Some general remarks on FreeBasic

For other topics related to the FreeBASIC project or its community.
haegartheroot
Posts: 112
Joined: Jul 27, 2007 15:45
Location: Bremen, Germany
Contact:

Some general remarks on FreeBasic

Postby haegartheroot » Feb 07, 2010 12:09

Hi all,

when I got in touch with FreeBasic some years ago, it was like a dream for me: a fresh compiler which supports the well known QB syntax and offers up to date libraries/bindings for almost any purpose.

But in the last months I have a strong fear that FB has become more and more outdated.

It's not the compiler itself, which is stable and covers everything that is needed to create all kinds of applications.
But it is the "surrounding" of FB.
Most of the libraries/bindings delivered with FB are currently outdated, so FB developers cannot use many new and interesting features provided by the new releases. E.g. GTK, Cairo, SQLite (to name some) offer a lot of new functions which are not available for the FB programmers.

On the other hand, I read several topics in the FB forum where members of the FB community told that they've already prepared newer versions of some libraries/bindings.

To bring it to the point: what I'm missing for FreeBasic is a person like Linus Torvalds is for Linux.
He/she must be a coordinator and decide what should be packaged into the new release.
At least there should be a section in the forum, where community members can upload new versions of the libraries/bindings.

From my point of view, we don't need a 0.21 release, but we strongly need a "0.20 reloaded" release with all the libraries/bindings updated to the current versions.

Otherwise many developers will move over to other alternatives (like Mono VB.Net) which are currently better maintained.

It's almost high noon for FB ...

//haegar
Mysoft
Posts: 779
Joined: Jul 28, 2005 13:56
Location: Brazil, Santa Catarina, Indaial (ouch!)
Contact:

Postby Mysoft » Feb 07, 2010 13:26

that sound a excuse... and offensive to me... a shame... unless the whole library is broken you can load the "new" function yourself if needed... also become dependant of a library like this is very bad...

but for the subject, i guess a subforum for libraries already exists... and just people aren't updating it, maybe cuz they are complaining and waiting too, but i dont think so...

sorry if i sound harsh, but sometimes you need some attitude.
McLovin
Posts: 82
Joined: Oct 21, 2008 1:15
Contact:

Postby McLovin » Feb 07, 2010 18:11

Sounds like yet another lazy person wanting someone else to do all of the work. Don't just talk about any shortcomings, put some effort into changing the situation. This is open source and requires a bit of effort from everyone to keep it current.

These doom and gloom posts about the demise of FB are really annoying.
haegartheroot
Posts: 112
Joined: Jul 27, 2007 15:45
Location: Bremen, Germany
Contact:

Postby haegartheroot » Feb 07, 2010 19:02

@McLovin

That's not true. I've already delivered some contributions to FreeBasic (see some of my previous postings, e.g. bindings & examples for a PDF library, a plotting library and a glade converter for FreeBasic).
What I want to make clear is the following: some people have already done the work, but there is no process in place how to bring these bits and pieces into the end product. So why invent the wheel twice?
I've seen other projects where anybody can put his work into an "incoming" folder. Then a person or a group makes a test and comes up with a decision which contributions should be added to the product.
Just to make clear: I really like FreeBasic and wish that FreeBasic would become the language of choice for many developers all over the world.

//haegar
John Spikowski
Posts: 453
Joined: Dec 24, 2005 2:32
Location: WA - USA
Contact:

Postby John Spikowski » Feb 08, 2010 9:40

Personally I think it's a big mistake not to allow C includes. (with the new C emitter) Having to translate libraries so FB can use them is a pain to maintain.
segin
Posts: 126
Joined: Dec 27, 2005 5:22
Contact:

Postby segin » Feb 08, 2010 13:25

John Spikowski wrote:Personally I think it's a big mistake not to allow C includes. (with the new C emitter) Having to translate libraries so FB can use them is a pain to maintain.


Except that's a hell of a lot harder than you think. The FreeBASIC compiler would then have to be rewritten to include a C code parser, thus becoming a C compiler as well, as the point of a header is to make the compiler aware of external functions and their calling conventions, and fbc would have to understand C to be able to properly compile code using the functions defined in the C header.

If fbc can't read the header, then it has no idea if any particular function call is correct or not, nor does it know things such as e.g. proper symbol names for functions.

