Text Only | Text with Attachments

QB64.org Forum

Active Forums => QB64 Discussion => Topic started by: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:28:44 pm

Title: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:28:44 pm
I know of at least 5 different GUI projects including my own.

I work on windowing, fellippe did a framework (inform), ashish did a framework with a simple window too, _vince made a windowing system, terryritchie made one on [abandoned, outdated and now likely malicious qb64 dot net website - don’t go there] (inaccessible right now), stxaxtic made one at one point for mathblab. unseenmachine did a framework/windowing system...

The point is a lot of work has already been done and if we put it all together and used it to build an IDE it would be pretty dope.

Maybe we could all pitch in and make a graphical IDE for qb64... just a thought.

Let me know if anyone else thinks this is a good idea or has any input.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:36:26 pm
My thoughts on the subject are:

We need a few things to make it work:

1) Pull down menus (main menu across top of screen
2) Pop-up menus (context menus)
3) Desktop manager (Initialize and place background, and screen/display)
4) Window manager (Resize, move, iconize, zoom, restore to window (from maximized or minimized)
5) Icons (so you can minimize a document and restore a different one)

6) a widget framework to build interface inside windows and dialog boxes, etc. (he have inform which is great :) _)
7) mouse handling functions (gotta find the best way to do it, maybe an external library?)
8) keyboard handling functions (gotta make it robust :) )

Im probably missing stuff but this was a list off the top of my head.

I have a lot of code already written but have been working on version 2.0 of my gui and havent finished yet.
version 1.0 is still available but is a royal pain in the ass to actually program for. :D


Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:39:03 pm
The window manager can be left out if you want a single document interface application.
I personally think it would be cool to have a setup with a multiple document interface though.
Plus if it was able to be done, it would be a good demo of qb64's capabilities.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:41:22 pm
Quote from: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:36:26 pm
My thoughts on the subject are:

We need a few things to make it work:

1) Pull down menus (main menu across top of screen
2) Pop-up menus (context menus)
3) Desktop manager (Initialize and place background, and screen/display)
4) Window manager (Resize, move, iconize, zoom, restore to window (from maximized or minimized)
5) Icons (so you can minimize a document and restore a different one)

6) a widget framework to build interface inside windows and dialog boxes, etc. (we have inform which is great :) _)
7) mouse handling functions (gotta find the best way to do it, maybe an external library?)
8) keyboard handling functions (gotta make it robust :) )

Im probably missing stuff but this was a list off the top of my head.

I have a lot of code already written but have been working on version 2.0 of my gui and havent finished yet.
version 1.0 is still available but is a royal pain in the ass to actually program for. :D
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Ashish on July 01, 2018, 03:44:32 am
Quote from: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:28:44 pm
......
terryritchie made one on [abandoned, outdated and now likely malicious qb64 dot net website - don’t go there] (inaccessible right now)
......
I've a bundle of all Terry Ritchie library. I don't know which one you want.
Download it from the attachment.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: keybone on July 01, 2018, 03:47:14 am
Quote from: Ashish on July 01, 2018, 03:44:32 am
Quote from: keybone on June 30, 2018, 11:28:44 pm
......
terryritchie made one on [abandoned, outdated and now likely malicious qb64 dot net website - don’t go there] (inaccessible right now)
......
I've a bundle of all Terry Ritchie library. I don't know which one you want.
Download it from the attachment.

I'll take all of them... It sucks .net being down for as long as it's been.
So much good stuff up there. :-/ Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: cr0sh on September 16, 2018, 07:41:51 pm
My suggestion - and I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet:

We should strip the compiler down to it's core, and make it command line only.

Then build an extension for either Visual Studio Code or Atom (VSC would probably be the way to go).

That, or build the IDE using Electron.

Basically - every other language out there has some kind of plugin support or whatnot for both of these Electron-based IDEs. Those IDEs support a ton of other features, etc.

Sure, we could make a new GUI IDE - or re-vamp the existing text IDE - but doing so will continue to relegate QB64 to being a "toy language" (it already has enough baggage with the BASIC moniker, like all such BASIC variants do).

So - a decision by the community might need to be made: Do we want to stay a niche hobbyist language, or do we want to expand toward something more serious?

Just a thought - I'm not wedded to anything right now (there's so many choices in languages out there - it's crazy).

Also - when is QB64 going to get a wrapper for TensorFlow? /s
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: PMACKAY on September 18, 2018, 09:25:45 am
I hope we keep the one that is already qb64.. i have kind of grown to love it and works fine...
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 18, 2018, 09:47:50 am
We're keeping it, rest assured.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 18, 2018, 09:51:19 am
Quote from: cr0sh on September 16, 2018, 07:41:51 pm
My suggestion - and I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet:

We should strip the compiler down to it's core, and make it command line only.

Then build an extension for either Visual Studio Code or Atom (VSC would probably be the way to go).

That, or build the IDE using Electron.

Basically - every other language out there has some kind of plugin support or whatnot for both of these Electron-based IDEs. Those IDEs support a ton of other features, etc.

Sure, we could make a new GUI IDE - or re-vamp the existing text IDE - but doing so will continue to relegate QB64 to being a "toy language" (it already has enough baggage with the BASIC moniker, like all such BASIC variants do).

So - a decision by the community might need to be made: Do we want to stay a niche hobbyist language, or do we want to expand toward something more serious?

Just a thought - I'm not wedded to anything right now (there's so many choices in languages out there - it's crazy).

Also - when is QB64 going to get a wrapper for TensorFlow? /s

Turns out the compiler and the IDE are indeed two separate modules. The IDE is made up of two include files found in qb64.bas, which can safely be removed.

