About BASIC nowaday...

[TempodiBasic]

I have found this article...
in what manner do you agree?
http://back2basic.phatcode.net/?Issue-%231/Community-Article%3A-QB-Vs.-FB-Vs.-QB64

Thanks to read

[bplus]

How old is that article? Net54 is their only source for QB64?

[Cobalt]

if this is anything to go by this article is neary 10 years old.

QB64 has been in development for less than one and a half years.

[TempodiBasic]

Last update:
April 29, 2017, 01:05

and it seems to talk about SDL version of QB64 

-Compiled programs need a bunch of DLL to work, so they can't be stand-alone

Having an SDL backend can make the resulting programs feel quite bulky, but it also makes it a lot easier for QB64 to implement a whole load of extended graphic and sound related capabilities, right out of the box

QB64 has been in development for less than one and a half years.

so it is clear that the article talks about the beginning of QB64.


moreover the article reports opinion of different kind of coders

FB is a great programming language and will probably continue to be a greater, more powerful programming language than QB64 will ever become.

Why choose QB64?

for preserving and extending existing QBASIC programs, and writing new ones

for multi platform porting without any code changes (Windows, Linux, Mac, and any other OS C++ code can be compiled on!)

for a fixed, inbuilt set of powerful commands to cater for modern programming needs such as:
tcp/ip,wav,mp3,midi,jpg,bmp,png,gif,ttf,32bit color,alpha,gamepads,web-cams,video and much more..

Why wouldn't you choose QB64?
...because it has still got some important milestones to reach

I am keeping a very close eye on QB64 however, I can see it's progressing (although more recently, I'm hoping to get more updates from Galleon (QB64's creator). Because it too promises to be a great language to use, maybe more so for those of us QB coders that really pushed low level access and such to the max back when QB was popular and used regularly

If QB64 gains a good userbase, then we'll hopefully see a lot of good-quality games coming from their direction.

what do you think about Game developing and LowLevel access today?

[Cobalt]

That is all from Issue #1, and if

August 18, 2012

Issue #7 is out.  Look inside to see who is the winner of the contest!

was when issue #7 came out then well its all way older. I think the last time the site was updated was 2017.

I've seen quite a few derogatory articles about QB64 that were written back in its infancy. Saw some stuff on Pete's QB site (not our Pete a different one) that was written way back. Apparently people really didn't like Rob's idea in the beginning.

[Petr]

Hi Tempo,

Why are you looking for articles on QB64? I'll tell you it straight away so you don't have to look for anything: QB64 is the best, most supported and most developed basic, that I know. Some embarrassing attempts to defeat him....

Memorize: QB64 forever!

:-D

[TempodiBasic]

Hi Petr

the reason to search something about BASIC and QB64 is ...
today when a coder think BASIC,  does he think of what one BASIC?
As developement enviroment  QB64 how is thought by professional coders? Just is it a windows remake of QBasic?

and google push out that article! 

QB64 forever: No Doubt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR3Vdo5etCQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubvV498pyIM&list=PLWe1C5b7Id0wFjqsUhizm0b_wf8oJ0Whr

thanks to reply

[_vince]

I like and use both.  QB64 is bound to the promise of keeping QB compatibility and QB syntax and structure while freebasic is not.  QB64 is a bit easier to program in and freebasic's downside is the "dialects" mess.  "langqb" is the compatibility mode for running old QB code, but it's nowhere near as compatible as QB64, while the official "langfb" has strayed way too far from being "BASIC".  "fblite" is the third dialect and a compromise between the two and the one I use most, even though it's officially meant for porting old code not actual use. I still think freebasic is currently the best BASIC-like language in existence.

[bplus]

To me, BASIC-like means developing code and immediately running for check on how it was coming in interpreter. Only later comes option of compiling if you wanted to do that. So for me, QB64 was new experience of waiting for compiler before seeing latest results. Thank goodness it's only seconds to compile these days. I don't remember if FreeBasic stayed  true in that department but I do remember trying to run code I had worked out a year or so before and it not working. I think it was the "dialect" problem vince mentioned. Very confusing to compile code 3 different ways, specially to beginners. It was also crazy trying to learn QB64 and FB at same time.

[TempodiBasic]

Hi  Bplus
this feature

So for me, QB64 was new experience of waiting for compiler before seeing latest results. Thank goodness it's only seconds to compile these days.

is also of TurboBasic 1.0
Do you think that the destiny of that BASIC dialect is linked to the matter that there was no interpreter?

[bplus]

Hi TempodiBasic,

Sorry I don't understand your question. BASIC was around as interpreter before there were PC's, made possible by time sharing on main frame computers.

[TempodiBasic]

Hi Bplus

sorry for my unclear words. I try to say in different way

this is Turbo Basic (born and death as 1.0 )
  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]  

here you can get it in abandonware https://www.abandonwaredos.com/abandonware-game.php?abandonware=Borland+Turbo+Basic+1.0&gid=2602

here wiki info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBASIC#Turbo_Basic

reading of your initial reaction to wait some seconds while QB64 compiles code, I have made a correlation between QB64 compiler (using GCC under the tool) and Turbo BASIC for DOS running on older PC that also has only a compiler and not the interpreter, if you want run the code you must compile it! And thinking that you already know TurboBASIC I was asking you if do you think that the fact that you must compile and run all the code without Tracing could be one of the cause of no success of Turbo BASIC at its time as alternative to QuickBasic.

Thanks to read

[bplus]

Hi TempodiBasic,

I've had 0 experience with Turbo Basic, my background starts with GW-Basic with DOS 3.something (and BASIC on time sharing dummy terminals with paper printer (instead of monitor?) at college maybe 13 years before that.)

Turbo looks similar to Quick Basic 4.5 which came after GW Basic for me then VB 2.0 and VB for MS DOS...
All these were interpreters, did VB's compile? I don't remember! The one for MS DOS must have because I used apps at work for inventories.

If Turbo took a long time to compile before seeing results of last blunder fix, I can see how that would radically change one's style and way of programming. One would be much more careful and spend more time planning ahead.

For me, I developed the style of just banging away and fixing stuff until things shape up as intended, I love immediate feedback. Maybe this is the brain damage caused from using BASIC. Sure beats waiting days for results from punch cards only to learn you missed a decimal and have to wait more days to see results.