Qbasicnews.com

Qbasic "like" compilers/interpreters => General QB "like" => Topic started by: wildcard on September 02, 2007, 10:56:53 AM



Title: QB successors
Post by: wildcard on September 02, 2007, 10:56:53 AM
I'm interested to know what are (or people think) are the closet successors to QB. Obviously Visual Basic (VB) is the natural extension of it by Microsoft, and FreeBASIC (FB) started as one but there are others and I'm interested to know of people's experiences with them. I've used both VB and FB but neither have felt as comfortable as QB, I think I miss QB's IDE the most.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Opresion on September 03, 2007, 05:39:15 AM
I would suggest you to make a Poll of this post.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: MystikShadows on September 03, 2007, 06:43:49 AM
THere's alot of good stuff in the QB IDE it'self yes, the way it finishes and corrects some of the common mistakes for one thing, how it adds all the declares needed.  Really great stuff.   I don't know if there's a successor to that kind of environment yet.   

AT that point, an IDE made to work the QB's IDE did (or vb-dos's IDE too, I think would be a good thing.  I mean whether it's a text based interface or GUI based, if it helps the language syntax complete itself like the QB ide's did, that's good no matter how different a language might be. ;-).  Ass far as language goes, I would dare to say that FreeBasic (with the -lang qb option) and Power Basic (console compiler) would be better qb like languages than VB itself. as far as syntax goes, but they're there not 100% perfect (they can't be because of too much 16bit based dependencies of QB), just closer to QB than VB.

Now, a QB or VB-DOS like IDE for FB that works with FB  like QB and VB-DOS IDE's work with their language respective languages, I think, would be a great help and a great boost.  And could probably even compensate for some of the discrepencies between the languages.  Because QB is not"just"  about the language (sure it's most important but not the only reason people chose the language), it's about the environment too and how both of them help you make a program. 

IF it was just about the language,  PowerBasic offered more data types, pointers, inline assembly, and many other features that would have made it more popular than QB as far as the language goes (back in the DOS versions of PB). But the PB IDE just doesn't do what QB's IDE does with the language.  And that cost it it's popularity.

But PB is a compiled language, not pseudo compiled / interpreted like QB's language is, so it wasn't that obvious to make as good an IDE as QB.  Same thing for freebasic.  You'd almost have ot write a freebasic interpreter and that interpreter would have to follow FB's syntax closely on every release of Freebasic.  So to make that interpreter, might be a good idea to wait until the language is stable enough  (as in doesn't get changed anymore from a language perspective) then it might be possible to make an IDE that can work with the language atleast some.   


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Mac on September 04, 2007, 04:24:55 PM
I don't  have the concept "QB successors", but that's another subject.

As re: Visual Basic. I like and use that very often, but not as a successor to QB but another language to attack a different problem.

In QB, the problem is how to write neat programs that overcome the limitations and thus exercise your brain. In VB, the problem is to make some application you need with the minimum brain-strain. Ideally there would be an API for all possible contingencies. BORING, but necessary.

But the real reason I butted in here is to report that VB of old is being replaced by VB-Net (if M$ has their way) and NOTHING IS COMPATIBLE. So forget everything you ever knew about VB. :(

Mac


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dav on September 04, 2007, 08:17:05 PM
I've never used an IDE more comfortable than QuickBasics. It helped me write programs faster.

A new FREE basic compiler came out, called Emergence Basic, which I'm going to try when I can.
http://www.ionicwind.com/ (http://www.ionicwind.com/)




Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Pete on September 05, 2007, 10:27:45 PM
I agree 100% with wildcard, it's all about the IDE.  No language has ever felt as comfortable or easy as QBasic, because their IDEs are not as simple, functional and polished.  The same goes for the structure and formatting of QBasic commands -- arguably, the simplest and most straightforward of any dialect of BASIC.  QB uses simple, real world language, and it's much easier to learn and understand QB code than just about any follow-up language.

This topic would actually make a really good QB Express article.  Anyone interested in writing up something on the subject?


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: wildcard on September 11, 2007, 05:04:50 PM
Mac: Pete and Dav understand what I mean, when I said QB successor. I've not had as much fun messing around in any programming language/environment as I've had with QB. I think the combination of the IDE and the easy access of the language really made it for me.

