St_W wrote:FreeBasic syntax has not been changed, it has been extended. So all the syntactical stuff you already know from BASICs from the 70's and 80's is practically present in FreeBasic (except line numbers).
I think this is true, provided that you use the right mode.
All the new stuff that has been added is fully optional, and if you don't understand it or think that it's too complicated for you, then you don't have to use it.
Signed up to say how refreshing that is to hear. There's a lot of "you should, you should, you should" in the programming world, and while there's always a "this is better," the "you shoulds" sometimes give the (annoying) impression that there's only one-right-way to do anything.
(And of course, it's never the same from year to year. Which makes the whole thing a series of annoying fashion trends.)
This happens more often in languages that are less stable. But then why not wait for stable before handing out "thou shalts"? Or just skip them in favor of "this is good"?
for today's newcomers FreeBasic's dated syntax is not as easy to learn because computers, operating systems and a lot of other environmental things have changed since QBASIC meant to be easy. What I want to say is that easy back then doesn't mean easy nowadays and that the language must evolve.
Any (preferably specific, but vague is ok) thoughts on how a language can evolve to be easier? I wish people talked about that everyday.
I always thought FreeBasic was designed to extend an easy language. Actually making a language easier *seems* nearly impossible, but IMO could be one of the most worthwhile endeavors in computer education-- definitely worth a try.