QB64 competitors... It is an hard life!

[SMcNeill]

@Pete If you look, the old site has been sold and traded hands several times in the last few years.  I don’t know if it’s actually malicious, as it’s basically just a copy from the Internet Archives, but the guys holding it are some of the wholesale domain sellers.

My guess is one picked up the name for a steal when Galleon didn’t renew it, and they kept it for about a year or so, in an attempt to sell it back to him at inflated prices.  When he didn’t take the bait, they bundled it up and sold it to another wholeseller at a discount…

Basically its just like the Fannie May and Freddy Mac bull-ship all over again, except with domain names instead of sub-prime mortgages.

[Pete]

I'll buy that. Well, actually, I won't buy it, but I'll accept it. Domain resellers sort of shoot themselves in the foot by inventing too many extensions, which drives domain values down. I still remember the idiot who owned business.com,and turned down a $10,000,000 offer, because he thought it was worth a lot more. Now he wishes he invested in outofbusiness.com, as it better reflects his current state of affairs.

Pete

[TempodiBasic]

about FORTRAN:
I remember that my brother was studing an exam about programming, the only one exam into its student career about PC and programming.
In those days (1996-2000) my brother was bored because he didn't love PC (also today it is so his vision of a brutal stupid machine) and I took a look at Fortran (it was Fortran77) and I thought "It seems an ancient BASIC" and so we studied together for the development part of that exam. After he got the exam and forgot the programming world.

about BASIC transcompilers
look at here at BACON...  http://www.basic-converter.org
there are many different other people interested to have a BASIC in the modern era and so they choose to use a BASIC that will be translated into C/C++ to code/create programs using BASIC. (first link points to us)

About development and maintenance of QB64:
Surely this is an aspect to think about for take good direction on development of QB64. These other persons share with us the same idea: BASIC forever.

Another aspect is that Steve points out:
 nowaday a powerful language with no points of contact with productivity world is still a nostalgic hobbist language...no more.
That I try to say is:  if I use another professional power language I always must use a framework or library or driver or whatotheryouthinkneeded  to work on an aspect in developing application: for example writing in Java or Python or C++ I must use libraries or classes already done by others or frameworks to use OBDC or  SQL databases, or for making graphic with Opengl or SDL or Unreal engine, or for WWW applications.
Alternatively I must jump from a language to another one having as goal to use the most useful language for that task.
....
we have a prebuilt library all_in-One coming from QB45 and powedred by _QB64statements.
Maybe we need more separated library to use at need, like in the other modern languages.

Thanks for reading, for talking and for giving me feedbacks also for being better my english!

[Pete]

Code: QB64: [Select]

1. SWAP being_better_my_english!, improving_my_English!

[Aurel]

sprigsy...

long time) to rewrite QB64 as best I can in Python

..so on that way you will increase python popularity more ...sending message how
python is "powerful".

BSpinoza:

Not only QB64 but all BASICs are forgotten, nearly everywhere!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 it would be hard to initiate a resurrection ... an ugly Python swallows all older programming languages (except C).

yes i agree with you 1000%
look ...i am not real QB64 user ..but in general i like and use basic in all my programming ,,,yeah powerful one

SMc:

The problem with BASIC — any sort of basic, really — is that they’re not really programming languages at the end of the day.  They’re just a language translator; from old BAS syntax to C, which then compiles to the EXE behind the scenes.

and you are wrong ...I am using Oxygen Basic which compile directly into machine code ( to exe).

[SMcNeill]

SMc:
and you are wrong ...I am using Oxygen Basic which compile directly into machine code ( to exe).

Do you have a link to it?  Only Oxygen Basic I know is this one:  https://sourceforge.net/projects/oxygenbasic/

And, from what I understand about it, it’s a translation language as well, rather than a direct compiler.  “ Compact embeddable JIT compiler that reads C headers and compiles to x86 machine code. ”

There’s still C involved before the EXE is created.

[bplus]

Doesn't Python only "compile" to bytecode?

[George McGinn]

Yes.

Doesn't Python only "compile" to bytecode?

[Aurel]

Yes Steve that one ...
and again you wrong ...download  and if you find any connection with C that would be miracle.
it is stated that can read C headers because of syntax and nothing more ...
there is no any C compiler involved .

[Bert22306]

Don't know about what others do, but I've been using QuickBasic for real work, for years. No problem.

Started with Fortran in college, then had to switch to Basic, on a remote a time sharing system, in grad school. Used that same time sharing system at my first job. Then used the HP Basic, at a remote work site, on an HP 9830. And then, when we got our first IBM PS/2s at work, just for the hell of it, I typed "basic" at the DOS c:\ prompt. Surprise! There was my Advanced Basic IDE, right in front of me.

Then QBasic appeared, with the better IDE. I always used those at work. Who could possibly complain? The company didn't have to shell out any more money, and just about anyone can understand Basic code.

Then, in spite of its "invisibility," when I got a 64-bit PC with a 64-bit Windows, I had to find a better way to keep using Basic. Hey, I just used a search engine, and found this "invisible" QB64, no problem. And not just that, but unlike the previous transitions, all my programs worked. A couple had minor bugs, but this was as pain-free a transition as ever.

I've never had anyone complain about using Basic. One C programmer only said it makes his head hurt. Other than that, as far as work goes, I'm not sure who can possibly complain, or on what grounds.

[SpriggsySpriggs]

..so on that way you will increase python popularity more ...sending message how
python is "powerful".

That isn't the idea at all, @Aurel . The plan is to increase popularity of QB64 by association and to provide an interpreted BASIC. People already know that Python is powerful. That's why it is so widely used. Really not any different from how C/C++ was used to make QB64. It's just the medium used to create QB64

[Pete]

Python, Python, Python. I liked it better when FreeBAISC was our arch enemy. We really need to get back to our roots.

Pete :D

[Aurel]

and you are wrong
python is your arch enemy not FreeBasic, i can bet that 50% of code can be used in both
and basic is basic

[TempodiBasic]

hey boys
why are you fighting about python and BASIC?
I started this thread to talk of visibility of QB64 for its power (Opengl and _NewPowerfulStatements)
more than for its backward compatibility (high compatibility with QB45 and something of QB PDS 7.1).

when i found QB64 it claimed a high backward compatibility to QB45 and an extension to Os   Windows, MacOs, Linux and Android .
After some time extension to android was dropt out, in the while QB64 has turned from SDL to Opengl. Some fans has gone away for some issue of backcompatibility (no low level support but limited emulation).
I stay here in this community for using a Modern BASIC despite its backward compatibility, not to compile a 16bit program!
I find very warm and with good feedbacks these community, and this is much on this cold web.

Tune up on the half filled glass.

[George McGinn]

You are wrong! HA! ( @Aurel) :-)

BASIC is only BASIC if you use the core features, like LET A=B, GOSUB, GOTO, IF/THEN/ELSE, etc.

Even in some of the older BASIC, ELSE isn't valid. Same with SELECT/CASE.

Also, if your QB64 program is using METACOMMANDS, good luck finding Equivalent commands in any BASIC.

Also, I use TechBASIC and SmartBASIC on my iPad to develop some mobile Apps. Try porting those over to any BASIC. They just don't hunt. The GUI is completely different, they use some Objective C conventions, and only the BASIC from 1978 is comparable!

And try porting VisualBASIC to any dialect of it!

This may have been true in the 1908's and possibly the early 90's, but not today.

and you are wrong
python is your arch enemy not FreeBasic, i can bet that 50% of code can be used in both
and basic is basic