Command line compilation switches are a thing and I'd love to see extensions to existing IDEs targeting QB64. It's a matter of one sitting down and doing it, like RhoSigma has done for Notepad++ already: https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=306.0
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: codeguy on September 18, 2018, 06:37:40 pm
Can we have a facility to view included source files in the IDE? THIS would be quite useful, especially if you're trying to debug source with multiple $include or want to make a monolithic inclusive source AND make saving changes to $include files optional if they're changed in the IDE? And a smart replace that allows me to EASILY change types in subs so I don't have to rewrite subs to accommodate different non-udt data types? This would be a great addition to the functionality of the IDE, which BTW, in screen 0 is JUST fine. I'd like the view included files under the View menu. Yes, you have my permission to use OpenInclude() as you've modified it or my original. This will probably be the easiest approach.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 12:12:07 pm
I personally think the IDE is fine for what this language does. It's mainly about the capabilities of the language that make it easier or harder to use. Would you rather have that flashy, new button on the IDE, or the ability to drop images into the pipeline BETWEEN refreshes? Would you rather have that sweet include manager, or better keyboard/mouse/controller/joystick support?

My personal wish list includes:
Stronger UDT support
Better function for bit level control
Better multi-assignment(it exists, but it's weak) e.g. a=b=4 where a=4 and b=4
Gyotdang += and -= operators, and ++/--(Which would give rise to the need for the == operator... I know, right?)

I feel like, personally for me, with those things and QB64's ability to pull in DLLs, this language could be a lot stronger but keep it's BASIC syntax.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 12:24:06 pm
My two cents: I really love the IDE in its current form. My own preference is to see the code and not be distracted by anything else, something that the QB45 editor offered and the QB64 IDE mimics perfectly. The color coding of the source code in QB64 is a huge plus too. I really like that.

If there were one major wish I had with the current IDE it would be separating the subs/functions from the main code like the QB45 editor did. My current project is hitting the 2000 line mark and while I can hop from sub to sub easily (F2) I still like the clean look of having the subs/functions hidden until I want to edit them.

If we must go to a more modern IDE format, for things such as event processing, then I would suggest looking at the VBDOS editor as inspiration.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 19, 2018, 12:26:56 pm
Quote from: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 12:12:07 pm
My personal wish list includes:
(...)
Better multi-assignment(it exists, but it's weak) e.g. a=b=4 where a=4 and b=4
Gyotdang += and -= operators, and ++/--(Which would give rise to the need for the == operator... I know, right?)

Just to clear it up: a = b = 4 isn't a multiassignment in BASIC. If b = 4 then a = -1 in this case.

It's like you're making a conditional check:

a = (is b equal to 4? if true, the result is -1; if false, the result is 0)

And about ++ and -- as operators, I wouldn't hold my breath. Not because it'd be unfeasible to add, but because it's been agreed it'd escape the BASIC syntax realm.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 12:32:56 pm
I agree, +=, ++, --, -=, == have never been a thing in any BASIC dialect that I know of. Yes, they're handy ( a += 1  instead of  a = a + 1) but in my opinion that's not the spirit of BASIC and can be confusing to coders not used to it or beginners in BASIC. Remember, the heart of basic is beginners (Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code).
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: SMcNeill on September 19, 2018, 12:35:47 pm
Quote from: FellippeHeitor on September 19, 2018, 12:26:56 pm
Quote from: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 12:12:07 pm
My personal wish list includes:
(...)
Better multi-assignment(it exists, but it's weak) e.g. a=b=4 where a=4 and b=4
Gyotdang += and -= operators, and ++/--(Which would give rise to the need for the == operator... I know, right?)

Just to clear it up: a = b = 4 isn't a multiassignment in BASIC. If b = 4 then a = -1 in this case.

It's like you're making a conditional check:

a = (is b equal to 4? if true, the result is -1; if false, the result is 0)

And about ++ and -- as operators, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Are you certain?   Don't we evaluate left to right in these cases?

A = B = 4 would be more (A = B) = 4 than A = (B = 4), wouldn't it?

(A = B) = 4 is *ALWAYS* going to be 0.
A = (B = 4) may be 0 or -1, depending on values of A and B.

Or am I wrong??  Either way, if one wants to write such code, they should *always* use parentheses to make certain it works as they're intending, and to improve readability.  :)
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 19, 2018, 12:43:39 pm
I'm certain in that we're discussing assignments.

You can't type (A = B) = 4 in a line, as that's not an assignment. That's only valid if it's in an IF statement or equivalent, which is not our case here.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: SMcNeill on September 19, 2018, 12:54:38 pm
Quote from: FellippeHeitor on September 19, 2018, 12:43:39 pm
I'm certain in that we're discussing assignments.

You can't type (A = B) = 4 in a line, as that's not an assignment. That's only valid if it's in an IF statement or equivalent, which is not our case here.

You're right, which is why I still stick by the theory that you should *always* use parentheses when dealing with multiple = signs.

A = B = 4 assigns a value to A just as you described.   PRINT A = B = 4 is a completely different case, as I was thinking above.

I still contend however, that A =(B =4) is easier to read and eliminates any confusion -- at least, for me, it definitely is.  :)
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on September 19, 2018, 04:30:01 pm
As long as we're all giving our personal preferences for the IDE, I'm quite happy with the one we have now, including with the ability to scroll down to the subs more easily than in the MS QB days. But I would not be against an IDE that keeps the same look wrt the code itself, but in a more Windows-like presentation otherwise.

