http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects#F wrote:[...] FreeBASIC (DOS (DPMI32), MS Windows and GNU/Linux) — An almost 100% QuickBASIC compatible Open source language compiler, (GPL) [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebasic wrote:[...] FreeBASIC syntax attempts to stay as close to the BASIC syntax as possible, specifically that of QuickBASIC. [...]
I wonder if this isn't where a certain confusion might set in? If I was a newcomer to the freebasic project, these two descriptions seem to lead me to believe that if I just take a QB source file and fbc <sourcefile.bas> and press enter, that it should compile it fine. I'm thinking that maybe these two description should be changed to present today's FB reality.
Just like when I wrote my article on FreeBasic in QB Express, my evaluation, back then, FB's native mode was, as I mentioned, taking a different direction back then, and back then there was no specific talks of a -lang qb mode, back then it was just FB taking this new direction. Things changed since back then and evenI'll admit to that.
Now if you read these two descriptions above, perhaps the fact that FB supports multiple compilation modes one of which is created to support a QB like structure and dialect. Maybe people would come in the forum with all the knowledge they need to not assume what DML seemed to have assumed and know that they need to find which mode they need to use their qb code for example.
I wonder how much such confusion (and assumptions) can be avoided upfront just by adjusting these descriptions (those quoted above and others outside fb.net and perhaps in the wiki as well to be clear on which way FB supports the QuickBASIC syntax (ie via the -lang qb mode) so that people don't come here expecting -lang FB to work like and be like -lang qb.
Just a suggestion, but I think that might clear the air if people know about the multiple compilation modes upfront.