Why must I continue to use FBC ?

New to FreeBASIC? Post your questions here.
voodooattack
Posts: 605
Joined: Feb 18, 2006 13:30
Location: Alexandria / Egypt
Contact:

Postby voodooattack » Nov 06, 2010 15:22

@rolliebollocks: Thanks, I wasn't that far though, been lurking the forum on and off for a while now; this thread just slapped me in the face and forced me out of my hibernation cycle.

Now back on topic: Theunis Jansen, do you really think I wouldn't be helping you if you actually made sense in what you're proposing?

Let's review what you plan to do, which is effectively close to a case where we attempt to change the laws of our physical reality to fit an old theoretical invention of humanity, which I'm sure was in development at some point: The square wheel.

Assuming that we eventually succeed in our little endeavour, what would the result be? All of the other wheels in the world won't function any longer, all rendered dysfunctional except for the old and out-dated square wheel.

You plan to modify the compiler's source code to conform to your outdated source code, just so you wouldn't have to modify said source code (or rewrite it from scratch) to conform with the specifications of the new compiler. Now where's the sense in that? At least from an effort/gain perspective?

I know how it feels to put effort into a project, to nurture it and invest precious hours expanding it, and I know the nostalgia that brings; but I also know when to stop in my tracks, tear it down and wipe the slate clean. As long as I wrote it with solid goals in mind, those goals can survive that process and make it into a better thought out version 2.0.
PaulSquires
Posts: 746
Joined: Jul 14, 2005 23:41
Contact:

Re: Why must I continue to use FBC

Postby PaulSquires » Nov 06, 2010 15:24

Theunis Jansen wrote:Progress is supposed to make things easier and less time wasting
not more difficult and to me more convoluted extra coding.

That's why the whole legacy QB compatibility modes should be ripped out of FBC and only Lang FB supported and developed from now on. I understand and empathize with your problem of old code but QB is 25 years old...time to move on. :)
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Why should I keep on using FBC

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 06, 2010 22:49

@Voodooattack

To wish to simplify matters and enhance ease of use far outstrips your thoughts on the matter. It does not mean changing something to conform to my idea. It is changing something to enhance the use thereof.
Please go read what I said again. Your comment about square wheels is meaningless in the context of what I said. My idea is to further enhance the existing wheel. To get closer to the ease and simplicity of QB4.5 and stop unnecessary work and so much more coding than was required bu -lang FB. Why is it named Free Basic compiler wasn't it the idea to enhance basic and retain simplicity.
You have offered absolutely no assistance only uncalled for criticism without
understanding what I and many other programmers require.

@Paulsquires.
Must I know say that FBC has become legacy since it is a 32 bit compiler and not 64 bit? No. Both of you are missing my point. You only see the moans and groans of me having to rewrite a mass of code because FBC, unlike QB64, does not have a work around for the SCREEN 7 and 13 problems and crucial things which aided ease and simplicity were dropped.
You don't see that I propose that ease and simplicity be brought back which will automatically amount to less coding. Take DIM Shared NIN, (which defaults to LongInt in QB) instead of DIM SHARED NIN as longInt.. If this is not unnecessary additional coding then what is it ? Retro and legacy it is not, it is advancing far beyond the present sometimes convoluted way of writing programs. -lang FB requires far more coding than -lang QB or -Lang fblite.

This is not a criticism forum it is a help forum and my latest request was if anyone could give me some pointers to bring back the ease and simplicity to programming even if I used QB4.5 as an example on which I could build. Maybe this is how I should have stated it then there would have been no misunderstandings.
voodooattack
Posts: 605
Joined: Feb 18, 2006 13:30
Location: Alexandria / Egypt
Contact:

Re: Why should I keep on using FBC

Postby voodooattack » Nov 06, 2010 23:12

Very well, if you feel capable, go ahead and fork the compiler into a QB-only edition.
I won't stop you, nor would anybody else. So long the license permits it.

You can download the source from the sourceforge.net page or use SVN to obtain the latest revision from here.

Keep in mind that maintaining a fork is an on-going, never-ending endeavour; and since you're taking up a new frontier, little to no help will be available.

Good luck.
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Enhance yet retain ease and simplicity

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 07, 2010 0:10

@Voodooattack

I keep trying to point out it is NOT a QB endeavour it is an endeavour to simplify and enhance using QB as a base and not to go retro nor make unnecessary changes to reserved words etc. Advancing to the next stage of programming with automatic compatibility with older programs by using the same reserved words would without doubt make programmers smile with delight. The library could be 32 or 64 bit code or higher as technology advances. This would mean retaining the basic programming style but fifty years from now the libraries where the actual "work" takes place would have changed beyond recognition, yet they will remain transparent to the user. Programs could remain compatible for ever after.

Change for the sake of change, adding convoluted style to replace simplicity and new languages is more destructive, than enhancing and simplifying existing languages, because they throw compatibility out of the window.
rolliebollocks
Posts: 2655
Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
Location: new york

Postby rolliebollocks » Nov 07, 2010 0:37

Dude, you're crapping on our happy compiler. Just stop that and you'll find people willing to help you update your code.

You can't bring back what was lost when QB stopped working, the DOS shell has no internal graphics driver. It's all simulated to work the same way it did when the DOS stuff still worked.

Even if you sucede, you'll fail.
srvaldez
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Postby srvaldez » Nov 07, 2010 0:44

Theunis Jansen, if you want QB compatability, why don't you use QB64?
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 07, 2010 2:03

@ Rollie
Rollie, Rollie, Rollie.
About a month ago you said I could ask any question I wanted to.
Didn't you read what I said about FBC being the most viable compiler.
I have said this on the QB Cafe forum as well and have recommended it there.
My last post was mainly on programming in general and how much better it is to keep compatibility while adding enhancements.

Haven't you seen some request for additions to FBC by others. Go ask DKL how many modifications he has made and requests he has acceded to in the past six months. Am I forbidden to comment on something, or lament the loss thereof merely because I prefer using -lang Qb and -lang FBlite . If I was then Counting Pine would grab me by the neck and shake me until me teeth rattle, and if I was out of line he would rap me on the knuckles.

I don't need assistance to update my code or by saying so are you volunteering to rewrite some of my programs for me?. They are well commented and shouldn't cause any problems. (Only pulling your leg)

QB has most definitely not stopped working. On the QBCafe forum there is a recent post where someone wants to pay a programmer to do his school task in QB. On Petes QB forum requests for assistance by scholars without first trying are also posted. On the QB64 forum QB compatibility is touted.

FBC has a DOS Forum and a DOS compiler.

Failure is not in my dictionary. That which I can change, I change. If I can't I will moan but accept it. Acceptance does not mean failure.

@srvaldez

QB64. Too large compiled program. Too many dependencies. I prefer stand-alone programs. If you check back here to Bulrush's post and my reply to him you will see why both of us don't like QB64 so much.
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Postby MichaelW » Nov 07, 2010 2:58

Why not just learn to use FreeBASIC as is, even the parts that you regard as flaws, the way you learned to use QuickBASIC, with its many flaws?
rolliebollocks
Posts: 2655
Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
Location: new york

Postby rolliebollocks » Nov 07, 2010 3:13

Yeah, yeah. I did say that, but I would not categorize this thread under the term "question". I think I would prefer the term "fit". You're "having a fit."

I guess that's ok, I've had fits before too.

The reason why the compiler went in the direction that it went was because the language is now much better.

You can either

a) Learn the "much better" language in order to program in it
b) Learn the "much better" language in order to remove it from it's own source

Calm down, take a breath, recognize the silliness of that, and move on.
BasicCoder2
Posts: 3349
Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03

Re: Enhance yet retain ease and simplicity

Postby BasicCoder2 » Nov 07, 2010 4:15

Theunis Jansen wrote:Change for the sake of change, adding convoluted style to replace simplicity and new languages is more destructive, than enhancing and simplifying existing languages, because they throw compatibility out of the window.


It isn't change for change sake.

I have old qbasic code and old freeBasic code that doesn't compile with the latest FreeBasic compiler. I have rewritten the code of interest. I would just stick with the old compiler if I thought it was better.

JohnC
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Why must I continue to use FBC

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 07, 2010 8:39

The MAIN question of this post was:-
" Why must I continue using FBC" followed up by a direct request, "So could someone please try to convince me to continue using FBC."

This is a brief view of the answers. I am not flaming anybody it is not my way so please don't take exception. First read the last paragraph of this post.

Vdecampo:- (Vince), use Search and replace. As usual a Good answer. I was flabbergasted when he missed the main question.
Bulrush: - Recent user of FBC: "It has many tools that make a programmer's job much easier," Good answer. Answers main question.
dani.user :- Got side tracked. Reasonable answer but not relevant to main question.
Rolliebollocks:- Answer 1. Confirmed what Vince said. Reasonable but missed the main question.
Answer 2. Non relevant and personal. Answer 3. Still not with main question. referred to QB as dead. "stopped". Bad assumption. Defended FBC - Good answer.
Voodooattack:- Answer 1. Non-relative and personal. Answer 2. Missed main question again, and remained non relevant. Answer 3. Relative to subsequent fork. Acceptable.
PaulSquires:- Expressed opinion. Non relevant answer.
srvaldez:- Got side tracked. Reasonable answer but not relevant to the main question.
BasicCoder2:- Good answer relative to the main question.
Theunis jansen:- stated it is the most viable compiler. Good answer relevant to the main question.

