+- 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.. - VonGodric - 11-26-2004
Note: I don't know what I'm talking about...
But dev-cpp (so is dev-pascal) is open source and as a editor, it is very good. Maybe it'be possible to modify the source(with permitions from developers) to support FB syntax?
Though the damn thing is done is Delphi and I personlally don't know anything about it. After all why to reinvent the wheel?
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - marzecTM - 11-26-2004
Quote:VonGodric Wrote:though I'd personally prefere some more portable language then VBWhen VB comes out for Linux...oh wait, that's never going to happen.
no? have a look at mono...
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - aetherfox - 11-26-2004
What? what's mono?
94% of people use Windows as their operating system (or something like that.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - wildcard - 11-26-2004
Quote:What? what's mono?
94% of people use Windows as their operating system (or something like that.
I'm guessing its http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html.
Nice stat but not really a reason to not allow for non windows development. If you are going to write an IDE might as well write it in FB and then it will be as portable as FB..
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - marzecTM - 11-26-2004
fb is not portable, there's not a single basic compiler for linux that could translate fb, so that's a big problem, the only thing that might work is to rewrite the runtimelib (altough most of it is from the clib) and then compile the asm file that's produced on win on linux. maybe that will work, but it will be a pain i guess...
edit: me stupid that's what i could do... check for a linux port of fb hehe...
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - na_th_an - 11-26-2004
aetherFox: That's what I meant when I was talking about the portability of VB.NET. It is a bummer learning new stuff, but as I told you, if you know how to code OO it is just the same but with VB syntax. The .NET stuff will be runable on almost every OS very soon, so I'd go for VB.NET (I'm not saying VB 2005, but VB7, the prev. version). The newest version of many famous commercial programs are now running in the .NET framework, guess why.
Also, I would like to talk about the future. Note what a pain in the ass is for us QBers to realize that our games don't work on most computers 'cause DOS16 is a dead and unsupported platform. DOS32 died recently. WIN16 died even before DOS16 did, WIN32 will die as well. You better use the .NET framework, that way you are sure that new CPUs and new OSs will run it. At least for longer than WIN32 code.
I think that there's a point which makes Linux and Unix based OSs strong: you know that you will be able to compile your own code for every new version and target every supported processor. That doesn't happen with VB6.
VB6 is fabulous if you have to code a visual program FAST, the results are great, stable and easy to manage, but note that WIN32 will not last forever. And your VB6 code will be uncompilable in the future.
We don't want a forum 10 years in the future where the general claim is "someone writes a VB-compatible compiler for 128 bits micros!"
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-26-2004
It is wiser to start with what is currently supported. Whatever happens in the future isn't going to do us any good in the present. It makes no sense to code something that is designed for the future if it cannot be used effectively today. People with low-end computers are going to have a hard time running a .net-based IDE. It's no secret that you need a modern computer to run .net applications properly. So while Win32 is the dominant platform, it makes the most sense to stick with it for now. When things change, we'll accomodate said changes. But until then, it's not worth it. I don't know about the rest of you, but my time is extremely limited and I have to make the most of it, so I'm going to code in what works now rather than what is predicted to work later.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - VonGodric - 11-26-2004
and in 20 yeras: someone please write a VB.net compotable compiler and parser...
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - aetherfox - 11-26-2004
I have to agree with Nek. While I agree with your point and we have had this conversation in detail before, I would still push for VB6, Nath. The reason is simply as Nek stated it: time. All of us have real lives, and not enough of us know VB.NET. Now while in the future I want to be accustomed to it, at the moment, I simply do not have to time. Hence it's not a matter of how useful the IDE will be two years down the road, the matter is how useful making the IDE will be now.
VB8 comes with a VB6 project converted. While (at least insofar for me) it's not that great in it's beta stage, I have no doubt it will be worked upon. Rewriting a project for VB.NET shouldn't then be too hard a task.
freeBASIC (a 32-bit QB-syntax compatible compiler) preview.. - adosorken - 11-26-2004
Quote:VB8 comes with a VB6 project converted. While (at least insofar for me) it's not that great in it's beta stage, I have no doubt it will be worked upon. Rewriting a project for VB.NET shouldn't then be too hard a task.Even as such, I found that it does a pretty good job, converting roughly 80% of a project on average (this is based on converting about 25 of my own projects). So it's definately got some ability, and it can only improve.