I think interpreters/compilers for BASIC really need an easy language set up and importantly a good IDE. I know just writing an interpreter/compiler or IDE is difficult but when two good ones come together it really makes something special happen, well at least in my eyes.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Deleter on September 11, 2007, 08:05:44 PM
hmm, not to be a noncomformist but I think language has nothing to do with the IDE. I never used qbasics IDE except for the compile function and anything necessary to access all my subs and stuff. I would just as soon code in notepad if the tabs would be persistent. The real important thing is the logic, and for that matter any language with significant features and optimization and intuitive enough syntax is good enough for me. I don't think your abstract mind should be so tied to the ide and language you are using...


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: wildcard on September 12, 2007, 10:25:36 AM
I found the QB IDE had a load of excellent features, partly being interpreted. Like instant watch on variables, excellent help file integration. The immeditate section was always useful as from a basic calculator to testing short bits of code. Also the way it handled functions and subs was really good. I've not used many other compilers or environments but QB and its IDE is still the most fun for me for the above reasons and more.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: SMC on September 14, 2007, 06:32:13 AM
I'm currently using Blitzplus for the very reason wildcard and others loved the qbide so much.  It's just really easy and straight forward to use and it has one of the best help setups I can think of.  The language is also very streamlined and has everything needed to make 2d games and small gui apps.  I had stuff bouncing around on the screen minutes.  Programming has actually become fun for a change  :o .


I also took quick look at emergence basic Dav mentioned.  It's built on NASM (netwide assembler) and looks really good.  I'm actually pretty amazed with it, because it blows most of the pay basics out there out of the water.  It has built in DX, Gui, sound and joystick functions, and a lot of c type stuff such as pointers and classes as well.  The IDE is really clean and supports modules.  It's also loaded with help files and documentation (a big round of applause to the developers for that).  This is defiantly one to look out for.  It might even be a better free basic than freebasic!


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dav on September 14, 2007, 03:57:04 PM
Hey SMC. I tried the latest Blitz demo today. It does seem very good, almost fun - I can see why you like it.

I've been playing with that free Ebasic compiler. I'm quite impressed with the package - it seems to be the most complete free basic compiler release out there.  (The compiler is free, but they want people to pay to read their programming forum?). 


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dr_Davenstein on September 14, 2007, 10:38:32 PM
hehehe... stick em where it hurts. :p

I also liked the QB ide. I used that thing for hours on end. Ahhh... the good old days. And even if it's discontinued, I still like FBIDE. :) Emergence BASIC looks really interesting, but I've got a lot of FB projects that demand my attention. I'm sure i'll give it a whirl sonner or later though. ;)


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: SMC on September 15, 2007, 11:41:47 PM
  (The compiler is free, but they want people to pay to read their programming forum?).

Hmm, I didn't check their forums out.  Maybe they're taking a redhat route, give the software away and sell service.  Anyway I think it's cool they're giving such an advanced compiler away for free.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dav on September 16, 2007, 09:12:25 AM
Hmm, I didn't check their forums out.  Maybe they're taking a redhat route, give the software away and sell service.  Anyway I think it's cool they're giving such an advanced compiler away for free.

Yeah, I also think it's a cool thing to do, giving away a solid compiler.  I don't think of this compiler as a QB successor though -- it's just not Basic enough for me -- but it's a good tool to keep & use.  I have already made a couple of small apps with it.  Btw, the CodingMonkeys forums has a good Ebasic forum, and Ibasic too (Ibasic & Ebasic are almost 100% compatablie).


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: SMC on September 16, 2007, 02:38:15 PM
Yea, I agree.  It's definitely a programmer's basic.  I've never heard of Ibasic, I'll have to look it up with the codemonkey's forum.  Thanks.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: stylin on September 19, 2007, 04:08:35 PM
Hmm, it's hard to define a successor to QBasic, it having just an intepretter and all. I wouldn't call <= VB6, FreeBASIC, RealBASIC or any other similar projects successors really. </pedantic>

Now, I personally think FB is an excellent successor to QuickBASIC; I don't care if it will never compile 100% QB code. It still keeps pretty much all of the clunky and ugly syntax (unfortunately), plus it adds a plethora of new features. I haven't messed with <= VB6 very much, but from what I've seen it is also a fine replacement for QB - (I'm also a big fan of doing away with all the 'quirk' parts of the language, like VB.NET did).

