defraduing any potential customers who purchased the product based on their false statements about the capbilities of this product. The conduct of the authors and administrators of this article need to be reported to the local better business bureau centers and state attorney generals as a clear case of cosumer fraud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.201 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

May 16 2006
I suggest you read your own policies:

"For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:


 * self-reverts
 * correction of simple vandalism
 * removing posts made by a banned or blocked use

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

I was undoing the vandalism commited my Warrens and other authors. Including false information and violating Wiki rules is vandalism. And all my revisions were done to previous editions - DUH!

So then, Bigfoot, you claim to be a neutral administrator do you and not here to shill Realbasic. Well then you will see that my edits include removing images from the article that violate Wiki policy, which is vandilsm. The article includes a image of the Mac IDE supplied with the Realbasic info box, and then includes another image of a Windows screen shot in the body. This violates Wiki policy which states who are suppose to only include screenshots from ONE operating system, especially since the IDE looks the same in all operating systems. The sole purpose of including these images is to shill realbasic on Wiki. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is Bigfoot and remove one of the images! But you will not because you only want to shill Realbasic on Wiki! I brought this issue up multiple times before and you and the other administratos have DONE NOTHING!

You have been provided direct edivence that information contained with the theregister reveiw is false - a link to a page on Real Software's own forums which point blank says RB uses cooperative threading. You have also been provided on numerous occasions a reference to a book which directly refutes the information within the review. Yet you continue to do nothing about removing the theregister reveiw, knowing that it contains false information. In addition the theregister article consists of OPINION, not fact, and as such is not suitable as a reference. You are knowingly including false information in this Wiki article and are thus knowingly defrauding potential customer so fthis product! You wanted a link to dispute the information in the theregister article and I gave one straight from the publisher of the Realbasic and you still refuse to do anything.

You continue to allow to allow editos to remove the link to Extremebasic. One of the previous so called neutral editors removed the link under the guise that Extremebasic is just something one guy is doing on his own. Well then I suggest you remove the article for Realbasic, because exactly how do you think Realbasic was made - by Andrew on his own, then Real Software bought the product, with Andrew continuing to work there until version 2 (ish). Your continued removal of this link to Extremebasic show you only wish to shill Realbasic in this article - this is suppose to an encylopedia and Extremebasic is closely related to Related to because its from the same author.

I Suggest You Give an Apology Bigfoot
I also see that the various edits which you are accusing me of doing are from different ip addresses. Where the hell do you get of accusing me of making all these edits when the possible pool is hundreds of thousands of people? I am not the only person who uses RB in my household either; and I have associates in the same geographical area that share the same opinion - so then where the hell do you get off accusing me of making all the edits and blocking editing of the article.

The reason of course you blocked editing is because YOU and the other so called neutral editos want to shill a commercial product on Wikipedia. This is suppose to a encyclopedia, with an article on the history of Realbasic, not an article is being used to sell the latest version of Realbasic. This article continues not to cite its sources; instead it uses an extremely deceptive technique of just linking to general computer terms found on Wiki - this is not verfification of whats said in the article.

This article is totally immoral and violates numerous Wiki policies and ethics and YOU continue to do nothing about it!

where is the Removedd Material
Who have yet to asnwer where the material removed from this page has gone. I have pdf versions of this page saved and they clearly show previous entered material which no longer appears on this page. This material also no longer appears on pages which are linked to this page, which means YOU, the administrators removed it in violation of Wiki policy.

I have yet to see YOUR EXPLANATION! This is fraud!

No Verification of Any Material - A Complete Fraud
The author sof this article provide NO links to verfiy any of the information in this article. This information is the author's opinion and based on their personal knowledge and is thus original research and it should be removed. All they do is provde geenric links to general computer terms to try to con the reader into thinking that the article is verfied, when in fact none of the opnions expressed within the article is backed up by independent links. This is a complete and utter fraud and if you cotinue to knowingly defrauf Wiki readers then this matter need to be looked into legally as YOU are not willing to do anything to correct it!

Where's the verfification - apparently the authors of this article, protected by immoral adminitrators, do not have to follow wiki rules.

"REALbasic was created by Andrew Barry. It was originally called CrossBasic due to its ability to compile the same programming code for Mac OS and Windows (although the integrated development environment was Mac only). It was then redubbed REALbasic by REAL Software when they took over development in 1997. The IDE is now available for all three supported platforms (with the exception, as of April 2006, of Macs based on the Apple-Intel architecture).

