• Print

Author Topic: Defending QB64  (Read 474 times)

Barrykgerdes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2013, 04:04:32 PM »
You are all "making mountains out of mole hills". Computers use a system of binary code in chunks that operate as electronic switches to open and close gates to produce a resultant chunk of binary code that repesents the "interpretaion" of the binary instruction. Nothing more!

In the days of very slow processors then DOS and 1Mhz processors the only way to get a program to run at any speed was to execute it in direct machine code.

"Real programmers" could write in machine code (usually by dip switches). Storage was usually by punched tape that could "set" the dip switches for every instruction

Assembly language is a method of writing a routine that a processor could easily turn into a machine code instruction. The early programming languages simplified this by giving short  "words" that were easily read for these instructions.

Basic was a method of "interpreting" plain language into executable machine code routines that the processor could understand. This was done on the fly with each instruction interpreted and executed in sequence

Basic compilers did two things. First they "interpreted" the plain language into assembly language "obj code" and then into direct machine code that could be executed directly (libraries included) or with a separate libraries.

These days of "fast" processors we can write a program in plain language and have a program that reads this language and eventually converts it into a set of machine instructions and still have it execute extremely fast.

C then C++ are languages that can do this very well by converting the instructions into a form of assembly language with multiple sections that are then converted into an executable program and evenutally machine code that can manipulate the processor(s). The GL version of forming an assembly program puts all the required libraries into one executable file that is much longer than a direct machine code but much smaller than an executable file with a set of separate libraries (dlls).

QB64 converts the plain language instructions of Basic into C++ instructions (with a lot of new hybrid instructions that make use of the enhanced features of C++) that make The Basic language a very powerful and easy to learn tool for driving a computer.

QB64 does not have an intermediate form where it acts purely as an interpreter but nevertheless interprets and then writes an executable program from which it subsequently operates in machine language. So does it really matter how this is done as long as you can type in a plain language instruction in the IDE and get the result you want.

This may over simplify things a little but a full explanation would need a "book"

"QB64[GL] forever!"

Barry

PS I have tried some of those other Basic derivatives mentioned but find Qb64 the most universally acceptable to my old GWBasic/Qbasic code.

OlDosLover

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • OlDosLover
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2013, 04:23:00 PM »
Hi all,
    Good on ya Bill for defending QB64. I see QB64 as a translator. I see zlatkoCB as an elitist snob.
OlDosLover.

SMcNeill

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2013, 05:32:22 PM »
Quote from: Billbo on April 07, 2013, 03:19:56 PM
Galleon,

Are you saying I wasted my time?

Bill


Aye.    Arguing with an idiot is a waste of time.   No matter what you say, they'll never admit that you were right.  The best way to get them to drop the topic, and thus bury it in the archives of inactivity, is to ignore it -- and them.

Not everyone is going to like, use, and endorse QB64.  They have a right to their opinion.  And, in my opinion -- for what it's worth -- the best response is to simply ignore them, and then to go write something useful in the language.   

Life is just too short to waste the time and ire on other people's opinions; whether those opinions hold merit or are just full of crap....   

But, then again, that's just my opinion, so apply the sentence above to it if you wish and feel free to ignore it, and me, if you wish.   ;)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 09:59:18 PM by SMcNeill »
http://bit.ly/TextImage -- Library of QB64 code to manipulate text and images, as a BM library.
http://bit.ly/Color32 -- A set of color CONST for use in 32 bit mode, as a BI library.

http://bit.ly/DataToDrive - A set of routines to quickly and easily get data to and from the disk.  BI and BM files

Galleon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4664
  • QB Forever
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2013, 05:36:18 PM »
Quote
Are you saying I wasted my time?
Not at all. What I meant was that if their argument against QB64 is on the basis of compilation process, then I disagree with them because I believe that languages which bind themselves to platform specific executable output are, in the long run, doomed without a massive effort to upkeep them. A programing language which creates a flat-real mode DOS-based executable is redundant these days, but a language which generates C/C++ code back then would still be able to generate working programs today. I have to confess I didn't read the off-site discussion you had, I just wanted to weigh in on the issue that got raised.