Because of my answer I now have a swollen head and I am now patting myself on the back and calling myself a master of distraction. ( Ok I did tell Counting Pine I won't make jokes but It is too ingrained in me, so if you call me a dirty dog for daring such a post you are probably right and I won't mind)

Sorry people I really side tracked you with moans and groans, (My red herrings) but I still consider them valid.
This post was on the lines which Vince made "Global Variables are BAD" where he stimulated a most interesting discussion.
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Why should I continue to use FBC

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 07, 2010 11:32

I was busy compiling my findings and thus did not see two posts.
@MichaelW.
1. I think my summary answers you.
2. Your comment is unfortunately not relevant to the main question.
3. There are no "flaws" as such in QB4.5. What I could see was that only some routines were lacking. However Lillo did give a very nice QLB. (Quick Library) and there are many other QLB's adding enhancements. The main objection is, it is still a 16 bit compiler.
Compare the old FBC with the latest and one could say the old one had flaws and bugs. But those "Flaws" were corrected, The same way Lillo corrected some "flaws" in QB with his library. I think V1ctor's idea about the Free Basic Compiler was to start off mainly with compatibility and then to add enhancements.

@Rolliebollocks.
You still missed the main question which was a very "Fit" question to ask to stimulate thoughts on what FBC has given you and to be proud of it by saying what can be done with it. Why keep commenting on the red herrings?

@Counting Pine.
There is a "flaw" with the log in. After a number of attempts the log in it is accepted but when I click "SUBMIT". I get diverted back to the Log In screen. I have now tried ten times without success. Using remembered password with Firefox or typing it in makes no difference. This was the same a month ago.
voodooattack
Posts: 605
Joined: Feb 18, 2006 13:30
Location: Alexandria / Egypt
Contact:

Re: Why should I continue to use FBC

Postby voodooattack » Nov 07, 2010 13:01

I'm actually sort of curious about you modifying the compiler, according to you, you hate -lang FB, which is what you're going to have to study thoroughly and use. Quite the paradox indeed.

Disregarding all of the pointer tables and the magical tricks involved, you've got one hell of a ride waiting ahead. (Not to mention all of the work you'd have to do in C if you wish to "fix" gfxlib)

Theunis Jansen wrote:@Counting Pine.
There is a "flaw" with the log in. After a number of attempts the log in it is accepted but when I click "SUBMIT". I get diverted back to the Log In screen. I have now tried ten times without success. Using remembered password with Firefox or typing it in makes no difference. This was the same a month ago.


Clear you cookies.

Edit: Grammar.
Last edited by voodooattack on Nov 07, 2010 16:31, edited 1 time in total.
Theunis Jansen
Posts: 248
Joined: Jul 01, 2010 9:35

Postby Theunis Jansen » Nov 07, 2010 14:12

@Voodooattack


Here are some of the things I said.
1. I have propogated the use of FBC on the FBcafe Forum. (More than once)
2. I more than once on this forum said FBC is the most viable compiler.
3. I told Rolliebollocks that this posts was the chance to say what FBC provides and he should have sung it's praises. (Different words with the same meaning)
4. I have previously said I prefer -lang QB and -lang FBlite which meet my requirements and that -lang FB is closer to Pascal than BASIC.
5. I said, If I can change something, I change it. If not I moan but accept it.
6. On other occasions I have said I am lazy so why should I do extra unnecessary coding.
7. Regarding this post I said I have provided you all with red herrings. What was my object, To see who reads the heading and the question of the subject.
8. "Prefer" and your interpretation making it "Hate" are worlds apart. Hate is something I don't indulge in. If I despise something I would rather avoid it because it raises darkness in my soul to destroy it. So why is FBC then still on my computer ? and why do I tell others to use it ? and why do I try to stimulate people on this Forum to sing its praises ?
See my summary about this post and then see what I was doing.

Rewrite FBC or anything else - man oh man I am much much to old for it. I asked for pointers as another Red Herring to see what would happen, but nobody gave me any, and those who know me from older posts may recall that I love to leave inaccuracies to draw comment and I openly admitted doing so. Why do I do this? To give new FBC users the chance to acquire more knowledge about FBC because many of them are to "scared" to ask. If they have tried or totally don't know how, then they can ask without qualms for any assistance they seek.

Thank you for the tip about clearing the cookies in Firefox. I cleared them and on the second attempt I was logged in only to be referred back to the log in Screen when I clicked "Post Reply". So I saw there were once again cookies and again deleted them and then it was fine. If others have experienced the same problem then they also now know what to do.
So if they have then on their behalf, I also thank you.

Just call me a damn idiot or whatever and let's leave it at that.

Return to “Beginners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest