My QB64 debut anniversary

[Fifi]

Hi SMcNeill,

QB64 only packages the 32-bit compiler for Windows.  If you want QB64x64, you can download a copy from my site: http://qb64.freeforums.net/thread/100/qb64-x64-10-17-2018

It’s not quite as up to date as the development build at github, but it’s newer than the current stable build.  (The current 64-bit version was compiled last on 10-17-2018.)

64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs in an emulation layer (a built in version similar to DosBox that runs automatically behind the scenes), so if you want programs which run “truly natively” on your 64-bit Windows, you’ll want the QB64x64 from the link above. 

64-bit programs don’t suffer from the 2GB memory limit, usually run faster, and usually have a smaller compiled size, so I usually code in QB64x64 exclusively, for my personal needs.

Just a question (not a critic):

Why the download pages (stable and dev) don't propose both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of QB64 for each OS as Fellippe does for InForm but only for Linux?

Question to Fellippe (again not a critic):

Why the InForm download page doesn't propose a 32 bit and a 64 bit version for Windows as you do for Linux?

Kind regards.
Fifi

[FellippeHeitor]

I know the 32bit Windows version works on 64bit Windows. I never bothered to check if the same holds true for Linux, that's why.

[SMcNeill]

I know the 32bit Windows version works on 64bit Windows. I never bothered to check if the same holds true for Linux, that's why.

From what I remember, Linux doesn’t package ANY compiler with QB64.  You download the one that works for your OS, and it uses that one.

If there’s multiple compilers on a Linux machine, I dunno how it chooses which to use.  Default associated with c files, I guess?  Luke may have a better idea for how it chooses from multiple compilers on Linux.

[FellippeHeitor]

I mean for compiled binaries. I ship both the 32bit and 64bit compiled versions of InForm's Linux installer because, unlike Windows, I don't know if the 32bit version will run on a 64bit Linux system.

[EricR]

I mean for compiled binaries. I ship both the 32bit and 64bit compiled versions of InForm's Linux installer because, unlike Windows, I don't know if the 32bit version will run on a 64bit Linux system.

Unless the linux kernel has gotten really weird, it should run just fine.  As far as I know, all operating systems can handle programs that are byte compiled less than the current size as long as the run time files and required OS support for that size ( 32bit in this case ) exist.  Luke will probably come around soon and correct me if I am wrong. 

[EricR]

Fifi,
01) I do agree most vendors are removing 32bit support.   It is not IF all 32 support is removed from mainstream software and OS vendors, it is When does it happen. 
02) On Microsoft creating the next version of Windows, I thought it would be Windows 10 name until Windows OS ceased to exist. I may have that wrong. 
03) Windows 10 will probably cease offering 32bit support sometime after mid 2021 for the 64bit editions.  Given Windows 10 does still exist in pure 32bit form,  I am not sure what will happen to 32bit editions.  More likely than not, final end-of-life support will occur.  Those who have a 32bit edition of Windows 10 should start thinking about what they are going to do shortly.
04) I do not know what Visual Studio you are using.  I have Visual Studio 2017 Community which does allow console apps for now.  Visual Studio 2019 Community Preview does allow console
programs to be created.   I am on Windows.

[Bert22306]

02) On Microsoft creating the next version of Windows, I thought it would be Windows 10 name until Windows OS ceased to exist. I may have that wrong.

Supposedly, from what Microsoft has said so far, Windows 10 will be it. But that doesn't really mean it's always the same OS. Microsoft seems to have settled on a schedule of two major updates per year, where by "major," I mean a whole new OS. Version 1809 was particularly big, it seems, as the upgrade required four reboots of the machine. Very much like the original installation of Windows 10.

So who knows. Could be that as the years go by, Windows 10 will look very different from what it was on July 29, 2015.

(My question is, what happens with the enterprise version of Windows 10? Enterprise nets hate to make huge OS updates. No enterprise I know of would put up with two OS changes per year.)

[TempodiBasic]

Happy Birthday Fellippe
https://www.ricettedigusto.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Torta-di-compleanno-con-pan-di-Spagna-e-crema-chantilly.jpg

Maintenance and develop of QB64 is not  just like a walking.
Thanks to you and the other coders that spent time, efforts and enery to this beautiful project.

[Fifi]

Hi EricR and Bert22306,

From what I know from a very serious insider (a very old friend in the Redmond labs), MSFT is currently working, beside "enhancing" Windows 10, on two different OS projects.

One is currently called "Windows Lite" and is only 64 bit without any support of 32 bit code. The goal of this version is to reach tiny computers such as Pi or Ebook.

The second doesn't have a real name yet but is internaly called "Lindows". This project is also a full 64 bit product but is based on a Linux kernel and will provide a brand new interface. It's currently managed by a part of the Azure team.

Still from my contact, none of these two projects would come public even as alpha release for MSFT partners before 2020.

Nevertheless, the "reign" of 32 bit for Windows and Linux will end sooner than later and I think that the QB64 dev team should definitly focus on the 64 bit version.

Just my two cents.

Kind regards.
Fifi

[Bert22306]

Hi EricR and Bert22306,

From what I know from a very serious insider (a very old friend in the Redmond labs), MSFT is currently working, beside "enhancing" Windows 10, on two different OS projects.

One is currently called "Windows Lite" and is only 64 bit without any support of 32 bit code. The goal of this version is to reach tiny computers such as Pi or Ebook.

The second doesn't have a real name yet but is internaly called "Lindows". This project is also a full 64 bit product but is based on a Linux kernel and will provide a brand new interface. It's currently managed by a part of the Azure team.
...

Nevertheless, the "reign" of 32 bit for Windows and Linux will end sooner than later and I think that the QB64 dev team should definitly focus on the 64 bit version.

