Another consideration for coding is efficiency. I grew up in the 1K RAM days when you had to get very creative to even get your program to FIT, much less work. So, just strictly due to my origins, I prefer to avoid libraries. But it is a valid concern regarding compression, encryption and image handling. I *DO* know how to do those things, AND I *CAN* write more efficient, better, and more accurate code than the libraries I've come across. Heck, the MOD function in the math module for Python v2 was wrong for nearly a year until someone pointed it out! And I've had to personally correct a developer on a Fibonacci functions library.

Regardless, this all reminds me of my high school electronics class when the teacher made us spend an entire week learning how to build discreet logic circuits and then told us afterwards, "Of course, me, I'd just use an open-collector quad 2-input NAND gate SN74LS01 chip with a SN74LS07 hex buffer gate, but now you know how the damn things work."

He doesn't know what to do because although he knows which buttons/switches to use, he doesn't know WHAT they do.
A person using libraries knows how to call the libraries, but not how or why it works.

Exactly right. And the very reason Chernobyl happened. Under-trained, night shift, flunkies who actually had to refer to the manuals to try to figure out why flash-filling the reactors with water creates explosive hydrogen gas. Hell, Jimmy Carter knew that! Of course, he's a degree-holding nuclear physicist - no kidding.

Wow Pete, I thought I was a crotchety old fart!  :@)

I do like your point about skill sets. You really drive it home with the Malaysian pilots story. It's starting to sound like Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

It was suggested to me recently that what BASIC needs is a "killer app". But what would that look like? Would it be strictly a Raspberry Pi thing? Robotics? Artificial Intelligence? IoT home control?

The VisiCalc spreadsheet app was the first such "killer app".

Others included EasyWriter, Lotus 1-2-3, he Unix operating system for the PDP-11, Myst for Mac gaming, Halo for Xbox gaming, Deluxe Paint and Video Toaster for the Amiga...

But all of these are applications, BASIC is something used to CREATE applications. So how does that work?

What if BASIC could do something no other programming language could? But what could that be? Being easier to learn doesn't cut it. It's not faster.

Or is it possible that BASIC is just well and truly dead in the 21st century? Has it gone the way of the rotary dial phone, the hand cranked car engine, lawn darts, record players, and 8 track tape players?

{:@\

Well folks, I want to thank you all for your input on this. The committee made their decision this afternoon and sadly, they decided to go with XOJO.

They were very kind and professional about it and we even had a VERY long conference call where they bounced a bunch of questions off of us and offered LOTS of feedback. In the end, I was confident they had at least done their homework and knew the challenges they faced. They scrapped the Mac compatibility aspect, which allowed them to quadruple down on the budget for Raspberry Pi - an idea, frankly, I wish I had thought of.  They'll be able to reach far more students and have a heck of lot more equipment on hand. Once they learned that the RasPi 4 is powerful enough to function as a minimal desktop computer with video and web capabilities, they were sold.

Their decision to go with XOJO was also really well thought out. The yearly XOJO license for the RasPi is free. While it doesn't yet run native on the RasPi, it does run on Windows and Mac and they decided to use the existing library PCs running Windows. Again, not a bad decision really. My biggest complaint with XOJO is that it is NOT BASIC. But again, their mandate was that the chosen language not be Python, not necessarily BASIC. So again, they chose well. XOJO is really quite a well designed language and has a long history as being RealBASIC once upon a time. It's just not the kind of BASIC you get with QB64. Also, ironically, RealBASIC was originally written for the Mac!

The good news for me though is that they accepted my bid for the technical writing aspect. So, whoo hoo, I have a job! None of this affects my attitude toward QB64 though. I still firmly believe it the BEST version of BASIC in the wild. I do hope however, that it will continue to evolve and grow.

For what it's worth, this is the feedback they gave me regarding QB64. Please note, this feedback was already printed up BEFORE our long discussion which lead to the decision to drop the Mac compatibility. During which, I basically eliminated the need for the second item and essentially relegated the entire first item to one of style rather than function. But, as I mentioned, they had pretty much already decided on XOJO:

QB [sic] appears to offer a great deal of flexibility and has a long and impressive lineage. However, certain key feature are missing that are vital to the success of this program.
1) A professional and modern GUI code editor with the following features: - auto code completion - integrated help - proper Mac Command Keys - proper cursor placement - proper mouse control for scrolling
 - a reliable and integrated GUI form designer

2) Commands for dropping files onto icons and windows in Mac.

Apparently, the setup I built for them for testing crashed one too many times. We had the clipboard issue that was dropping Segmentation Faults and I fixed that, and then the InForm designer did the same thing. That didn't help.

Regardless, I now have to re-learn XOJO enough to be able to intelligently write about it. It's okay. And it will serve their needs well. I was just hoping so much to be able to give real BASIC a chance.

Again, thanks for all your help! Please forgive me if you don't hear much from me for awhile. I bid high and they only slightly paused before accepting my offer, so I'm all about that paycheck right now! Looking forward to v1.5!

:@)

Ah, I see your point now.

You don't seem to have ever attempted to draw any ASCII art :-)

Ah, yeah. I'm no artist. I always used online converters for ASCII art.

Reading those suggestions again, I think I don't understand #3.

Ah, sorry.Basically, the cursor is placed wherever I click on the editor screen. So, if I click in an empty part of the screen, the cursor goes there. that's of no use. Most editors I know will place the cursor at the end of the line of code on the horizontal line I clicked on.

So, when I left-click to place the cursor onto a line of code, if I click on the text, the cursor goes where I expect it to. But if click outside of the text, the cursor is placed exactly where I clicked, even if that place is far away from any code. I expect it to be placed at the end of the line of code just to the left of where I clicked. I'm not sure what value there is in having a cursor off in empty space.
:@)

Here is something else to look at: https://www.qb64.org/forum/index.php?topic=809.msg100182#msg100182

RhoSigma did a Notepadd++ setup that lets you use that with QB64.  I have also done some work using the Geany IDE with QB64 as well.  So MANY options.

Sadly, Notepad++ does not work on Macs, and I suspect not on RasPi either. Geany does, and so that jumps the first hurdle. But the next hurdle is auto code completion and integrated help.
From this thread, I'm beginning to see that one of two options will have to be deployed; 1) Find a platform like Kite that can be fully adapted to QB64 for all the functions required, or 2) Write the IDE from scratch using QB64.
Honestly, the second option sounds more ideal. I'm just not a programmer. So, Grr. The first option would have to *BE* Kite since no other editors include all of the options of a full-blown IDE with integrated help options.
:@)