The future of QB64

[TerryRitchie]

You're welcome :)

[Bert22306]

Maybe not quite so dire, yerever. The blocky look might apply to parts of the IDE maybe, like whatever it's called that surrounds the IDE, but not to everything. I mean, QB64 would be an app, just like MS Word is an app. Ultimately, you type documents in MS Word pretty much like we always have done. And what's more, you can create documents (or viewgraphs, spreadsheets) that look like whatever you want them to look like. Microsoft is not going to police the format of your output!

Hopefully, we're making too big a deal of this.

[davidshq]

So, bplus pointed me over to this conversation as I was remarking on recently submitting (and successfully publishing) a QB64 app to the Windows Store. FYI, it isn't that hard to make a traditional Win32 app into a UWP app...because you don't truly have to.

Microsoft has a tool called Desktop App Converter that packages up Win32 apps into appx format. There are some changes that have to be made (I'm working through some related to creating/deleting/saving files) but it seems pretty viable to me and I know there are other, bigger apps that are now in Windows store that still are Win32 apps under the hood.

All that to say, without a ton of work, it should be possible to get QB64 into a pseudo UWP format that will last long into the future. :)

On the other hand, I'm watching things happening with WebAssembly (WASM). Using WASM it might be possible to swap out the C/C++ compiler and use WASM instead to create web apps...but I'm still learning about WASM.

[Pete]

My guess is most of us who started with QBASIC, QB45 (QuickBASIC) are not onboard with any more Microsoft BS. I bet I spent half my time f'ing around with compatibility issues to convert QB programs to QB64 programs to go from for Windows XP to Vista/7. Now they want to go to apps. What's next? If I still had my practice I would have bought a dozen Windows 7 computers two years ago.

Pete

[SMcNeill]

Why would anyone tie themselves to MS??

Because they're no different than any other OS out there -- with one exception: it currently works.

Linux and QB64 is now completely unusable.  I just downloaded the latest version of Mint and installed it.  Installed QB64 after... 

It builds.  It makes the executable... 

It won't run.  At all.  Zilch.  Nada.  Nope.

This may be an issue with needing the "-no-pie" switch set, but if so, I can't get it to work for me.  Without -no-pie being set, the executables built are described as TYPE: Unknown.  They're not runnable programs.

With the -no-pie set, they become executables again, but you're limited to console only programs.  NO IDE.  NO GRAPHICS. Hell, you can't even have a program run in screen 0!!  Just $CONSOLE:ONLY...

No thanks.  I'll pass.

**************************

Mac, of course, doesn't work with QB64 currently.  They've depreciated OpenGL -- which we depend on -- and currently you have to download a beta version of MacOS to try and get QB64 to work.

And, if we're talking future predictions, Mac has a bad habit of obsoleting things they depreciated just a few years ago.  Even if today's beta version of Mac runs QB64, chances are it's time is limited before they decide OpenGL doesn't work at all for them anymore.

************************

So WHY stick to Windows??

Because nothing else works worth a shit any more.

[Pete]

@Steve:

What about SHELL in LINUX? I would think something would have to be added to emulate the same SHELL commands as in the MS COMMAND window routines.

Pete

[STxAxTIC]

Y'all are missing the point routinely about JavaScript. It's your only good target if the OS's are gonna rip the rug from under your feet. Does anyone else remember Galleon's last big ambition for QB64? I'm definitely not alone in this opinion.

[SMcNeill]

@Steve:

What about SHELL in LINUX? I would think something would have to be added to emulate the same SHELL commands as in the MS COMMAND window routines.

Pete

No idea.  I can't even get QB64 to start with a new Linux Distro; so there's no way to test how SHELL might work with it.  I had a copy of Mint 17 -- QB64 no longer works with it.  Grabbed a new copy of Mint 19 -- QB64 doesn't work with it. 

I'm going to give it one more try with a completely different system (RedHat maybe), and if that doesn't work, I'm through with trying to get Linux to work with QB64. 

Win 10 might be a pain the ass, but at least it works.

[TerryRitchie]

So WHY stick to Windows??

Because nothing else works worth a shit any more.

This is why I believe a concerned look at the status of QB64 in Linux needs to be taken into account. Again, this is my opinion, but I believe within 5 years a major shift from Windows to Linux will start to be evident and 10 years from now Linux will be much more mainstream than it is today.