Of course backwards-compatibility is not high on my list of requirements. When I wrote most of my QB code, I never used implicit variable declaration/type deduction, type suffixes and the like, so most of my old QB code compiles/runs in FB since v.15 (when I first discovered FB). I haven't found it difficult to port code that uses segments/offsets either, maybe I'm just a lucky bastard..

But PB is a compiled language, not pseudo compiled / interpreted like QB's language is, so it wasn't that obvious to make as good an IDE as QB.  Same thing for freebasic.  You'd almost have ot write a freebasic interpreter and that interpreter would have to follow FB's syntax closely on every release of Freebasic.  So to make that interpreter, might be a good idea to wait until the language is stable enough  (as in doesn't get changed anymore from a language perspective) then it might be possible to make an IDE that can work with the language atleast some.   
A full-fledged interpretter isn't necessary for things like Visual Studio's Intellisense(tm) and whatnot; QBASIC.EXE has very little "real-time editing info", I think it just keeps track of line-by-line syntax and variable/procedure references, IIRC (which is made easier by the fact that only procedures open new scopes; it's fairly accurate, but buggy), what could be integrated into a text editor fairly easily; variable/procedure references might be tricky - or not, now that periods are disallowed in identifiers (-lang fb) - but line-by-line syntax checking seems like it would be easy to support, and I don't think virtually any of the 'inherited' language from QB is going to change any time soon (much to my dismay).

Things like capitalization, spacing - style issues - are fluff that can be easily supported. Debugging would be a bit more involved, plus there are already excellent GUIs available for that (for free).

I guess if you need an IDE that supports that stuff (many QBers I chat with can't live without one for some reason, and believe me Visual Studio is my favorite when writing C++ code), then someone's just going to have to make/modify one already.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Kevin_theprogrammer on December 02, 2007, 02:20:07 AM
IDE never mattered to me in the whole issue of the language. It was the libraries and lack of the requirement of low-level commands that made me like QuickBASIC, and the only real programming language that I was ever decent at. FreeBASIC lacks libraries like Future.library - it's more like C, explaining why I wasn't as good at it. Hell, I don't even bother with compiled applications anymore. I've moved on the PHP editing it with gVim and Dreamweaver. The language is rather simple, works at a high level, and uses a web browser as a crutch so I don't have to worry about setting up buffers and all these things to do rather simple things.

FreeBASIC, despite it not really being my cup of tea, is the best successor I've seen.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dav on December 05, 2007, 01:31:34 PM
For those who don't check the news area here, the QB64 project looks very promising. It's an attempt at making a QBasic compatible compiler.  Here's the forum link dedicated to the project:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/585676/

I've played around with the demos the author has relased. The sample programs included (some from the 9-liner challege ran here) do compile and run well on my system, and the compiled EXE's are reportedly Vista compatible (I don't do Vista yet so I can't confirm that here).

- Dav


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: anarky on December 06, 2007, 10:48:58 AM
I got a Vista theme for XP. I call it Windows XP: Vista Edition. :D

On topic, I think FB is the best "modern replacement" or "modern equivelent" of QB. It's slow move towards a C-like syntax is putting me off, however. I probably won't test anything else as my real life is taking more and more of my time and I really don't have it in me to dedicate time to typing code.

Which is probably why I have scrapped all my game ideas with the exception of BrainFreeze, and my IRC bot RedBall which is very slowly becoming what I want it to be.


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: LPG on April 14, 2008, 03:38:25 AM
Get justbasic - it has all the qb commands but you can also put in windows and stuff
http://www.justbasic.com/


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: Dav on April 17, 2008, 09:30:16 PM
I was a beta tester for JustBasic 1.0. Haven't tried the latest release. I thought JustBasic was a nice free language to play with. I've even recommended it (along with others) to friends who have never programmed before and want to jump into Basic programming for free.  I just didn't get into JustBasic very deep, had other languages that caught my attention at the time.

Downloading JustBasic v1.01 right now, to see what's new....

- Dav


Title: Re: QB successors
Post by: wildcard on April 21, 2008, 08:01:42 PM
There seems to be so many different BASIC language/compilers out there now, hard to keep track of them all!