+- Qbasicnews.com (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum)
+-- Forum: General (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General/Misc (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. (/thread-4948.html)
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - Jofers - 11-11-2004
Sign me up. But use either C++, Java, or FBasic, because VB and related products have the negative tendency to be hopelessly Windows-dependent.
Also don't make some crap program with the idea of getting all the basic stuff in. As an open source project, it should have a goal of being readable and more importantly modular and extendable.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - marzecTM - 11-11-2004
i would use gcc and some gui lib like wxwidgets or stuff...
about modularity, what do you have in mind?
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - relsoft - 11-12-2004
Context. da purfect editor. :*)
Or MED. :*)
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-12-2004
Making a Windows-specific IDE to start with is not a bad thing. I don't know why people automatically assume that similar/identical programs cannot be made in other environments just because they're "Windows-specific". Any developer worth their salt can develop a clone in another environment. Look, for example, at Winamp and XMMS: they're so friggin alike it's not even funny, yet they're both native to their own platforms. Those of you who whine about Windows-specific stuff have "coder's slack"...a communicable coder's disease in the form of lazyness which spreads around programmers who believe themselves to be too busy to do any real work.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - Jofers - 11-12-2004
Yeah, if you're coding something like C++. If it's VB, then you have a problem. That's not whining, that's reality. If you're plopping elements on a VB frame, and running a few events to make the code colored and buttons work, then it would probably be easier to rewrite the program than to port it.
Personally, I'm all for using FB. I mean, if the compiler is in FB, than if the IDE ever needs to be cross platform, it will be. Plus, basic is something everyone on this board can understand (hopefully. If not, well, there's a messageboard for that
).By modular, I just mean encapsulating things into subroutines and files instead of throwing down everything in some big ol' file with kilobytes and kilobytes of code resembling Aramaic to people other than the programmer.
Let's say Bob wants to add syntax checking. All he should have to do is add a few lines to Jim's code, and then make a file with all the routines he needs for his extension to work. That would mean having the part of the code that interprets the syntax separated from the syntax highlighting, so that it can be used by others. Just an example.
Or maybe I'm just getting too used to PHP and Java projects
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-12-2004
You're getting too used to PHP and Java projects.
One problem I have always had with certain types of people is how they honestly believe that developing a project in VB is "simple". No offense Jofers, but you make it sound like a novice task to develop a program in VB. While much of the grunt work is cut out, there's still plenty of code to write. Whether or not said project is portable or not is relatively immaterial. In addition, writing generic code may work for portability reasons, but writing platform-specific code will help you make the most of whatever program you're writing. This is why I'd rather write code in MSVC rather than mingw...MSVC will make the most of the code you write, because it's heavily optimized for the Windows platform and mingw is not.
Any loser can slap together a few controls on a form in VB6 and call it an application, but it takes a genuine programmer to develop a legitimate VB application. That, like developing a nice game in QB to begin with, is a challenge in and of itself. But one thing I hate is when a person rags on a VB application, then shows up with a half-assed broken C++ application with a quarter of the functionality "but hey...it's in C++! It's automatically bettar!" That kind of blind elitism is what divides programming communities.
You use the tool that's suited for the job. Let's face it...nothing is more suited for GUI-based applications in Windows than Visual Basic. Thusly, nothing's more suited for an editor than Visual Basic for that reason.
Anyways...rant over, back to work on GGA'04.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - ShadowWolf - 11-12-2004
VB by far is the best suit lang for writting a IDE in. that's what it was desgined for after all fast appilcation programming.
doing the same thing in C is messy at best and takes longer. so what that you have to have VB runtimes installed and VC code is compiled tighter because in the end thouse two thing don't really matter for an IDE.
it's not like your programming some thing that need to take a crap load of CPU power and you need the fast code excation as possible. it's an Editor with some extra's. and the vb6 runtimes well who care's about having the runtime package being installed with the IDE it's only a few extra megs.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-12-2004
Technically speaking, there's no tighter code than VB6. The code is exceedingly granular, making the smallest EXEs possible for a high level language. VC (or virtually any C/C++ compiler for that matter) cannot produce the kind of tight granular executables that VB can. I have had this argument (and won this argument) with countless people over the years.
(Anyone seen that horrible freeware IDE for VS.net? I've never seen such a poorly designed IDE...you need a 1GHz computer just to RUN the bloody thing! I deleted it so fast that I don't even remember what it's called anymore!)
Anyways...freeBASIC is featured in the latest V Planet update.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - marzecTM - 11-13-2004
wow a language flamewar? let me take part, vb6 simply sucks, vb7 has much more of a real programming language. that vb outperforms any of the available win32 c/c++ compilers? i doubt that *grin*
but writing an ide in vb maybe a good choice, cause you can really do that fast (here a click there a click finished.. j/k
) but concerning portability it's a bad choice...writing the thing with fb is also not the best thing, cause you'd have to port the win32 api or mfc what wouldn't work cause of it's oo roots. (fb doesn't support linking c++ stuff cause of name mangling)
thus i'd prefer using c, either vc or mingw c , where mingw c is imho better, cause it's standard compliant, where vc really sucks ass sometimes. and if you know your math in c and you got a decent gui lib one's at least as fast as in vb...
my two cents...
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-13-2004
When I said VB6 is as tight as it gets, I'm talking about granularity. Unless you're coding in assembly, you're not going to find anything tighter than VB6...end of story.
Why? Because virtually all its "real" routines are contained inside the runtime library! So the EXE ends up being tiny. VB6 0wnz j00 @ll.
[/leetspeek]
*ahem* anyways...about that FB thing...
By the way, what's the status on FB now?
PS: no one was flaming.