QB64.com?

[Coolman]

it's an opensource project and it should stay that way. as long as this forum goes that way, I'm fine with it. the power struggles are pointless.

[SMcNeill]

Interesting, I just caught myself up on all of this and also learned about Steve's new 0.5 thing.  Seems Steve has absolutely zero respect or consideration to the past or what anyone thinks.  Started with the absurd forum organization, then the weird colours and banner, and now this bizarre versioning thing.  

We have a dozen different colors and such that folks can choose from; you just have to click on the "Theme" down in the bottom right to find one that suits you.  As for the version number, it's been addressed here: Who and What is The Phoenix Edition (qb64phoenix.com)

I kind of wondered why didn't Fellippe consider Steve as the heir?  I guess RC came with promises of "brand legitimacy" -- how funny is it that we're now all stuck in Steve's whimsical paradise?

Why didn't Fell consider Luke to be the heir?  Or StxATxIC?  Or you?  I dunno.  You'd have to ask him about why he chose to do what he did.  From the outcome of things, I think he couldn't have chosen any worse.  

And, you're not stuck anywhere.  It's a free world and a free internet out there.  The project has always been open source, and we've always had multiple forums and such devoted to it.  Perhaps you can find qb64.com a little more to your liking?  Or qb64.dev?  Or wherever Walter is putting his version of QB64-X?  If none of those float your boat, you can always make your own home on the net and invite people to join you there.  Nobody is stuck anywhere they don't want to be. 

Now there's a weird power struggle over who's the 'official'.  Can't say that I ever liked "the QB64 team" branding under Fellippe and Steve's brand is a hell of a lot funnier and more amusing.  Waltersmind would be better, of course.

No struggle as far as I can tell.  Other people are branching off and going their own ways.  QB64.com is taking the moniker "Official QB64".  We're "Phoenix Edition".  Walt is working on a "QB64-X".  Heck, even Keybone is working on a "QB64-lite", which might interest you.

I'm glad we can amuse you though.  Life is entirely too short not to live it happily and amused.  

  It's also been annoying how you have to constantly update QB64 with the addition of useless new keywords and junk to keep up with the latest forum posts.  All I know is that for the time being I'm going to be targeting FreeBASIC as the primary leisurely programming platform then we'll see what edition of QB64 I'll have to translate to in order to engage with the likes of bplus

This tends to happen as any language continues to grow and adjust.  The only languages which don't have new keywords, or new methods, are dead languages.  A lot of the things you call "junk", is what most people would call "progress".

A few versions ago, you had to declare every variable separately.  Now you can do something as simple as:  DIM AS INTEGER x, y, z, a, b, c

You used to have to try and remember all the rgb values for the colors you wanted, or have a handy reference nearby for them.  Now you just set $COLOR:32 and you can code with color names.  COLOR Silver, RoyalBlue, for example.

The language isn't dead yet, and things will continue to evolve even more over time.  We're still moving on, doing our own thing, slowly and surely.  We're not dead yet -- not matter what it seems some people would prefer.   

---

it's an opensource project and it should stay that way. as long as this forum goes that way, I'm fine with it. the power struggles are pointless.

We follow a 100% MIT license and are completely free and open source with what we're doing here.  I don't know what the other guys are going to choose to do with whatever stuff they produce, but you can rest assured we're not going to change on that front at all. 

[vince]

Why didn't Fell consider Luke to be the heir?  Or StxATxIC?  Or you?  I dunno.  You'd have to ask him about why he chose to do what he did.  From the outcome of things, I think he couldn't have chosen any worse.  

...

This tends to happen as any language continues to grow and adjust.  The only languages which don't have new keywords, or new methods, are dead languages.  A lot of the things you call "junk", is what most people would call "progress".

A few versions ago, you had to declare every variable separately.  Now you can do something as simple as:  DIM AS INTEGER x, y, z, a, b, c

You used to have to try and remember all the rgb values for the colors you wanted, or have a handy reference nearby for them.  Now you just set $COLOR:32 and you can code with color names.  COLOR Silver, RoyalBlue, for example.

The language isn't dead yet, and things will continue to evolve even more over time.  We're still moving on, doing our own thing, slowly and surely.  We're not dead yet -- not matter what it seems some people would prefer.   

None of the above showed any desire or exuberance over such a position.  You, on the other had, were very active and helpful on the forums, involved with the project since forever, and even writing a QB64 book!  You'd have been my #1 pick, I guess Fell didn't think you were serious enough for the brand, but he lost his mind anyway so who cares.

As for the language thing, not lightly!  Strict standard adherence and backwards compatibility are not to be taken lightly.  More importantly, there has to be some kind of overarching vision or philosophy to guide further development.  Strict QB45 compatibility was Galleon's, but what's next?  There are now people that haven't even touched QB45 and live on "option explicit" and "no prefix" -- does that remind anyone of FreeBASIC's "dialect" rift?  For example, the variable declaration thing -- FreeBASIC had it since day one and it has been recommended countless of times, why wasn't implemented until Fellippe just decided "fuck it, i don't feel like typing today."

[triggered]

I never even heard of qb64.com or qb64-x until reading this thread.