Heck, just look at System76's success in this area. I remember reading about this company five years ago and almost every tech news outlet was forecasting doom and gloom in their future. Remember netbooks that became popular back in 2009? Most, if not all of them, at first came shipped with Linux and they worked well. Microsoft was so scared by this that they offered a stripped down version of XP for darn near nothing to netbook manufacturers to curb the Linux installations.

News outlets have been saying "This is the year for Linux" since 1999 so there is a lot of skepticism about Linux actually becoming mainstream at some point. However, I think there is a perfect storm brewing in the not so distant future and QB64 needs to be ready for it.

[FellippeHeitor]

Linux and QB64 is now completely unusable.

That’s your experience, Steve. Not mine, not Luke’s, not a lot of people’s. That type of statement is highly misleading.

[STxAxTIC]

Linux and QB64 is now completely unusable.

Yeah about that - you know that double clicking the icon doesn't start the program, right?

[Pete]

This is what puts me off from trying Linux. I'm concerned I have to get overly involved with learning too much about a Linux system, so my time will not be spent on coding, moving other programs to it, etc. In Pete terms, I want as close to plug and play and not plug away, as possible.

Pete

[SMcNeill]

Linux and QB64 is now completely unusable.

That’s your experience, Steve. Not mine, not Luke’s, not a lot of people’s. That type of statement is highly misleading.

Apparently it's an experience a lot of folks are having:  https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=552.msg4038#msg4038

fresh install of QB64 (latest stable version) on the latest release of Linux Mint as well a few days ago - both the QB64 executable itself, as well as the compiled executables themselves, could not be executed by double-clicking them in the file manager (although, in my case at least, the compilation itself worked), because they were misidentified as "shared libraries" instead of executables (all permissions are set correctly). Running them from the terminal window works fine, though.

The compilation worked.  It made executables for me...  That were as useful as a paperweight. 

Double-clicking does nothing, as described. 

Running them from terminal only worked with $CONSOLE:ONLY programs.

I dunno if it's a video driver issue, a Linux Distro issue (both his and my experiences are on Mint), but just because you didn't experience it doesn't mean it's not happening.  I'm primarily a Windows user, but I have used Linux more than once in the past (mainly for testing compatability of code), and I can tell ya:  It's not working as packaged now, anymore than Mac is unless you get the beta version.

How many Linux systems are affected, I don't know, but it's more than just me.  Fifi's reported it.  dchr has reported it.  I've experienced it... 

I'm glad yours works.  Mine doesn't.

And, for now at least, I can still say Windows still does.

[Pete]

I'm close to ditching all of this bullsht. Life is too short to keep redoing things from scratch. To that end, I'm considering getting a couple of new systems and banking them for later years. Take out Windows 10 and replace with Windows 7. Everything I would want working would work, except I'm not sure if email providers would still be viable on Win 7 Live Mail.

Pete

[TempodiBasic]

Hi

jump this if you want be focused on the issue of the thread.
I am very profane of Linux...and in the time I have developed a mine, surely wrong, idea of Linux...
while DOS and Windowses  are products that remember me a selfKilling programmed in the time like apopthosis of cells,
Linux's universe appears to me like a solid trunk with so many not so robust branches...
but this is only my idea...
going to the facts
this is my experience about Lubuntu (Light Ubuntu) 14.04 (yes there is another more recent)...
I have a machine that is old 8 years and run Lubuntu but doesn't install QB64 on it, while on my VirtualMachine on my Toshiba notebook I have many trouble to install QB64 on it also following all your good tips... it lasts me to get direct help online from experts like Fifi.
But for now it is a must!
All that I have reached is to get QB64 into Programming folder, but it doesn't run in any way I call it.

Read here:
1.
foundig QB64 on another language into translate as Javascript/Java it makes QB64 indipendent from OSes variations ?
2.
closing QB64 in Linux (when it will work for main distros) how is it possible not loose Mac and Windows platforms?

Thanks to read

Most popular Linux :
https://www.lifewire.com/top-linux-distributions-of-all-time-4084559
https://blog.storagecraft.com/popular-linux-distributions-dominate-market/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-the-most-popular-linux-of-them-all/
https://www.techradar.com/news/best-linux-distro
https://itsfoss.com/windows-like-linux-distributions/
https://www.tecmint.com/best-alternative-linux-distributions-for-windows-users/