Qbasicnews.com
January 22, 2022, 09:12:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: 10 Important questions re: Freebasic(answers to go in qbxl)  (Read 7334 times)
SJ Zero
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1211



WWW
« on: November 27, 2004, 04:26:47 PM »

1)there have been a lot of C clones which call themselves basic. How close is the syntax to qbasic?

2)Will FreeBasic have the syntax-checking features which make QB so easy to work on in the IDE?

3)How easy is it to port QB code to FreeBasic?

4)If FreeBasic is released(sorry, but after qcc, QuickPower, and the other leigons of QB compilers, we're waiting on this one), qbxl will definitely cover Freebasic and freebasic stuff. How is support in the rest of the community looking? Are we going to see a lot of users? A lot of QB websites covering FreeBasic programs?

5)How easy is it looking to be to create programs in FreeBasic? Will high resolution video modes, midi support, and wave sound be included by default, or will people need to use outside libraries?

6)How easy will outside libraries be to use? Will some of the more difficult be shimmed away, or are we looking at a C level of difficulty, handling every single event?

7)Compared to real-mode QB/PDS/VBDOS code, how fast should we expect FreeBasic compiled code to be?

8)We have to face facts, basic programmers are laughed and pointed at by other coders. Will this new compiler help things at all?

9)How much, if any, of the default library will be implemented? String functions? Overloaded +'s for string addition? graphics? Math?

10) Freebasic is free, I'm guessing. Will it be GPL'd? Will others be able to help add stuff to the code after the first release, or will it remain free as in beer?

11)Any idea where we can get some free beer? the QBXL staff just finished our last warlteiner, and we're into our sleemans. Any ideas whose beer will we'll be sipping next?

Thanks to everyone who responds, the best responses(and possibly a few spliced together responses Wink ) will be in the next issue of qbxl magazine
Logged
VonGodric
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2004, 05:10:35 PM »

You'r pretty critical, But to most of your questions the answer is: try out and check the source code's of the numerous demo's released and decide yourself.
Logged

url]http://fbide.sourceforge.net/[/url]
Marcade
Member
*
Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2004, 05:21:00 PM »

.. I count eleven questions ..
Logged

marzecTM
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 688


« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2004, 05:25:46 PM »

and reading the other threads would help too...
Logged

quote="NecrosIhsan"]

[/quote]
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2004, 05:57:05 PM »

Quote
1)there have been a lot of C clones which call themselves basic. How close is the syntax to qbasic?


Syntax is the closest possible to QB, symbols are case-insensitive, scalar variables don't need to be dimensioned, you can use line numbers, there's no Main functions, and so on..


Quote
2)Will FreeBasic have the syntax-checking features which make QB so easy to work on in the IDE?


Error reporting? Sure, same format used by M$' compilers like VC++, so any IDE will be able to jump to the line where the error occurred. FreeBASIC is a compiler only, there's no step by step execution, unless if using a debugger (being implemented yet).


Quote
3)How easy is it to port QB code to FreeBasic?


Depends on how many DOS-only, real-mode-only statements/functions were used and also if any external lib was used, unless there's a FB port of that lib, it will be quite difficult to port.


Quote
4)If FreeBasic is released(sorry, but after qcc, QuickPower, and the other leigons of QB compilers, we're waiting on this one), qbxl will definitely cover Freebasic and freebasic stuff. How is support in the rest of the community looking? Are we going to see a lot of users? A lot of QB websites covering FreeBasic programs?


Only time will tell ;), i hope so.


Quote
5)How easy is it looking to be to create programs in FreeBasic? Will high resolution video modes, midi support, and wave sound be included by default, or will people need to use outside libraries?


A QB-ish GFX library will be included, that supports high-res, high-color modes too. Sound only with external libs, i don't want to make FB's runtime lib dependent on other libs, maintaining and porting all that would be a nightmare.


Quote
6)How easy will outside libraries be to use? Will some of the more difficult be shimmed away, or are we looking at a C level of difficulty, handling every single event?


Simple as including a header (using the $include directive) in your FB app, if someone ported that header from the original one (99% are C/C++ and some libs come with VB headers, what makes them easier to port). FB looks up the headers at the main include files directory, you don't have even to tell the full path. Compiling for example an app called "checkers.bas" using the SDL lib would be simple as: "fbc.exe checkers.bas", if checkers.bas has a '$include: 'sdl.bi' inside. FB figures out which libraries to link with, you don't have to add them to the command-line.


Quote
7)Compared to real-mode QB/PDS/VBDOS code, how fast should we expect FreeBasic compiled code to be?


Depends on the application's type, if you have to use loads of memory (most cases of games), directly accessing the arrays/sprites is a magnitude faster than doing that using EMS or XMS, for example. Also on new CPUs - that hate 16-bit code and segment overrides - the same code can run quite faster. FB has also shift operators, pointers, byte data types, what can make some innerloops - if rewritten, of course - run much faster than in QB.


Quote
8)We have to face facts, basic programmers are laughed and pointed at by other coders. Will this new compiler help things at all?


I don't know, snobs will always exist, screw them ;)


Quote
9)How much, if any, of the default library will be implemented? String functions? Overloaded +'s for string addition? graphics? Math?


Everything but DOS/Real-mode only parts, GFX is being done by Sterling, it is the closest possible to the original. Other parts were already coded, only the evil PRINT USING will be missing for now. String operations still the same, arrays too.


Quote
10) Freebasic is free, I'm guessing. Will it be GPL'd? Will others be able to help add stuff to the code after the first release, or will it remain free as in beer?


Compiler will be released as GPL and runtime library as LGPL (so you could use it on shareware/whatever apps and games). Any addition will have to be approved by me, as i'm the project maintainer, but any help will be welcome - i'm not a dictator, i think.