Language features

RB is a strongly-typed language with minimal automatic type conversion, which supports inheritance and interfaces, class methods and class properties, reference counting, and operator overloading. As described in the language reference, its built-in framework supports hash tables, cooperative threads, real-time 3D graphics, sound, XML parsing and generation, full Unicode support, application programming interface calls to compiled C libraries on all supported platforms, Visual Basic datatypes compatibility, regular expressions, QuickTime, serial communications, sockets (both TCP and UDP), SSL, HTTP, POP3, SMTP, SOAP, scripting language support through RBScript, Apple events, Address book, Windows registry, system tray icons, ActiveX and OLE (REAL Software 2006).

File Format

The source file format contains window and control placement data and is proprietary, although XML import and export are supported. All source code can be contained in one project file, but it is also possible to have classes/modules in separate files in the same way as most other languages or dialects can. REALbasic compiles directly to machine language for each platform that it supports.

Current Editions of IDE A typical GUI building session in REALbasic's IDE

There are two versions of the IDE:


 * The professional edition can compile programs for Mac OS X, Mac Classic, Linux and Windows from the same source code file; it can also access databases (Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL etc.) including the built-in single-user REAL SQL Database engine based on SQLite; it compiles console applications, can remote debug and has numerous other features.
 * The standard edition only compiles programs for the platform that the IDE is running on (either Windows, Linux or Mac), and does not allow access to databases other than the built-in REAL SQL Database.

Both versions of the IDE permit building the application's graphical user interface by dragging the controls from a toolbar to their parent window. Layout of the controls is helped by the IDE that permits aligning them (both horizontally and vertically), and which gives informations about the distance between controls, or between a control and the window borders.

Example code

This is an example of operator overloading for a hypothetical Complex class which permits to sum a real to a complex number, and to sum two complex numbers:

Function Operator_Add(rhs as Simple) As Complex Dim ret As New Complex ret.R = Self.R + rhs ret.I = Self.I Return ret End Function

Function Operator_Add(rhs as Complex) As Complex Dim ret As New Complex ret.R = Self.R + rhs.R ret.I = Self.I + rhs.I Return ret End Function

The same function can be defined to accept Double datatype values. This code shows how to use the Complex class to sum a real with a complex number:

Dim First As New Complex(0, 1) Dim Second As New Complex(1, 1) Dim Sum As Complex Sum = First + 5.0 + Second // Sum will be (6, 2)

"

REMOVE THIS ARTICLE - GROSS VIOLATIONS OF WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REALbasic

The so called neutral administrators and authors of this article:

1. Have removed information from the discussion page; no not moved, but removed, as I have pdf copies of previous entered text, which no longer appears.

2. none of the information in the article is verfied. Instead they continue to use the deceptive technique of only linking to general computer terms found on Wiki to give the appearance that the article has some verfification; however, none of the information in the article is verfied by independent outside links. It consists of opionion and personal knowledge and original research.

3. When given direct links to other pages, or references to specific page number son books, which direct disprove information contained within articles that they have linked to they continue to refuse to remove the links which contain false information. They were provided a link directly from the publisher of the product which disputed the information in links they provide and yet they refuse to do anything.

4. The make statement sin the article and then link to articles which directly dispute what they said in article, but they continue to do nothing, because they do not bother to read the articles they link to - links to articles are only added to add a false sense of verification.

5. They use product reviews from unknown sources, which solely contain OPION and often contain completely false information; from unqualified sources (anybody can buy a .com address and put up a web page, but that does not make them an qualified expert).

6. They continue to link to reviews on which there is advertising for the product that is being reveiwed. This is clear conflict of interest as the person writing the reveiw gets money from the ads selling the product, thus they are willing to say good things about the product contrary to the facts.

7. They continue to use th publisher of the product as a linked reference source. This is a clear conflict of interest as from own and other's experience the publisher of the product has enganged in questionable/immoral business practices. This is like having the fox in charge of the hen house.

8. they continue to include multiple operating screen shots of the product when wiki says only to use screenshots form operating system.

9. Wiki is suppose to be an encyclopedia, yet they only permit information about the current version of product so as to sell a commercial product on wiki. They do not permit an historical information about the product, yet its 10 years old.

10. They link to articles which contain pro and con sections, yet theydo not permit such on their own page; they only permit positive comments when in fact the product has major defects, some of which have existed for 10 years.

I frankly tired of these administrator and authors using Wiki to sell a commerical product amd want this article article removed - this has t be one of the worse articles on wiki as it DOES NOT PROVIDE VERIFICATION LINKS FOR ANYTHING!