One caveat, though. It really helps me that QB64 makes no changes to the Windows registry. So for my own use, anything that involves registry changes would create problems, in the PC I use for my day job anyway. To me, no registry changes is a "feature."
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 19, 2018, 04:42:56 pm
I agree that being portable is a great plus to QB64's account.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: SMcNeill on September 19, 2018, 06:13:23 pm
Kids can easily write Hello World programs with modern devices:

 
Code: QB64: [Select]
  1. <html>
  2. <header><title>This is title</title></header>
  3. <body>
  4. Hello world
  5. </body>
  6. </html>

A new IDE won't make QB64 run better, faster, or be easier to learn.  How it compiles and what folks are using it for; that's what's important.  ;)
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 07:51:01 pm
I agree with Steve. If you needed a fast car, which would you buy? A) A 2018 Bugatti Chiron that someone managed to slap a 200HP V4 Honda engine in. B) A beat up, rusty but fully working 1976 Ford Mustang II hatchback that someone hooked up to a 1,500HP 16 cylinder supercharger. I know these scenarios are wildly improbable, but it mirrors this situation perfectly.

For instance, I've known programmers who almost only use Notepad++ to code in C++. I've personally used Notepad++ for CSS and HTML pretty extensively. I think rather than focusing on what QB64 could do, or how it could look, we need to show as a community what it can do. Instead of just sharing stuff around the forum, our best work needs to hit the rest of the internet. I, for one, plan to release Omertris into the wilds of the web once I finish it. It's playable, it's clean, and everyone that's played the current version agrees that it's darn fun, and that's what matters.

QB64 is a pretty simple to pick up language, and while it's not too hot with 3D, it's great for small 2D apps. Card games, dice games, platformers, puzzlers, shoot 'em ups, RPGs. The IDE is good enough, as in it's not the BEST per se, but it doesn't hinder us all that much. What does hinder us some, however, is it's weak support for com ports and DLLs, somewhat broken bit level commands and Boolean variables, okay user defined types, and barely passable access to control over keyboards, mice, and devices(face it, we often have to jury rig complex control schemes).

If we could fix the com ports and DLLs, then the language could drastically grow with the user. Those that learn C could then help expand the community by providing more growth in the language. That's one thing I liked about DarkBASIC(RIP). There were a multitude of DLLs, and once the user got comfortable with the native command set, they could then download community created command sets to craft the language into what they needed.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 08:03:30 pm
I believe the most popular languages have the simplest of IDEs. Look at Python's IDLE, acts pretty much the same way as QB64's IDE. Granted, it's written using a true OS graphics screen, but it's still basically text and nothing else.

The true strength of any language is what you can do with that language, not what the interface looks like in my opinion. The interface does need to be usable however, I agree with that, something I think the QB64 IDE does a great job of providing.

I've programmed in a great many languages over the years and the only one I truly disliked was Visual Basic. It wasn't because of the language but due to the interface. It was feature overload. Then came the abomination .NET, but that's another story.

The best way to get QB64 noticed is to start writing some great software with it and get it into the hands of people. There was a game written in QB64 some years back that garnered a LOT of press: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2033318/black-annex-is-the-best-qbasic-game-youve-ever-seen.html
Another popular game (in France I believe) written in QB64 was Papi Commando.

That momentum died out because no one followed up with more great software with QB64 (me included unfortunately).

Edit: I wrote this while Omerta was writing his reply and as you can see he's generally saying the same thing. I loved DarkBasic to the point where I even bought the full package back in 2005. That was a cool version of BASIC.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 08:31:33 pm
Quote from: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 07:51:01 pm
If we could fix the com ports

This needs to be fixed, I agree! We could make a huge impact on the microcontroller (Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Beagle Bone, etc..) arena if QB64 could interface with these easily. Arduino uses a simplified version of C and with Raspberry Pi the best option right now is Python. Many people I introduce the Arduino to by showing them the cool things I do with them are beyond excited, until they see and start using the language.

MicroPython has been developed for the Arduino to help new comers with programming in an easier environment, but it's still a steep learning curve.

Parallax's Basic Stamp uses a flavor of basic called pBasic that is very easy to use. The problem is Basic Stamp is not open source hardware/software so it gains no traction.

Get QB64 working with microcontrollers and I believe the kick in the ASCII QB64 needs will happen.

If we want to band together on a project I believe USB and COM port development would be something to finally tackle and conquer.

I would be more than happy (ecstatic actually) for the opportunity to write libraries to interface with microcontroller circuits.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Cobalt on September 19, 2018, 09:25:55 pm
whats wrong with the com port? I use it with my robotics interface all the time. input and output. serial cable or usb cable.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 10:14:43 pm
Which version of QB64? SDL?
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: cr0sh on September 20, 2018, 01:51:55 am
Quote from: Omerta7486 on September 19, 2018, 07:51:01 pm
Instead of just sharing stuff around the forum, our best work needs to hit the rest of the internet.

What could have been that example was called "Black Annex" - it was even greenlit for Steam, everyone was talking about it - and then...nothing. It seemed like the developer fell off the face of the planet.

That's not entirely true - he was still active on twitter, but never really seemed to answer anything in regards to that game. It seems crazy; he worked long and hard to develop that game, a single man effort over years. He got crazy press about it, and managed to get on Steam and greenlit to go. Then - poof. He stopped talking about it, working on it, I don't know what.

It's one of the strangest things I've ever witnessed on the internet...
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: cr0sh on September 20, 2018, 02:00:05 am
Quote from: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 08:31:33 pm
Arduino uses a simplified version of C

The Arduino uses C (and C++) - it's not simplified, it's straight C under the hood. You can ditch the entire Arduino ecosystem and code the ATMega in C/C++ to your heart's content if you wanted to. All the system does is introduce a simple "wrapper" in main() and includes the Arduino library of functions; in main it calls "setup()" then enters an endless loop calling loop() - and that's it. Everything else is regular ole C/C++.

Now - the "standard library" isn't going to be the same as the one on a desktop or whatnot (avr-libc); it's both scaled back and includes "embedded" or "microcontroller" specific implementations of certain functions and whatnot. But even there, some things are available on certain avr microcontrollers that aren't on others (which is why the Arduino library is such a dog in certain spots, because it has a ton of if-then and other logic to check for what microcontroller it is being compiled and/or running on, as well as other checks for boundary conditions and whatnot, which all makes the code it produces not as fast as it could be - but at the same time, it is highly portable across most of the platforms the Arduino IDE supports).
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 20, 2018, 02:49:46 am
I thought I read somewhere it was simplified. My mistake. Perhaps I was thinking this because it only uses two functions, setup and loop, as you point out. Either way, it's a tough sell to new programmers to get them to understand C/C++ programming right from the start. Heck, just setting up a for loop looks alien as heck:

/* for loop execution */
   for( a = 10; a < 20; a = a + 1 ){
      printf("value of a: %d\n", a);
   }

even stranger

/* for loop execution */
   for( a = 10; a < 20; a++ ){
      printf("value of a: %d\n", a);
   }
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: SMcNeill on September 20, 2018, 07:24:25 am
My honest question is:  What features does a new IDE need that isn't currently supported by the current one?  And, why can't the existing IDE simply be expanded to include those features?

What we have already is written in 100% QB64, so it helps highlight what we can do.  As I illustrate with the $AUTOSAVE and $REPLACE routines, it's not too difficult to add/alter usability/customizability. 

Why not simply keep improving what we have, instead of having to start over for something completely different?
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 20, 2018, 09:53:37 am
Python IDEs: https://realpython.com/python-ides-code-editors-guide/

C++ IDEs: https://www.tecmint.com/best-linux-ide-editors-source-code-editors/

Java IDEs: https://www.lifewire.com/best-free-ideas-for-java-developers-2373185

ASM IDE: http://www.visualmasm.com/

These are the things I see "modern" IDEs have that the QB64 IDE does not:

- Push buttons that equate to menu entries already there
- Tabbed coding (kinda cool actually, like tabbed browsing)
- A hierarchical tree representation of code (QB64 F2)
- A console window

But at the heart of all of them they are just fancy text editors. Sublime Text, one of the most popular editors for a number of languages, strips the IDE down to even less than what the QB64 IDE offers. The only big difference is as you say, they are all graphics based, but graphic windows displaying text.

Quote
it will NEVER be accepted by the masses without one

How do you know this? As I stated before, I've programmed many languages with many different style IDEs over the past 35 years, and the only reason I ever gave up on a language was because of its syntax and ease of use, not because of its IDE (although VB's IDE gave me headaches).

If you want a windows based IDE then look into configurable IDEs (like Sublime Text) and create a QB64 identity file for it. Configure the compiler option to point to QB64. RhoSigma did this with Notepad++ for those wanting a different IDE experience.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: codeguy on September 20, 2018, 10:53:08 am
One feature not yet mentioned but wouldn't involve breaking away from the IDE or compatibility is culling unused subs/functions/line labels from the source, both intrinsic and via $include. This would be an easy and efficient process following either import or during precompilation. I'd suggest during precompilation especially as alterations to code while editing may require code that would otherwise require them. Code not the object of call, goto, gosub or dead code not used or a dependency is definitely ripe for this type of processing. This will not affect compatibility with the original qbxx IDEs, only add a feature that's useful for reduction in compilation time and generated executable size. Simple analysis following OpenInclude() would be on the order of 15000+ lines/GHzS., Quite acceptable.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: codeguy on September 20, 2018, 11:07:03 am
Also, Terry, C FOR loops can be indefinite ;;, or use pre/post increment. ++i != i++. Not too difficult to understand but definitely different in their characteristics.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 20, 2018, 11:46:22 am
I’m not arguing against the IDE changes, but there are many more issues to resolve than just that. Better, more complete, documentation for one. More complete F1 command help. Maybe, when you mouse over commands it could pop up sample syntax to give you a quick look at the command. For example, you type the command mid$(), then mouse over it and get the suggested syntax pop up:
Quote
mid$(str$, start byte, bytes)

Documentation that reveals the basic syntax goes a long way with BASIC dialects to make it even more accessible to beginners and professionals alike. I mean, we don’t have trouble with BASIC’s syntax, obviously, but that would speed up the process even for us. We’ve all been here:

“Ok. I just need to get the middle of that string, and... Oh, wait. What’s the syntax for mid$, again? Wiki break!”
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 20, 2018, 11:53:27 am
You did try hitting F1 though, right? Also right clicking a keyword?
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on September 20, 2018, 02:45:52 pm
Graphical IDE. 

When I first used QB64 I found Dav's IDE http://www.qbasicnews.com/dav/projects.php#DAVSIDE (http://www.qbasicnews.com/dav/projects.php#DAVSIDE). 

I find it much easier to use and certainly easier on the eye than the QB64 native IDE. It's not perfect, but if there was a call for it, perhaps Dav would consider developing it further, or even consider making the code available so that others could have a crack at it.

Anything I do on QB64 is coded using Dav's IDE.  If you haven't tried it, give it a go, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 20, 2018, 03:04:56 pm
Welcome to the forum RNBW.

You're right. Dav's IDE is a really good alternative for QB64's IDE.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Dav on September 20, 2018, 04:55:25 pm
Well, thanks for the compliment on the IDE.   I think I'll dig up the source and stare at it a while and see what happens.  Maybe with a fresh start now I can improve on it - at least add the new QB64 keywords to it.

