Possible Solution to threads like the one that was started.

For other topics related to the FreeBASIC project or its community.
MikeS
Posts: 56
Joined: Feb 05, 2006 17:47

Postby MikeS » May 21, 2008 1:24

I fifth that for that matter. FBC has a great chance to succeed as and be a leader of BASIC languagse, but QB is holding it back. Go ahead and keep a -lang QB option, but stop it where it is once the bugs and quarks are removed, and then advanced FBC. That or split the projects apart. I'm not of course expecting it to be as easy as removing a few files, but this is the direction I'd like to see the project going.
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Postby MichaelW » May 21, 2008 5:49

I personally have no use for anything other than -lang fb. I made heavy use of QB starting at a time when it was the best tool available to me, but that time is now long gone. While other people in my age group, and older, may see this differently, my familiarity with QB cannot begin to make up for its many shortcomings.
Eclipzer
Posts: 432
Joined: Oct 01, 2005 10:50
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Postby Eclipzer » May 21, 2008 6:04

I personally have no use for anything other than -lang fb.


Likewise. I've never used -lang qb once since I started using FreeBASIC.
wallyfblu
Posts: 69
Joined: May 24, 2006 10:58
Location: ITALY

Postby wallyfblu » May 21, 2008 6:42

The same for me. It depend what you use FB for.
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » May 21, 2008 7:01

It's a really good idea, and I actually (privately) suggested forking the QB part back in like November or something. The problem is either we completely freeze the qb side (no more bugfixes etc) or we then inherit the burden of maintaining TWO compilers, which tbh we don't want or need.

I might end up breaking down and spearheading that... I have thought about it a lot in the past... but wait I don't contribute anything so I could never handle something like that... jk, I had to get my digs in though... $%#@.
h4tt3n
Posts: 694
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 21:12
Location: Denmark

Postby h4tt3n » May 21, 2008 7:09

I agree with the rest: Skip or branch the qb compatibility and make FB an independent, modern language.
E.K.Virtanen
Posts: 785
Joined: May 28, 2005 9:19
Location: Finland

Postby E.K.Virtanen » May 21, 2008 9:40

As stated earlier, FB maybe should go it's own way. Thanks to QB for been part of innovation but it might be time to seperate from it.
One of the main things why qb'rs are Π$/- of is that FB is still "advertised" as new QB, which it is less and less after every new release.

Arrange a poll for users to say their opinion about all the -lang blaa things? If way over 50% says bye bye, then it might be time to say so for qb?
marcov
Posts: 3001
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Postby marcov » May 21, 2008 10:25

cha0s wrote:I think it just goes to show how awesome FreeBASIC is, that people get so upset about it. If it was "just another BASIC" no one would care and they'd move on the QB128 or whatever other language they wanted. Everyone wants to control it...

That's all.


Well, it is in your mission statement to be very QB centric:

http://www.freebasic.net/index.php/about

That is what people get on info on FB if they first come here
notthecheatr
Posts: 1759
Joined: May 23, 2007 21:52
Location: Cut Bank, MT
Contact:

Postby notthecheatr » May 21, 2008 13:36

I consider QB compatibility (-lang qb) very important to FreeBASIC; after all, FreeBASIC was born out of an effort to create a modern form of QBASIC. However, in my personal opinion -lang qb is probably good enough - or getting close anyways - to end development, at least of any new features. Perhaps it's time to do nothing more than bugfixes for -lang qb - and then, only for major bugs. After all, the original QBASIC had plenty of bugs that were never fixed. -lang qb is, in my mind, nearly the same as the original QBASIC. Move on! It had it's day, now let's go on to wider and brighter horizons. Leave behind the old blue screen of QB and go on to the great wide world of modern programming. Everyone will benefit - those who prefer modern programming to begin with, and those who are forced to learn new things if they ever want to progress beyond the deprecated -lang qb.
Eclipzer
Posts: 432
Joined: Oct 01, 2005 10:50
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Postby Eclipzer » May 22, 2008 1:50

http://www.freebasic.net/index.php/about wrote:FreeBASIC - as the name suggests - is a completely free, open-source, 32-bit BASIC compiler, with the syntax the most compatible possible with MS-QuickBASIC, that adds new features such as pointers, unsigned data types, inline-assembly and many others.


Here's how I would word it:

FreeBASIC is a completely free, open-source, 32-bit BASIC compiler, with syntax similar to MS-QuickBASIC, that supports modern features including pointers, unsigned data types, inline-assembly and many more.

I think this is a bit more accurate and concise. Regardless of native FBs QB compatibility, its syntax remains similar to QB. If the reference to QB still generates confusions here, I think it could be removed because the language itself references BASIC and is referred to as a 32-bit BASIC compiler in the description, so the syntax similarities are implied (All versions of BASIC share similar syntax).
counting_pine
Site Admin
Posts: 6218
Joined: Jul 05, 2005 17:32
Location: Manchester, Lancs

Postby counting_pine » May 22, 2008 2:47

The syntax is still very similar to QBASIC, just with some extensions. That's why it's not too hard to have a dialect that supports QB compatibility as closely as we do. The biggest incompatibility is probably that variables needing to be declared, which isn't part of the syntax.
I think it's definitely fair to change it to from "most compatible possible" to "similar" though. There are a couple of significant syntax differences in lang fb, such as "let" and "call" not being allowed.
It should at least help to dissuade the notion that FB will compile QB programs without modifications or dialect switches.
Z!re

Postby Z!re » May 22, 2008 2:48

[Content removed at author's request]
counting_pine
Site Admin
Posts: 6218
Joined: Jul 05, 2005 17:32
Location: Manchester, Lancs

Postby counting_pine » May 22, 2008 3:09

There seems to be a strong correlation between people who only use lang fb and people who want to get rid of the other dialects.

There may e some merit in what you have to say about defining a final design document though...
Z!re

Postby Z!re » May 22, 2008 3:10

[Content removed at author's request]
counting_pine
Site Admin
Posts: 6218
Joined: Jul 05, 2005 17:32
Location: Manchester, Lancs

Postby counting_pine » May 22, 2008 3:29

You come a close second... :P
Well you've proved me irrelevant on the first point in my last post. I take it you'd be interested in upgrading if FBC had achieved the kind of stability you want. What kind of customisations have you made to your version?

I think most of our confusion and anger came simply because we converted away from some BASIC principles, like implicit vars, etc. Maybe if we dropped the other dialects there'd be less anger, but only because all the old-style fans would have just completely left. We don't really want to do that.

I'm the wrong person to ask if you want to know how much better FBC would be if it only supported one dialect. I dare say if we were starting on scratch without the original QB-compatible base, the specification would be cleaner (no need for symbolic suffixes, comment metacommands, etc.)
I'm not sure we're ready to finalise on a final specification, to be honest. To me, it feels like it's still too soon, and we don't want to tie ourselves to any lng-term bad decisions. Even if it means requiring a little patience from everyone in the community.

I wouldn't mind considering it and discussing it constructively - though again, I'm not sure I'm the best person to do that with.

Return to “Community Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests