• Print

Author Topic: Defending QB64  (Read 475 times)

Billbo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • Email
Defending QB64
« on: April 07, 2013, 06:20:05 AM »
Hi, all,

Since the 3rd of this month, I've been trying to defend QB64 at codingmonkeys.com.

The link is   http://www.codingmonkeys.com/index.php?topic=2397.msg13725#msg13725

I hope I've done okay, but many of you are more eloquent.


Bill

LINUXQB64gltester

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • Anyone that likes Art
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2013, 07:07:41 AM »
Nothing there, just blank empty posts.
For off topic discussions :
Non-QB64 Related Discussion Forum
Also
My Experimenting Forum
"QB64 has a great future!"

bobtheunplayer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • I'd rather be coding.
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2013, 07:12:19 AM »
Bill,

I think you covered best when you said:
Quote
It gets newcomers all the time, and they usually praise it in their first post.

I'm pretty new to QB64 myself.  I tried about ten flavors of BASIC and freeBASIC and thinBASIC were in that group of "tried", but of all the BASIC flavors out there, QB64 is my favorite probably because it takes me back to my adolesent days with the familiar interface; I somtimes reminisce about times spent on coding "this" and "that" instead of doing my homework.

~bob

DSMan195276

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1978
  • Yes
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2013, 07:22:56 AM »
Personally, I'm not sure the fighting is worth it, specifically because it seems the person you were talking too has a very narrow view of what a compiler is or isn't, specifically that something that doesn't compile to machine code isn't a compiler. I think that's completely wrong, seeing as most compilers compile to something other then machine code (LLVM?) and for a BASIC compiling to machine code hardly matters anyway, you'd just be limiting your target audience, whether as now the code runs without any modifications on virtually everything with a C++ Compiler.

And I'm willing to bet that those BASIC's that they did list off that compile to machine code don't support the Raspberry Pi at all, and if that's the case then without completely rewriting parts of the compiler for ARM architecture then it won't ever be able to run on phones or tablets either.

Matt
"Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous be shaken" -- Psalm 55:22
QB64 Linux Installer

sjt1975

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • My Personal Web-Site
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2013, 07:35:32 AM »
Of all of the modern QB-compatible IDEs/compilers, I have concluded that there are only 2 worthy of consideration - FreeBASIC and QB64.  Of the two, I prefer QB64, due to some of the design differences and un-supported functionality in FreeBASIC, and also since QB64's Editor/GUI looks like the original in QB45.

However, on that message-board, their only effective argument against QB64 is that it isn't a direct-to-machine-code compiler.  However, in my opinion, that is immaterial - so long as the compiler produces a stand-alone executable program, it doesn't really matter how it does it - and so long as the resultant code isn't un-acceptably inefficient.

I wouldn't bother discussing the point on their message-board any further.  I cannot be bothered with people who don't discuss things in a level-headed and mature fashion, myself - neither should you.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 07:48:47 AM by sjt1975 »

LINUXQB64gltester

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • Anyone that likes Art
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2013, 07:54:34 AM »
Quote
Personally, I'm not sure the fighting is worth it, specifically because it seems the person you were talking too has a very narrow view of what a compiler is or isn't, 
Why could you guys see the posts, and I couldn't ? 
 
For off topic discussions :
Non-QB64 Related Discussion Forum
Also
My Experimenting Forum
"QB64 has a great future!"

sjt1975

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • My Personal Web-Site
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2013, 08:51:01 AM »
Quote from: LINUXQB64gltester on April 07, 2013, 07:54:34 AM
Why could you guys see the posts, and I couldn't ?

I don't know.  I'm using IE10 on Windows 7.  His user-name is BillBo there.

bobtheunplayer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • I'd rather be coding.
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2013, 09:09:56 AM »
Quote
I wouldn't bother discussing the point on their message-board any further.

Even that boards moderator was like wtf?  Cause qb64 had nothing to do with the original post which was about miniBasic.  Then one person on that forum went ape on Bill.  It's just one person getting all hot and bothered about what constitutes a compiler.  I agree and wouldn't worry about that one poster too much.

DSMan195276

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1978
  • Yes
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2013, 09:42:30 AM »
Quote from: LINUXQB64gltester on April 07, 2013, 07:54:34 AM
Why could you guys see the posts, and I couldn't ?

I would check again Garry. I just tested and it works for me in FireFox, Chrome, Konqueror, Opera, and w3m and they all showed the posts. It's almost certainly an issue other then the browser.

Matt
"Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous be shaken" -- Psalm 55:22
QB64 Linux Installer

Billbo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2013, 10:08:32 AM »
LINUXQB64gltester,

I do not know what the link problem is that you are having. I use
Firefox Aurora. But if you go directly to the site, it's under the
topic "Support for miniBasic ?" under the "General Messages board."

All,

Thanks for nobody blasting me out. I stopped posting there anymore
replies about it.

Thanks,

Bill

small no more

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Ask and you will receive, Seek and you will find
    • not launched
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2013, 10:37:32 AM »
As far as I am aware QB64 is not a compiler. It interprets the basic code into C++ Code, then the C++ compiler turns it into an Exe. So I would say in a sense that you could refer to QB64 as an interpreter. Although maybe not an interpreter per se.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 10:55:05 AM by small no more »
A good teacher must be able to put himself in the place of those who find learning hard.


                                           Eliphas Levi

DSMan195276

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1978
  • Yes
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2013, 10:58:11 AM »
Small:

It's still based on the terminology and what you consider what though. Ex. You could call GCC an interpreter since it interprets the C++ into assembler, and you could even call compilers that compile to Machine Code just interpreters in the same vain.

I'd say that interpreting implies that the code is run directly from source code (IE. The code is run at this step from whatever state it is in). And compiling just means taking the code and turning it into another computer language (You can get that definition right off of Wikipedia if you'd don't want to just go from me). Normally the second language is assembler or machine code, but many compilers compile down to C, C++, bytecode, LLVM, etc. They're all still valid compilers, and in that logic QB64 is just as much a compiler as the rest of them. To be an interpreter it would require QB64 to be the one running the code, which it's not.

Matt
"Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous be shaken" -- Psalm 55:22
QB64 Linux Installer

sjt1975

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • My Personal Web-Site
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2013, 01:02:59 PM »
From classical Computer Science education, an Interpreter converts source code to executable code (machine code) and executes it, but does not store that executable code in a file.  A Compiler converts the source code to executable code and stores that executable code in a file, but does not actually execute it.

However, things have advanced a bit more nowadays, and you get 'hybrid' compilation systems, along with libraries/linking etcetera.  From what I understand of the QB64 compilation process, I would consider QB64 itself to be a Code Emitter, i.e. it converts BASIC source code to the equivalent C/C++ source code, then it passes the C/C++ source code to a C/C++ compiler, which then creates the executable program file (after linking with the required library files).  So, it is a hybrid of an Interpreter and a Compiler - but that's because software development has got more complicated now than in the 1960s.

Galleon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4664
  • QB Forever
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2013, 02:59:31 PM »
The arguments raised against QB64 are mute, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Now, if they had brought up lists (linked lists, sortability, etc) or object orientated structures, etc they might have been on a better track. However, there's no reason QB64 cannot incorporate new programming structures/methodologies in the future alongside existing systems as long as compatibility is maintained. In fact (shock horror), I intend to.
Something old... Something new... Something borrowed... Something blue...

Billbo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2013, 03:19:56 PM »
Galleon,

Are you saying I wasted my time?

Bill

  • Print