- Dav
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on September 20, 2018, 05:07:05 pm
Hey, I just found Dav's IDE online, tried it out, and yeah. That's kind of what I had in mind, when I said that a more Windows-like presentation would be good too. I also like the way the REM statements don't have the multicolored text in them. The way I use REM, just as ', makes no sense to have different colored words.

I'm not doing something right, though, because it won't run the program, even if the program is showing up in the IDE and even when the IDE is in the same location as the QB64.exe IDE. Obviously not pointing to the compiler correctly.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Dav on September 20, 2018, 05:15:25 pm
Quote from: Bert22306 on September 20, 2018, 05:07:05 pm
I'm not doing something right, though, because it won't run the program, even if the program is showing up in the IDE and even when the IDE is in the same location as the QB64.exe IDE. Obviously not pointing to the compiler correctly.

Hmm, in the DavsIDE.ini file (in the qb64 folder) is the correct compiler path shown? (like...compiler = C:\qb64\QB64.EXE).  Also, try manually setting up the compile path again under Compile/Compiler options/Specify QB64 folder to use.  Also, what OS are you using?

- Dav
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on September 20, 2018, 05:27:29 pm
Dav
Thanks for your IDE.
As you say you must set up the link to the compiler as you have described.  I have successfully used Dav's IDE on Windows 7, 8/8.1 and 10.  It is currently used on the latest Windows 10.
It's good to hear that you will dig out the code and see where it can be improved.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on September 20, 2018, 05:39:04 pm
Quote from: Dav on September 20, 2018, 05:15:25 pm
Hmm, in the DavsIDE.ini file (in the qb64 folder) is the correct compiler path shown? (like...compiler = C:\qb64\QB64.EXE).  Also, try manually setting up the compile path again under Compile/Compiler options/Specify QB64 folder to use.  Also, what OS are you using?

Yes, the path to qb64.exe is shown in the DavsIDE.ini file. And I'm using Win10.

The compiler path is set correctly, pointing to the qb64.exe file in the qb64 folder. The error message is that the IDE "cannot locate source file," even though the source file is open in the IDE. I have my .bas files one folder back from the qb64 folder.

The other thing is, I couldn't find a setting to have the IDE not come up fullscreen. Not a big deal, but just one more click. And when opening the folder to the source .bas files, I like the .. option in the default IDE, which brings me right to where my .bas files are.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on September 20, 2018, 06:05:35 pm
It seems rather odd.  I've never had the problem you report.

It you just type:
   PRINT "Hello World"
and click on compile without first saving it as a file; does that compile.  It should compile to a temporary file.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Dav on September 20, 2018, 06:09:13 pm
I sure don't want to take over this thread for help with my IDE, so I'll plan to stop after replying this time. Perhaps we can continue on another one. 

I think I may know the probelm, Bert. Is your BAS file located in a folder name with a space in it..(or in the filename)?  My current IDE has some bugs - one of which is that it doesn't pass along spaces correctly to QB64 when compiling BAS filenames/folders that have spaces in them.  If yours does, try removing the space in the folder/filename.  If that's not it, then I'd have to figure out something else.  About the auto fullscreen, yeah I can see where that would not be wanted by some, and I can remedy that in a new version. Actually a very early IDE version used to remember its window size and position, but I removed that for a very important reason but can't recall at all now what it was.  I can see about putting it back in.

- Dav
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on September 20, 2018, 06:45:43 pm
Quote from: Dav on September 20, 2018, 06:09:13 pm
I think I may know the probelm, Bert. Is your BAS file located in a folder name with a space in it..(or in the filename)?  My current IDE has some bugs - one of which is that it doesn't pass along spaces correctly to QB64 when compiling BAS filenames/folders that have spaces in them. 

I think you may have found the answer.  I set up a test folder that had a space in the name (called it Test Folder).  I put two files with the same code but different names "Hello World.bas" and "Hello.bas" in the folder.  Neither file compiled and said source file couldn't be found.  After removing the space in folder name (now TestFolder), both files compiled.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on September 20, 2018, 08:22:02 pm
Yes, that is the answer. I was getting a hint, from the error message, which was looking for some my.bas folder.

Removed the space, works like a champ. Very nice.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on September 21, 2018, 12:41:03 am
Hey Dav, unless I missed some setting, I noticed that DavsIDE does not automatically make REM upper case and it doesn't indent loops? Is that some setting I missed?

I guess we get used to the tweaks, and then we miss them. Fellippe has added many nice little touches like that, over time, to the default IDE. The two IDEs should be munged together.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: OldMoses on September 21, 2018, 08:09:25 am
Quote from: TerryRitchie on September 20, 2018, 09:53:37 am

These are the things I see "modern" IDEs have that the QB64 IDE does not:

- Push buttons that equate to menu entries already there
- Tabbed coding (kinda cool actually, like tabbed browsing)
- A hierarchical tree representation of code (QB64 F2)
- A console window

I really like the idea of tabs for QB64. At least when working within a single large .bas file.

The one irritation for me in working with the IDE is the need to F2 to go to another SUB of FUNCTION, since I frequently find I have to jump around a lot. If one could set up multiple tabs, indexing at different parts of one's project, it would be a lot simpler.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TerryRitchie on September 21, 2018, 12:12:04 pm
OldMoses, I have NotePad++ open when I code. It has tabbed windows and I have a few copies of the current project I am working on in multiple tabs. This allows me to look at different areas at the same time. When I make a change in the QB64 IDE, NotePad++ notices the change and updates the code windows. You need to click on each tabbed Window, a message comes up and says the file changed, would you like to update.

I find this handy and it would give you the opportunity to have your different areas of code showing.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Aureal on September 21, 2018, 01:36:25 pm
I actually created an advanced, universal IDE/Code editor, which had a QB64 Pack, however, due to some performance issues, I had to rewrite it, and most of the functionality was gone. I've planned to implement the syntax highlighter (basically the keystone of the program), but, the lack of C++11+ support of the C++ compiler we're using didn't allow me to use std::regex, and so, making the implementation a lot more difficult. Anyways, the first version had a syntax highlighter that worked very well, actually, one could create syntax files, along with color scheme files. I might be able to give this for a bigger project (I say "might be able", because my laptop's harddrive died, along with 3 years of work :/ )
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 21, 2018, 05:36:55 pm
One thing to make the IDE look a whole lot better would be a better logo. Logos with words or letters on them are very bland, so I took the liberty of coming up with a design last night, and mocked it up today. I have too much time on my hands now that I'm recovering from surgery! Lol Tell me what you think. It's kind of based on the old [abandoned, outdated and now likely malicious qb64 dot net website - don’t go there] logo. Also, I watermarked it so that no internet thieves could swing by and steal it! Lol

[EDIT] BTW, I could do a lot more graphics if we wanted a graphical interface.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 21, 2018, 05:39:27 pm
These were some buttons from a map editor I made a few months back. I could throw together some good stuff for us, if anyone needs it.

I would rather like to help any way I could, as I do support updating the IDE.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TempodiBasic on September 21, 2018, 07:48:57 pm
this is an interesting thread
for now I post image of the two IDE for QB64 (QB64 ASCII emulated IDE and Dav's Graphical IDE) and a set of link to the images of different IDE of different languages for programming.
Code: QB64: [Select]
  1. VISUAL IDE
  2. vb3.0
  3. https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiKmMeWhszdAhXvx4UKHZj_Dg0QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwinworldpc.com%2Fproduct%2Fmicrosoft-visual-bas%2F30&psig=AOvVaw2EZz8wAfSBrUaxdaIKsI3z&ust=1537617604720659
  4.  
  5. vb 4.0
  6. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiKuqvBhszdAhWQzoUKHamMDmsQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwinworldpc.com%2Fproduct%2Fmicrosoft-visual-bas%2F40&psig=AOvVaw1nHErJXJmv1nb9mCTMmzMU&ust=1537617675972718[/url]
  7.  
  8. vb 6.0
  9. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwivjq-Jh8zdAhVSzIUKHc-7CIEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Flittlebeeps.com%2Fvb6tut1.html&psig=AOvVaw07PaU9PY-9D2Elp7BFci-r&ust=1537617866904243[/url]
  10.  
  11. vb dos
  12. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit36KDiMzdAhWhxYUKHSMIC8AQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.suckless.org%2Fdev%2F1406%2F22504.html&psig=AOvVaw1jbAMaNOlCEvNlOe7ttkM6&ust=1537618084791110[/url]
  13.  
  14. Delphi
  15. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiQhKfXiMzdAhXGx4UKHXMNAxsQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmarijsoftdevteam.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fdelphi.html&psig=AOvVaw2I9r9kNBPKp2HuPVpmFX6E&ust=1537618301303293[/url]
  16.  
  17. c++ builder
  18. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJ4tfsiMzdAhWhyIUKHUkdCQsQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D41u29cHzGgg&psig=AOvVaw1fAlAZuDLoRhYpo1FZsWcC&ust=1537618324577185[/url]
  19.  
  20. visual cafe (visual tool for java)
  21. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDkJ6DiczdAhXvzoUKHfjICkYQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Falvinalexander.com%2Fjava%2Fedu%2Fvc%2Fvc010002%2Fvc010002.shtml&psig=AOvVaw0W0qG2OCHW2o2adTiU99HV&ust=1537618375023745[/url]
  22.  
  23. Visual Assembler
  24. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwim59PKmszdAhUBQhoKHVyPBAUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fgssvisasm&psig=AOvVaw37p7jP-WtxbMbBSza4FCrw&ust=153762309688077[/url]0
  25.  
  26. Visual Fortran
  27. [url]https://heise.cloudimg.io/width/701/q75.png-lossy-75.webp-lossy-75.foil1/_www-heise-de_/download/media/pgi-visual-fortran-pvf-41627/pgi-visual-fortran-pvf-1_1-1-6.jpg
  28. [/url]
  29. Compaq Visual Fortran
  30. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiOu_ygmczdAhUEhxoKHWuxAxQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.gac.edu%2F~huber%2Fclasses%2Fphy210%2Fvisfort6.htm&psig=AOvVaw1KwuowS6m8wKzWiw820B2j&ust=1537622559857677[/url]
  31.  
  32. rapidQ
  33. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiJo4ehiczdAhVBURoKHdZiCKMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbasic.mindteq.com%2Findex.php%3Fi%3D112&psig=AOvVaw2lPHpcCj7d0v7BA4ihxl4S&ust=1537618440282699[/url]
  34.  
  35. C#
  36. [url]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-731bf7db71397b1192442206d84d9c1c.webp[/url]
  37.  
  39.  
  40. [url]https://i.stack.imgur.com/POZjn.png[/url]
  41.  
  42. [b]GRAPHIC IDE [/b]
  43. Intellij IDEA
  44. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiBgqiOlczdAhVixYUKHWdWDPUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jetbrains.com%2Fidea%2F&psig=AOvVaw11Z58vLocd1z7-dMeI7q9H&ust=1537621634756419
  45. [/url]
  46. Eclipse
  47. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwia3fTDlczdAhWqxYUKHeORA7sQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eclipse.org%2Fide%2F&psig=AOvVaw3BfHfuYvrGom1JZHKF6V7C&ust=1537621733277382[/url]
  48.  
  49.  
  50. Jdeveloper
  51. [url]https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_k7TGlszdAhWjzYUKHQpxDcIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olrichs.nl%2F2016%2F09%2Fjdeveloper-shortcut-keys-reformat-all.html&psig=AOvVaw2NmKcnmZ-W8mCnla7EJa8H&ust=1537621955842718
  52. [/url]
  53.  
  54. Sublimen text
  55. [url]https://files.realpython.com/media/Sublime_Text.55c3de3ec99f.png[/url]
  56.  
  57. Atom
  58. [url]https://files.realpython.com/media/Atom.620cf6d10a8a.png[/url]
  59.  
  60. CodeLight
  61. [url]https://codelite.org/gallery.php[/url]
  62.  
  63. NetBeans
  64. [url]https://netbeans.org/images_www/v7/screenshots/cnd.png[/url]
  65.  
  66. Code::Blocks
  67. [url]http://www.codeblocks.org/screenshots[/url]
  68.  
  69.  
  70.  