Quote
11)Any idea where we can get some free beer? the QBXL staff just finished our last warlteiner, and we're into our sleemans. Any ideas whose beer will we'll be sipping next?

 
If you find where, don't forget telling me too.
Logged

dilettante
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 115



« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2004, 07:49:27 PM »

Quote
Syntax is the closest possible to QB, symbols are case-insensitive, scalar variables don't need to be dimensioned, you can use line numbers, there's no Main functions, and so on..

Is there an Option Explicit?

From all of the Basic (including, perhaps especially, peoples' ASP pages) I've debugged over the years allowing undeclared variables has proven the one single biggest source of dumb mistakes.

If it isn't planned for FB I'd suggest it's worth thinking about.  Personally I'd make it the default.  Actually, I'd make sure undeclared variables were illegal.  But that's just me.  Tired of other peoples' crap code - I have enough of my own!  :wink:
Logged
VonGodric
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2004, 07:56:32 PM »

Yeah there is, i'v seen it in almost every demo source...
Logged

url]http://fbide.sourceforge.net/[/url]
dilettante
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 115



« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2004, 08:08:23 PM »

Thanks, I should have looked before I leaped.  I've looked at several of the sample sources but I see so much code I can't remember what's what anymore.
Logged
SJ Zero
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1211



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2004, 08:08:47 PM »

Thanks for answering the questions! Cheesy

I'm not worthy!!!

*SJ Zero Bows*
Logged
SJ Zero
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1211



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2004, 08:25:29 PM »

VonGodric: I'm critical because I'm not asking for myself, I'm asking for my readers.  QBXL isn't some PC Gamer style "oh my god! He's so great! It's going to be perfect! You should all run out and buy it, even if it's not for sale!" fanmag, it's a serious mag with a lighter side. There are a LOT of people who are extremely excited about FB, myself included. I can't let that get in the way of the fact that there have been a LOT of QuickPowers and Qccs out there which never actually existed but garnered a lot of hype, nor the fact that there have also have been a lot of "xbasic/blitzbasic" style languages which promised a lot in a BASIC, only to turn out to be C-lite.

Marcade:Only the first 10 were about FreeBasic.

marzecTM:Talk to me after you've written and edited an entire magazine. Tongue

Ah, qbxl 4 AND Freebasic. This is going to be a GOOD year ahead of us. Tongue
Logged
VonGodric
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2004, 08:46:00 PM »

Oh sorry :oops: I thought you were another ... whose wannabe smart...
Logged

url]http://fbide.sourceforge.net/[/url]
MystikShadows
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2004, 09:31:09 PM »

Quote from: "v3cz0r"


Quote
2)Will FreeBasic have the syntax-checking features which make QB so easy to work on in the IDE?


Error reporting? Sure, same format used by M$' compilers like VC++, so any IDE will be able to jump to the line where the error occurred. FreeBASIC is a compiler only, there's no step by step execution, unless if using a debugger (being implemented yet).


Should the IDE be done in VB as is planned so far, I can bring live syntax checking to the IDE.  Whereas when you press enter on a line of code, if an error is detected, it could be reported right then and there....likewise, I could also fix the error (like vb does when you forget a quote when typing in a string literal, vb adds the quote at the end of the line).

Using a grammatical tool with a compiled grammar table it's trivial to add this kind of feature.   Speaking of, I'd like to know how grammar and syntaxic elements are evaluated/validated?  what rules for the grammar are used?  will there be a BNF or EBNF file for the grammar?

I need to talk to aetherfox and Nek (oh NEK...you gonna read your PM or am I gonna have to  **************** <--- censored by message author ;-).  lol.
Logged

hen they say it can't be done, THAT's when they call me ;-).




need hosting:  http://www.jc-hosting.net
All about ASCII: http://www.ascii-world.com
marzecTM
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 688


« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2004, 09:39:23 PM »

fb is a decent recursive handwritten parser, there's a grammar file but its outdated, cause v1c is a lazy bastard if it comes to documentation. i agree on the thing that the qb habit of directly showing what will/was go/going wrong is great for beginners. but the ide creators would have to check that themselves the compiler can not help there, except for debugsymbols, but that's not syntax/grammar checking
Logged

quote="NecrosIhsan"]

[/quote]
MystikShadows
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2004, 10:17:20 PM »

Well at least it's got the debug symbols ;-).  But I'm saying that I can add that feature to the IDE.  It's not that complicated, the tools are out there, it can be done and integrated.   I don't need their compiler to do that either.  All I need is the specifics of the command syntax and I can take care of the rest :-).

Those specifics of the command syntax can be anything. but a BNF file or a EBNF would save me a bit of time...not too much,  Just a bit...I'll just build the grammar file myself ;-).
Logged

hen they say it can't be done, THAT's when they call me ;-).




need hosting:  http://www.jc-hosting.net
All about ASCII: http://www.ascii-world.com
Jofers
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1040



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2004, 11:25:02 PM »

As far as "automatic" goes, yes, it's cool to have syntax checking.  But it's less cool for it to automatically do stuff for you.  Showing a red squiggly underline as if you misspelled a word in Word, where you make syntax errors and miss quotes is cool.  Automatically filling stuff in and showing popups for errors as you make them are not cool

Your "syntax checker" going to need to be able to read fb header files, as that's where all the statements are.  The runtime is fairly small next to a lot of the things people will be working with (Win API, DX, OpenGL, SDL, Bass, etc).  Other than that, you have the runtime library, which is something you're going to need documentation for and make a custom header file with or something.  Probably be more efficient than trying to read a grammer file from FB.

Van Godric:  I suppose you know not to judge a fellow's intelligence now Smiley  But even if he was, don't lambast the poor boy, there are no stupid questions.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!