Thus, .bi headers will be required for the foreseeable future.
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » Feb 08, 2010 13:32

Yes, it would be wonderful to directly include C headers... no one is arguing that. As segin mentioned, it adds significant complexity to the actual compiler... it's basically a non-starter, as much as I personally would LOVE to see it. It would mitigate a lot of haegartheroot's disillusionment, because in reality the reason it doesn't get done is because it's a lot of work to translate these headers, and let's face it, people use BASIC becasue they're lazy...... ;)

That said, I do think we need a more open/inviting process for users to contribute. I have been planning on updating fb.net for some time, but haven't been able to invest the time due to other concerns. I think I'm going to start a post on this now actually.
John Spikowski
Posts: 453
Joined: Dec 24, 2005 2:32
Location: WA - USA
Contact:

Postby John Spikowski » Feb 09, 2010 5:38

I do think we need a more open/inviting process for users to contribute.


May I suggest you separate the development and users to separate forums. Users feel intimated because they are unable to contribute to the project and developers get frustrated due to all the noise.

Some folks like what's going on under the covers and others like developing applications and games in Basic. I think there is definitely two distinct groups with a common interest. FreeBASIC being supported, documented with ongoing development.
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » Feb 09, 2010 5:45

John, that's a good point you've raised. Although some might see this as 'stratification', I think you have a point. I recently started a thread about changes to fb.net if you'd like to contribute there, you're welcome to.

Overall, I think specifically accomodating users and developers is a solid strategy that should be discussed.
agamemnus
Posts: 1842
Joined: Jun 02, 2005 4:48

Postby agamemnus » Feb 10, 2010 7:55

cha0s wrote:Yes, it would be wonderful to directly include C headers... no one is arguing that. As segin mentioned, it adds significant complexity to the actual compiler... it's basically a non-starter, as much as I personally would LOVE to see it. It would mitigate a lot of haegartheroot's disillusionment, because in reality the reason it doesn't get done is because it's a lot of work to translate these headers, and let's face it, people use BASIC becasue they're lazy...... ;)

I agree.

That said, I do think we need a more open/inviting process for users to contribute. I have been planning on updating fb.net for some time, but haven't been able to invest the time due to other concerns. I think I'm going to start a post on this now actually.

Uh-huh.
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » Feb 10, 2010 11:04

agamemnus wrote:
cha0s wrote:Yes, it would be wonderful to directly include C headers... no one is arguing that. As segin mentioned, it adds significant complexity to the actual compiler... it's basically a non-starter, as much as I personally would LOVE to see it. It would mitigate a lot of haegartheroot's disillusionment, because in reality the reason it doesn't get done is because it's a lot of work to translate these headers, and let's face it, people use BASIC becasue they're lazy...... ;)

I agree.

That said, I do think we need a more open/inviting process for users to contribute. I have been planning on updating fb.net for some time, but haven't been able to invest the time due to other concerns. I think I'm going to start a post on this now actually.

Uh-huh.


Thanks for the valuable input, agamemnus. :P
McLovin
Posts: 82
Joined: Oct 21, 2008 1:15
Contact:

Postby McLovin » Feb 10, 2010 15:15

haegartheroot wrote:@McLovin

That's not true. I've already delivered some contributions to FreeBasic (see some of my previous postings, e.g. bindings & examples for a PDF library, a plotting library and a glade converter for FreeBasic).
.....
//haegar


Yes, right you are. Sorry about that haegartheroot - I apologize. I shouldn't have jumped the gun and implied a lack of contribution. No excuse really other than reacting too quickly after reading a mountain of other negative posts. :-)
agamemnus
Posts: 1842
Joined: Jun 02, 2005 4:48

Postby agamemnus » Feb 11, 2010 8:20

:P Lazy-4-ever!
marcov
Posts: 3011
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Postby marcov » Feb 11, 2010 8:32

cha0s wrote:Yes, it would be wonderful to directly include C headers... no one is arguing that. As segin mentioned, it adds significant complexity to the actual compiler...


FB would basically become a C compiler with some basic extensions, since of course you also need to extend the basic so that it maps to constructs that exist in those C headers on a language level.
cha0s
Site Admin
Posts: 5317
Joined: May 27, 2005 6:42
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Postby cha0s » Feb 11, 2010 8:49

Or just disallow anything new.

Regardless, it isn't ever gonna happen.

Return to “Community Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests