• Print

Author Topic: Defending QB64  (Read 473 times)

Bert22306

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2013, 02:37:05 PM »
No problem for me to defend QB64. I too was looking around for alternatives, when my 64-bit systems could no longer run MS QB, and the first solution I found was DOSbox. It worked pretty well, however there was a significant performance penalty compared with running QB natively, and it didn't add much to what QB did before. Mainly, the sound now came out of the speakers, rather than being limited to the tiny built-in PC speaker. And the graphics screens could now be windowed. So it was better, but not enormously better.

QB64 restored the performance, expands capabilities compared with MS QB (and continues to expand), runs all of my programs unchanged (only a couple of minor exceptions), and it makes perfect sense to leverage off the compilers already available for a language with obvious track record and longevity, C and C++. When I first found out this last detail, I thought cool! Way to go!
I can't begin to imagine what sort of contorted thinking would complain about such an approach.

QB64 saved me a lot of grief. I'm very grateful to Galleon and the community of helpful regulars.

LINUXQB64gltester

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • Anyone that likes Art
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2013, 03:12:39 PM »
 No name and
Quote
infact it is abandoned.
  ;D That sums it up,
QB64 is far from abandoneded,  it has a great future and there, a lot of people using it, support when you need it,..  Where would I get support for a "No name, abandoned interperter" ?
 ;D
  The fact that qb64 can compile working programs, for the 3 major Os's, among other pluses, advantages, to many to list in one post,  I guess that may have something to do with why it has a name , and has not been abandoned,...
  Well any way it is good to see some humor, on the forum, ....
 
For off topic discussions :
Non-QB64 Related Discussion Forum
Also
My Experimenting Forum
"QB64 has a great future!"

Barrykgerdes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2013, 03:34:01 PM »
Yes  Having QB64 run natively in Linux is a great plus. My source code now works in linux without change.

Qb64  8) :-*

Barry

LINUXQB64gltester

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • Anyone that likes Art
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2013, 04:42:57 PM »
Now something I would like to see, or know about, as far as I know nothing exists that could do this:
 For example, I have a old DOS game, I like a lot,  I can play it on DOS box, or even better, just boot with DOS and play it , like it is supposed to be. If I knew enough qbasic, and codeing qith qb64, I could probabley create a "clone",   the "source code" is not available for this game,  but often I have wondered if there is not some kind of DE-compiler, interperter, ( I don't know what it would be called),  any way, something that could "break down" the executable, and  essentially, re produce the source code,  and then go one step further, change the source code, into qbasic,
 I suppose something like that would have some "legal" questionablity, due to copyright laws, etc,...
 As far as I know, the only way to do this, is study the program very carefully, then a skilled programmer, could re-write the program, in what ever language he/she is adept with,..thus makeing a "clone",... I guess that is what I am trying to describe, some kind of "cloneing" program, that could take a DOS executable, and "clone" it automtically, as qbasic, or qb64 , or perhaps even have options, as to what " language" to build the clone with,...

  There do seem to be some people out there, that for some reason, have a serious problem, with qb64, and do not want to see it advance, but it proves it'self, and is advancing,.. I say this because a long time ago, I ran into a similar "negative" response, when I answered a queston, on Yahoo, questions/answers,.. some one asked , What is the best language to start learning how to code, program, write games, utilities,etc ,...? Well some  answered with C++, python, VBasic,Java, and various others, at the moment I can not remember all of them, that were mentioned, .. So I responded, with, " QB64 is very good, as well as qbasic, but qb64 is better, because it can be used with windows, and produce windows executables,, .. and I included a link to the qb64 forum,
and downloads,.. the others also had included links, to various, python, or c++,etc ,sites, and tutorials,.... I was so surprised, when I got a notice from, yahoo admin, mods, saying my answer was removed (deleted), because I was trying to promote qb64,...I tried to "contest" it, How was it I trying promote qb64, ? and the others, were not "promoting", the languages they had mentioned ?,..... never got any response, of any kind of intelligent explanation, just a "The mods made the desicion, so that is the way it is'',...
 I think, some of these more popular, and often "expensive" compilers, interpreters, some how feel "threatened" by qb64,... this is not because it is a "poor", or  not very good compiler/ IDE, whatever you want to call it,... but because it is VERY good, excellent, and it makes a lot of the others look like junk, that I certainly would not pay for, nor even use when offered for free,..simpley because they do not work well, are way to complicated,..or way to expensive, and then probabley do not work that well any way.
 I have found it is best, to leave the "idiots" alone, floundering around with software that, has no support, and has been abandoned, or you have to pay, for the support, etc,..,and dose not work very well, etc,...of course there is nothing wrong with, mentioning to them, there is a better way,.. but if they choose to remain "idiots", and monkeys, leave them a lone,...
 It is unfortunate, places like YAHOO, have moderators, that try to keep the public from seeing better choices, and on that , eventually, some answers, to the same type of question, did manage to get qb64 included,... a "google search" will also show qb64, right up at the top,..
 I finally was able to view the above mentioned forum, it turned out it was the "side panels" that were blocking everything,.. this reflects on the intelligence, of who ever set up the forum,,.. not much, "savy"..also after looking at the thread, and also some of the other topics and posts, my conclusion was "What a bunch of idiots",.. I can not imagine why anyone would even want to take part, in  or join, such a forum,..  But fortunatley,  they are there, and I am here, each to his own, I say.
For off topic discussions :
Non-QB64 Related Discussion Forum
Also
My Experimenting Forum
"QB64 has a great future!"

Barrykgerdes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Email
Re: Defending QB64
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2013, 05:42:12 PM »
We really don't need to defend QB64. We use it because it works, is easy to learn, is forgiving like older Basic versions if your program is not structured.

If anyone wants to avoid it, that is their problem and loss. Not ours

The GL version is now superior to SDL and is the way of the immediate future. The old basic system was designed when graphics were not so important or achievable on limited displays. The later languages like c++ with GCC compilers make coding wonderful graphics displays possible.

Galleon has done something for all us beginners by writing firstly an interpreter of the basic command language into C++ sources then code, and is now expanding QB64 to add all the new routines in an extended basic language that we can learn bit by bit  to implement fantastic graphics.

And thanks to our nemesis "Clippy" who does a good job with the help files and never seems to miss a mistake!

No wonder we get knockers. They are jealous of its success!

Barry

  • Print