Something old... Something new... Something borrowed... Something blue...

Barrykgerdes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2013, 06:05:26 PM »
I read through that reference and the sub references it was about the demise of a Basic derivative and the problems of its programmer and QB64 had nothing to do with the subject until it was raised by "Bilbo" well down in the thread.

On a "competing ?" forum this was like waving a red flag at a bull and taken up by someone who obviously just wanted to have an argument.

The correct procedure was to "shut up" and "leave" before you say something silly, as has already been said.

And thanks to Galleon I have a program that reads all my source astromony utilities written in GWbasic that had suddenly become useless when the Qbasic compiled exe files would no longer run on a 64 bit system.

Barry

« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 06:12:26 PM by Barrykgerdes »

Aston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2013, 11:13:29 PM »
Hi guys :)
There is no need to panic or anything like that.
As i say on CM forum - I use qb64 in the past but I don't use it now.
I prefer other because of speed and coding way which I use.
I think that reinterpret my opinion about qb64 as attack which is NOT.
Also i translate many great examples from qb64 to my own interpreter and all works fine.
so stay cool... ;)
http://rubendev.888webhost.com/forum/

OlDosLover

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • OlDosLover
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2013, 11:36:09 PM »
Hi all,
    Whats
Quote
to my own interpreter
its name and where do i get a copy of it from?
OlDosLover.

Billbo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2013, 02:47:14 AM »
Hi all,

Thanks for the replies. I don't think it was a waste of time.

Bill

Mrwhy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2890
  • My Dad called me Mr Why when I was 5.
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2013, 03:24:58 AM »
Quote from: Aston on April 07, 2013, 11:13:29 PM
Hi guys :)
There is no need to panic or anything like that.
As i say on CM forum - I use qb64 in the past but I don't use it now.
I prefer other because of speed and coding way which I use.
I think that reinterpret my opinion about qb64 as attack which is NOT.
Also i translate many great examples from qb64 to my own interpreter and all works fine.
so stay cool... ;)

I also do that and would like to know what interpreter you use, please

Aston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2013, 07:16:34 AM »
Quote
I also do that and would like to know what interpreter you use, please
If i understand you ,you also made your own interpreter,right?
Because here PM not work ( i don't know why?) you may contact me on:
aston.goldsmith@gmail.com
http://rubendev.888webhost.com/forum/

OlDosLover

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • OlDosLover
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2013, 07:24:16 AM »
Hi all,
    Thanks for the reply Aston. I have not made an interpreter. You claim that you  have an i'd like to try it out if possible. If you would like me to try it out could you leave a url link to it please.
OlDosLover.

codeguy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • what the h3ll did i name that code?
    • stuff at dkm
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2013, 07:44:09 AM »
qb64 is a VERY good, perhaps i'd even venture to say excellent qbxx-like alternative that's really capable, and with a bit of care just as other programming languages designed as such, produces excellent results. if i thought qb64 was a waste of time, i certainly wouldn't have thrown much effort into contributing and helping. there are stories off-site that have made qb64 and many people involved part of something i will never forget (well, excepting my occasional bouts of CRS). without qb64, who knows where i'd be. i have enjoyed helping many people here and really see no reason qb64 should be considered less than other languages. it's basic -> c++ -> executable software that has many memory and image extensions. screw what criticisms other people might have.
http://denteddisk.forums-free.com/make-an-appointment-with-the-resident-code-guru-f34.html

Aston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2013, 08:27:56 AM »
OlDosLover
I reply to mrWhy ..
'I also do that'... so i mean that he made interpreter to.
Ahh link there is no link ...you can find it on Softpedia ,infact it is abandoned.
http://rubendev.888webhost.com/forum/

OlDosLover

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • OlDosLover
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2013, 08:38:47 AM »
Hi all,
    Thanks for the reply.
Quote
Ahh link there is no link ...you can find it on Softpedia ,infact it is abandoned.
If i search
Softpedia then what name is its identity?
OlDosLover.

Aston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2013, 09:21:52 AM »
I will PM you on bp-org
http://rubendev.888webhost.com/forum/

  • Print