How about low-brow?

[PhilOfPerth]

There have been some very exciting and impressive programmes written and posted on this site, and they are often fun to download and see in action. But many are too high-brow to be worked on - or even understood - by newbies.

Unless some less-technically coded items are submitted, with clear explanations of what they do and how they do it, I'm afraid there won't be many new younger or less experienced members joining us. 

The Forum needs to encourage new members, and engender interest in learning a "new" language to people who have yet to wet their feet in this subject. Without this feed, the group will stagnate and eventually diminish, and even fade completely into oblivion.

There's room, and a need, for these advanced applications, but programmes don't always need all of the more complex features that are available. They should allow, and encourage, younger people to try to emulate and explore.

That's my two-cents worth, anyway.

[Unseen Machine]

I agree...and to me QB64 is dead already! But my assessment is on other users interactions and responses to my post i cant say this is everyone's interpretation...

Its whole premise was to support old QBasic code on modern systems, and for that its 90% fine...my issue is that that people who want/use it for this ideal dont grasp its true functionality! EVEVRYTHING IS GL BASED AND C++ at runtime and this either scares or annoys purist's (In my view they should use dosbox) and as such they PUSH modern devs away and think that somehow they can still compete! LIKE COME ON! (Suck it up and grow a pair and learn how to REALLY CODE!!)

I now HATE most of this community as i find them not willing to praise or even acknowledge code that isnt QB64 pure (even though it all C++!) and weve gone back to the Cola days again! (A group of biddies who ignore the people they dont like or who intimidate them!)

Again, My opinion as i know is not something anyone cares about! But i helped make this language long before 90% of the current people even knew of it!

Unseen

[Petr]

Yes, I agree. It is necessary to add examples for newbies. I propose an alphabetical list of all commands and their usage in a thread aimed at newbies. By the way, that's how I started. Out of curiosity: What is PSet? (in my language it is called almost the same as the English word Dog). I thought: will it bark? Yes, those were the early days. Beautiful carefree times. Indeed. Unseen: I am deeply buried in my program and that is why I have not tried your work yet, nor have I done anything in other directions like arrays in arrays and so on. When I try it, I will give a reaction. Don't be sad. How many people here use OpenGl? You, MasterGy, me sometimes. So 4 people in total? Sometimes someone... I understand you

[Magdha]

I suspect that most (all?) members will think, having read Phil's post, oh yes we should be doing that.  I thought that we could have another Section in Code & Stuff - Simple Programs (or a title which looks attractive to absolute newbies).  But elsewhere another member (I can't remember who or where) pointed out that our community is composed of a dying bunch of folks who loved QuickBasic2 (I didn't even progress to 4.5!).
I remain grateful to STA (Steve-the-Amazing) for keeping things going.  Thank you.

[Jack]

@PhilOfPerth
you puzzle me, why do you strive to come across as a beginner ?
in one of your post you slipped and responded to a post about electric engineering as one who knows what he is talking about

[SMcNeill]

Honestly, from Steve's Perspective (TM), a "Beginner's Corner" would pretty much be a waste of time on the forums.

Now, before you guys explode on me and start beating me with sticks and boulders for being elitist or uncaring or some other crap, let me explain WHY I feel like that!

First, let's take into account that BASIC as it existed originally (the beginner's features, if you will), has been around 50+ years.  There's been a bazillion demos and tutorials and lessons on how to learn QBx, whether that x is QBasic or QB4.5 or QBX or whatever version you like.  If you think you can sit down and finally write THE lesson which is going to draw people into the language and syntax after all these years and prior tutorials out there.....  Go ahead.  Dazzle us!!   

Second, if one wants to learn how to program starting at point A and traverse to point B, then there's Terry Ritchie's Tutorial to get folks started.  He's put a ton of work into the tutorial, hosts it freely for us all to enjoy, and has a nice step of lessons which start with the very basics and then advances into ever more complex tasks.   If you think you can do better than he has....  Then CONTACT TERRY AND WORK ON IMPROVING WHAT HE"S GOT!!  There's no need to start over from scratch and have to reinvent the entire lesson yourself.  Build upon what he's already provided.

Third, if you want to do as Magda suggests and work on commands from start to finish, look at the Keyword of the Day series to get started, and then simply go to it!  Make certain you take a moment to look at each keyword in the wiki, view the examples there, and that you produce information and samples that are better than the ones already associated with each keyword.  If you notice, RhoSigma was nice enough to include the KotD entries directly linked to the wiki, and if you do a good job, your posts featuring any missing KotD will be added there as well!  Again, you don't need to start over from scratch and there's no need for a new set of forums for such a thing -- just build upon what's already there.

Between all the innumerable old QBx tutorials alive and out there in the wilds of the internet, Terry's Tutorial, and the Keyword of the Day series, I think we've already covered almost all these "low brow" commands.  I honestly don't know what more we could say about them, that we haven't already said and covered repeatedly.

The biggest problem I see with starting something new like this is:
1) If you go alphabetical, you're working on explaining ABS to a noob before you even explain PRINT.  That's not going to be a very effective way to learn.
2) If you go step by step... you have to provide something that Terry already doesn't, as you'd basically be reinventing his tutorial in your own words.  Why not use it as a starting point and go from there?
3) There's extensive resources already devoted to all these commands in the form of the wiki and Keyword of the Day.  What are you going to say that they don't?  If you can say it better, then why not expand those two things and make it an official part of the reference tools for everyone forevermore?
4) And here's the big thing...  *IF* someone needs help because they can't figure out how to get PRINT "Hello World" to work...   Then it's *such* a low brow issue and already covered in so many places, chances are you'd never think to write up anything new covering that command.  While you're explaining the difference between AND, OR, XOR and the new _ANDELSE, ORALSO, NEGATE and such, the poor new guy is simply going to....   log in, post in "HELP ME" with some post saying "HELPS! I CAN'T PRINT HELLO WORLDS!!"  He'll do what he can on his own, with all those resources already provided, and when he hits some stumbling block, he'll just post the issue and receive help directly for it.

So...  Steve's Take On The Issue (TM)?

Build on what's already here.  Look over the wiki, see if the examples are sufficient for each keyword.  If not, offer up better ones and have them added to the wiki.  Add to the Keyword of the Day series if you need to really highlight something, explain some quirk, or point out something which you think folks should know.  Expand Terry's Tutorial if you go over it and think it's missing anything.  Help those who pop up and post in the HELP ME forum -- that's always the first place I go when I log in and I have that single forum set to always send me notifications of new topics in it via email so I'll know to check and help someone as soon as I can.

Expand the Wiki.
Expand the Keyword of the Day.
Expand Terry's Tutorial.
Help those who post in Help Me.

If those things don't cover anything "low brow"...   Then you guys will just have to show me what the hell we're missing and how to present it in a better manner than what we already have.  This is an open and free set of forums, just like this is an open and free project.  Anyone can jump in at any point and do their thing.  If you think you can improve on any of these existing things... *DO IT!!*  Don't just do like Magda and SAY, "oh yes, we should all be doing that!"  Just.... **DO IT!!**

Everything we have is freely expandable by our users, whether that be something here on forums, github repo, or wiki.  Choose what's lacking and work on correcting it or expanding it.  There's no need to start something new from scratch.  Just correct or expand on what already exists out there for us. 

And that, my friends, is Steve's Perspective (TM) on the whole situation. 

[hsiangch_ong]

i don't care if somebody understands my programs.  i don't like commenting.  no, i don't and i won't be influenced.  usually i would have just cursed someone out.  on the other hand.  i should stop using single-letter variable names.  in code i share on internet.

i've started topics.  of programs i shared.  in which each topic received zero replies.  that convinced me.  that it's worthless trying to "make it easier for newbies."  there are no such thing as really-new players.  of programming as a hobby or as a career, as well as of rpg.

terry's tutorials are going to be as "low-brow" as it would get.  but it's only my opinion.

---

btw i hope terry is at least alive today.  it's been over a year.  he's missed over here.

[Magdha]

Third, if you want to do as Magdha suggests and work on commands from start to finish...

Eh?  I don't think that I suggested anything of the sort.

In the end, this is Steve's baby (and lovingly cradled & cared for by him) & the best thing to do is as he says.  There's enough pre-existing stuff so very well prepared for the beginners.  The Beginners' Corner was merely a suggestion.

[bplus]

bplus has this for awhile now!
https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/showthread...6#pid16026

[Kernelpanic]

At the point: Do it! There are two pages about QB64 on Wikipedia. I already tried to correct this Wikipedia page about QB64 last year: Rob Galleon, but there were problems with the logo. They seemed to be worried about copyright infringement. And then there's a second, new page: QB64pe Team

It's a bit confusing. Can't the pages be merged? Starting -- Today.