Is qb64-x where all the old admins went? I'm thinking of odin mostly, or was that just Fellippe Heitor?

Also is, there a place to discuss startup time of QB64 exes? A program that takes millisecond to load in FreeBASIC takes several seconds to load in QB64. I use version 2.0.1. Will version 0.8 have faster exe startup time? What about in qb64-x?

[Kernelpanic]

I use version 2.0.1. Will version 0.8 have faster exe startup time? What about in qb64-x?

The last version was 2.0.2; old version.

What you mean is the time for compiling the program, I think. 

[SMcNeill]

I never even heard of qb64.com or qb64-x until reading this thread.

Is qb64-x where all the old admins went? I'm thinking of odin mostly, or was that just Fellippe Heitor?

Also is, there a place to discuss startup time of QB64 exes? A program that takes millisecond to load in FreeBASIC takes several seconds to load in QB64. I use version 2.0.1. Will version 0.8 have faster exe startup time? What about in qb64-x?

The old admins just quit.  They went off into the sunset.

QB64.com doesn't like our "flaming bird ass", so they've declared that v2.0.2 is the last official version of QB64.  They haven't released anything new, nor do they have a development team, as far as I'm aware.  But they*do* have a Code of Conduct!  

QB64-X is, at this point in time, just an unfulfilled future promise.  There's nothing to test.  Nothing to download.  At this point, you can't even run a "Hello World" program with it.

As for the Phoenix Edition, we're not currently working on optimizing start-up times, or compilation times at the moment.  I doubt you'll see any large change in load times from the old QB64 v2.0.2 and what we're currently producing.

[bert22306]

The old admins just quit.  They went off into the sunset.

Exactly! I don't know what anyone can complain about. The only thing to do is to thank Steve for picking up the project. I certainly do.

I too had not heard about all the other links. When qb64.org disappeared, I kept trying for a week or so, thinking it was down temporarily, and then I went and asked WTF on discord. That's when I was told about this new qb64phoenix, found the new versions, saw that they were a seamless continuation of what went before, found the familiar gang hanging around, and for the life of me, I can't imagine what there is to complain about.

My only concern is for the wellbeing of the main contributors to this project. Starting with Galleon, it seems like they are super productive and then burn out. Fellippe even said, at one time, that working on it was "addictive." And then, overnight (from my perspective), he and Luke were gonners.

So, thanks Steve! And don't overdo it!!

[Fifi]

Hi all.
Nice to see almost the whole gang here again.
Long live QB64, regardless of its current or future name as long as it remains compatible with the current version 2.0.2.
Now, a simple (and maybe stupid) question: who are the developers?
Is there a list of people to contact with their specific knowledge and assignment to the code to make proposals for evolution/improvement?
I am not a developer as such, but I can help in different topics such as writing documentation and/or translating into other languages (mainly French).
Let me know how I could contribute and if in my area of expertise I will be happy to participate.
Looking forward.
Cheers.
Fifi

[mnrvovrfc]

:
Also is, there a place to discuss startup time of QB64 exes? A program that takes millisecond to load in FreeBASIC takes several seconds to load in QB64. I use version 2.0.1. Will version 0.8 have faster exe startup time? What about in qb64-x?

The EXE program on Windows that was created by QB64, for me, took at least one second to launch and it was very noticeable. Even more on 32-bit and the SDL version with all its external libraries. I was doing v0.98 (without SDL) on a laptop with Windows10 always kept off Internet. A created EXE file took 1-1/2 seconds in the least to begin because it was a program created by a 32-bit compiler. Even if it used only the console, never mind graphics and sound. Damn OS creating multiple entries into registry didn't help, doing it even with EXE files launched from pluggable USB disks so I had to stop doing that. I don't notice it now (it's more about caring about it, on Linux so long as it runs) because creator and created are both 64-bit. Freebasic could only create smaller executables than QB64 could. This is by design. That's unless somebody creates a fork of QB64 that comes with its own optimizing compiler that could work on any system and at least 32-bit and 64-bit architecture.

Almost forgot to say that's not worse than the stick-up for five seconds or longer, at the "first time" I launched an EXE created by Free Pascal v2.0.2 32-bit. It happened to me for a payware music-development application too, which was 32-bit. It should have happened also starting that old version of QB64 soon after boot and startup. The 64-bit version of QB64 instead takes much longer to create an EXE file than the 32-bit at starting and creating. The total number of lines in the source code doesn't seem to matter.

Also what's up with the topics about "qb64-dot-whatever"? Why do people get confused so easily by it? I'll raise my hand for one day in April I tried to go into the usual site which had the "latest version numerically" and get "site cannot be reached" error message from web browser. Thought Google or ISP blocked me, and just before that, when I tried to use Chromium, was nagged once in a while by the former saying I was generating too much traffic. Yeah I dump Firefox for Chromium, not for Chrome and get that junk... This is on Linux, I wouldn't like to create another day I have to go online with M$ program and updating for anything.

(Sorry for bumping months-old thread...)

[Fifi]

Hi all,
No one answered my previous post.
So, if I may, I repeat my question: who are the developpers of QB64PE?
May we have the list of these heroes who gave live to this project?
I guess it's not a secret.
So, looking forward.
Cheers.
Fifi