Interesting. Deprecating 32-bit is probably not too surprising, so I agree that at some point, might as well make the main qb64 download the 64-bit variety. Perhaps we should have a survey to see whether anyone still needs a 32-bit version of qb64? Even smartphones are 64-bit these days.

On the Windows with Linux kernel, it's possible that Microsoft would make that one of their Windows 10 big so-called "feature updates"? I mean, these big updates incorporate everything, including new device drivers. Not sure how this could be choreographed with the simultaneous changes in apps. Built-in VMs?

Anyway, how odd it would be, for all Mac and PC OSs to be based on Unix (Mac OS already is). I guess that's how technology evolves, though. Eventually, one winner does tend to emerge.

[SMcNeill]

What I think would work nicely, would be to strip the compiler completely out from the Windows versions.  The way I’d envision it working would be:

1)Let folks download QB64 as a zip/7z fileand extract it to a folder of their choosing.
2)Let folks download the compiler they want to use (if they need one), with an install script included.
3)Folks then click the installer we package with that compiler, point to the QB64 folder without a compiler installed, and it finishes the setup by extracting itself in the proper folder and building QB64.

The advantages to this is a great reduction of download size for folks on limited bandwidth.  Grab one compiler/installer, save it in somewhere on your hard drive, and you never have to download it again. 

We change QB64.bas.  We change libqb.cpp.  We swap in and out various libraries as time goes by...  But we haven’t changed the version of the compiler packaged with QB64 since...  EVER.

[Pete]

I like that idea and I would also include a separate download of the samples programs. I just don't extract those anymore when updating.

Pete

[EricR]

What I think would work nicely, would be to strip the compiler completely out from the Windows versions.  The way I’d envision it working would be:

1)Let folks download QB64 as a zip/7z fileand extract it to a folder of their choosing.
2)Let folks download the compiler they want to use (if they need one), with an install script included.
3)Folks then click the installer we package with that compiler, point to the QB64 folder without a compiler installed, and it finishes the setup by extracting itself in the proper folder and building QB64.

The advantages to this is a great reduction of download size for folks on limited bandwidth.  Grab one compiler/installer, save it in somewhere on your hard drive, and you never have to download it again. 

We change QB64.bas.  We change libqb.cpp.  We swap in and out various libraries as time goes by...  But we haven’t changed the version of the compiler packaged with QB64 since...  EVER.

I would like to see this happening.  In addition to the limited bandwidth folk who use QB64, there is the perceived need by myself and who knows how many others to make *this* a reality.

A) QB64 IDE alone    No compiler
B) 32bit compiler by OS
   1) 7zip / Zip archive format ; DIY format
   2) Installer / Install script with bin / exe
   3) SI SFX compiler bin / exe with official IDE
C) 64bit compiler by OS
   1) 7zip / Zip archive format ; DIY format
   2) Installer / Install script with bin / exe
   3) SI SFX compiler bin / exe with official IDE

I do admit that this desired setup scheme would require space on the web host and a willing QB64 team.   Still, I think this would be best long term. 
I am aware that #3 for compilers is a "Wish for the moon" type desire.  I know freeware and open sourcee SI SFX installers for Windows exist.   
I am not sure if such SI-SFX exists in Linux / Mac based on Linux right now or not.   It has been too long since I had a fully operational Linux distro
on any hard drive. 

For those like myself who appreciate third party IDE's, we are normally capable enough to install those ourselves imo. 
I do wish to point out the super obvious.   We have had this idea of separating the IDE and compiler before.   It came up at least twice on the now defunct QB64 dot net site.  Call me what
ever you wish, I do personally believe this full separation of compiler and IDE must, absolutely must, happen for the long term benefit of QB64.   

And if we are going to continue this, we need our own new thread.  This is supposed to be all about Fellippe's QB64 anniversary.   We are getting seriously off topic. 


Edit 02:
1) I had one more comment.
2) I had a grammar error that needed squishing bad.   I had 32bit twice when I meant 32 bit and 64bit.

[TempodiBasic]

Wow
IMHO this is a very revolution towards Linux world....
many indipendent subsets into one package... so no waste downloading the same files (compiler, examples, source code of Frameworks, fonts etc etc) but you can choose to download only those are updated, and/or what you need to have/adjourn.

Fantastic modular modern downloading....

[EricR]

Hi EricR and Bert22306,

From what I know from a very serious insider (a very old friend in the Redmond labs), MSFT is currently working, beside "enhancing" Windows 10, on two different OS projects.

One is currently called "Windows Lite" and is only 64 bit without any support of 32 bit code. The goal of this version is to reach tiny computers such as Pi or Ebook.

The second doesn't have a real name yet but is internaly called "Lindows". This project is also a full 64 bit product but is based on a Linux kernel and will provide a brand new interface. It's currently managed by a part of the Azure team.

Still from my contact, none of these two projects would come public even as alpha release for MSFT partners before 2020.

Nevertheless, the "reign" of 32 bit for Windows and Linux will end sooner than later and I think that the QB64 dev team should definitly focus on the 64 bit version.

Just my two cents.

Kind regards.
Fifi

Fifi,
If Microsoft thinks that it can change the kernel that much and force it upon all of its Win10 users without complications, I think there will be a reckoning.  Unless Microsoft somehow makes it so all current and future 64bit Windows exe can run on that Linux kernel without error, they may force people to do something drastic like stop upgrading and use potentially not so clean methods to block mandatory updates.  The not so clean updates block could happen lest a pure Windows be replaced by this Lindows without user consent and then all those exe's that are not compatible cease running.  That will surely make people real angry at Microsoft.  Just take a walk through any decent competent tech forum after a botched update and you will get the gist if you do not now.