Why do I this set of images? To let observe different way to implement a graphic interface.

Good Coding

Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 22, 2018, 12:45:01 am
I really appreciate the article and thank you very much for the mentions!

PS: Looking forward to the insulting app!
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 22, 2018, 01:50:12 am
Hey, Fillippe. Does the logo I mocked up look good? I already resource hacked a beta of it into my copy of QB64 and it looks pretty darn sweet. There it is in action in the pic below. I really do hope you like it.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Omerta7486 on September 22, 2018, 01:56:11 am
Sorry. The png file screwed up for some reason.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on September 22, 2018, 02:05:03 am
I like it very much indeed, very sleek.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: luke on September 25, 2018, 10:28:58 am
I always found a bee icon to be absolutely terrifying, but I think that's mainly because I don't like bees.

W.r.t the COM ports, we need someone who a) knows how they should work, b) is willing to write C code to drive them in the QB64 runtime and c) actually has some hardware to test it with (or is savvy enough to emulate it somehow).

About the only bell/whistle I demand from an IDE (for statically typed languages, anyway) is autocomplete. That is, I want to be able to type a few letters, press ctrl-space and have a list of completions for variables/functions/keywords. Such a might might actually not be too tricky to add to the current IDE; I might explore that at some point.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: TempodiBasic on September 28, 2018, 05:23:56 pm
Hi luke
about your wish... the autocomplete feature is like that of some good HTML IDE or the same T9 on android system that suggestes you as you can complete that word or like other IDE (maybe also VB5 or 6 in which) a lateral panel appears with the help like that we can load in the bottom of the screen pressing F1?

Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: STxAxTIC on September 28, 2018, 07:08:30 pm
Alight, sorry I'm late to the party, and no way I'm back-reading all of what's been said. Going on the topic alone...

No, we should not all chip in and make one because we collectively can't. No worthwhile idea is really hammered out democratically anyhow. It's always been about some one person taking initiative: Whoever has the chops to make an IDE should do so. I can see why this kind of talk is blasphemy: we like to pretend that everything is a collaboration now, nothing exists if it isn't on github, etc etc. That's a bunch of bull when you think about it for a second.

So how do we solve the problem of not having an IDE that feels like something your grandfather could have used? I say to black-box and abstract-into-chunks whatever the existing IDE does, so those parts can be used without being cemented together all the time. This way Dav's IDE can include the same syntax checker that the main thing uses, etc etc etc. So too can a GUI one made in InForm down the road. Maybe it already does that? Fine. Then I encourage this topic to swing into "how do we make a GUI to plop over the existing IDE?" ... if it hasn't already.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: PMACKAY on October 03, 2018, 02:23:37 pm
Quote from: TerryRitchie on September 19, 2018, 12:24:06 pm
My two cents: I really love the IDE in its current form. My own preference is to see the code and not be distracted by anything else, something that the QB45 editor offered and the QB64 IDE mimics perfectly. The color coding of the source code in QB64 is a huge plus too. I really like that.

If there were one major wish I had with the current IDE it would be separating the subs/functions from the main code like the QB45 editor did. My current project is hitting the 2000 line mark and while I can hop from sub to sub easily (F2) I still like the clean look of having the subs/functions hidden until I want to edit them.

If we must go to a more modern IDE format, for things such as event processing, then I would suggest looking at the VBDOS editor as inspiration.

I completely agree... I love the IDE just how it is also. And it is nice to program in its current command level.. The only thing I would love changed is for qb64 to support programmable characters (ASCII) direct without having to load the character.h   also maybe some easy commands to support smooth scrolling on graphics, maybe some simple sprites like the chip 8 language had on the old computers.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: PMACKAY on October 03, 2018, 02:47:31 pm
Quote from: SMcNeill on September 20, 2018, 07:24:25 am
My honest question is:  What features does a new IDE need that isn't currently supported by the current one?  And, why can't the existing IDE simply be expanded to include those features?

What we have already is written in 100% QB64, so it helps highlight what we can do.  As I illustrate with the $AUTOSAVE and $REPLACE routines, it's not too difficult to add/alter usability/customizability. 

Why not simply keep improving what we have, instead of having to start over for something completely different?

Agree with steve..
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: robpugh0829 on October 03, 2018, 03:29:54 pm
Just giving my 2 cents, one thing I was happy to see when I first found QB64 is that it looked like QB45 from back in the day. It kind of took me back a bit. The only thing is that at this point I've been using things like Notepad++, Sublime, Brackets, Visual Studio, etc... so having the feel of that would be nice as well.

I use Dav's IDE and I think it works well as a happy medium and I really like it. It could be an alternative some of you are looking for.

Although this does sound like a good project and I would be interested to see what could come out of it.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Fifi on October 03, 2018, 06:33:03 pm
Hi all,

Here is my 2 cents : https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=655.msg5357#new (https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=655.msg5357#new)

BTW, where can I find the Dav' IDE to test it and on what OS does it run?

Cheers.
Fifi
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on October 03, 2018, 08:05:51 pm
Quote from: Fifi on October 03, 2018, 06:33:03 pm
BTW, where can I find the Dav' IDE to test it and on what OS does it run?

Le voici:

http://www.qbasicnews.com/dav/projects.php#DAVSIDE

Windows.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Fifi on October 03, 2018, 10:04:59 pm
Thank you Bert22306.

BTW, are you French or Canadian?

Thanx again for the link.

Cheers.
Fifi
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on October 04, 2018, 02:02:33 pm
Quote from: Fifi on October 03, 2018, 10:04:59 pm
BTW, are you French or Canadian?

Ni l'un, ni l'autre. Je suis Italien, mais nous habitions Paris quand j'étais petit. Quatre ans. Et j'ai fais l'université aux Etats Unis.

The truth is, I find it very difficult to understand les Québécois. I find myself always like half a sentence behind what they are saying!
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: davidshq on October 17, 2018, 10:06:30 pm
Seems like there haven't been a lot of pro new IDE posts, so I'll lend my voice to that camp.

I understand that the QB64 IDE replicates the QuickBasic IDE and that it is powerful and can be enhanced. I also agree that the capabilities of the underlying compiler are fundamental to a successful language BUT I do think an IDE could take QB64 from a quite niche language to something more widely used...and I would like to see that occur.

I need to pull up Dave's IDE again, haven't tried it in a year or two. I remember it being quite decent. That said, I would suggest that rather than building a completely new IDE someone create an extension for Visual Studio Code. This cross-platform software has taken the development scene by storm and has been written with extensibility in mind.

Having an extension for VSC would instantly increase the visibility of QB64 significantly and would provide individuals who haven't used QuickBasic/DOS with a much more relatable interface than the current QuickBasic-esque IDE.

As some have pointed out, many languages don't have a pretty, main-stream GUI included with them (e.g. I wouldn't consider Python's IDLE all that friendly) - but these languages do have powerful, pretty, main-stream IDEs that have been written for them by third parties...and this is where QB64 is lacking.

Perhaps, with Dave's permission, his IDE could be bundled with QB64 as a first step, an alternative IDE? Maybe some mention of alternative IDE's could become prominent on the QB64.org site?

I'm not saying we need to scuttle the current QB64 IDE, only that it probably isn't winning us a lot of users. :)

I suppose the real question is: what is the vision for QB64? (https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=714.0)

Dave
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: davidshq on October 18, 2018, 10:48:42 pm
I am in agreement or at least neutral with most of your sentiments in this last post, would just note that Visual Studio Code is open source...and Microsoft has moved a long ways towards fully embracing open source. I wouldn't expect VSC to be going anywhere soon...and if Microsoft did jump ship, there would be a huge community to continue its development without them. :)
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: wafflehouse72 on January 05, 2019, 07:33:33 pm
I hope this thread doesn't die.
I personally use Dav's IDE and have since day one.
If I'm just editing then I use Sublime Text with a qbasic highlighting pack loaded.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on January 05, 2019, 07:43:54 pm
Welcome to the forum, wafflehouse72
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: andymule on January 28, 2019, 10:33:24 am
I started something. I have never made a VSCode extension, but I seemed to have stubbed one together (thanks to the autogen tool `yo`). I have syntax highlighting working (sort of), and see can compile from the command line and see error output. I think we've got everything we need for a V1 integration!

It really just needs to behave as well as QB64's error reporting and highlight the first offending line. I can imagine for V1 just constantly compiling the buffer in the background and highlighting the offending line red in VSCode with error output on hover.

https://github.com/andymule/qb64-vscode

Started Reddit thread here too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/qbasic/comments/akohq9/started_vscode_extension_for_qb64_have_no_idea/

 [ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]  

 [ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]  
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: FellippeHeitor on January 29, 2019, 08:57:05 am
That's a very valuable effort, andymule.
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on January 29, 2019, 10:33:41 am
Dav
Any news look your update of Dav's IDE?
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Pete on January 29, 2019, 12:38:43 pm
Tommy Chong says... Dav's not here, man.

Terri Richie's gone AWOP, too. They both make good stuff. Hope to see them surface, soon.

Pete
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: Bert22306 on January 29, 2019, 02:39:59 pm
As I reported previously, I also liked Dav's IDE, quite a bit, in fact. My only issue with it being that it was not up to date, in terms of functionality. What we might call now Fellippe's IDE is not only fully up to date, but when issues are discovered, the fixes come in fast and furious. To me, that trumps a lot of other considerations.

Also, I have to agree with the emotional/sentimental idea that the QB64 IDE ought to be written in QB64. I'm only unclear why a graphical IDE could not be written in QB64?
Title: Re: Graphical IDE. Should we all pitch in and make one?
Post by: RNBW on January 29, 2019, 03:06:13 pm
Quote from: Pete on January 29, 2019, 12:38:43 pm
Tommy Chong says... Dav's not here, man.

Terri Richie's gone AWOP, too. They both make good stuff. Hope to see them surface, soon.

Pete
Not long before Christmas, Dav said he was hoping to get his updated IDE issued before the end of the year.  I can understand that around Christmas and the New Year a lot of things can get in the way.  I just wondered if Dav was getting any closer.
Text Only | Text with Attachments