Hello all.
You are doing an amazing and fabulous job bringing new life to QB64 by editing QB64 Phoenix Edition.
But just a suggestion/question: why continue to call it QB64 when simply QBPE would seem more appropriate and accurate to me?
Moreover, as I’ve read all the threads that talk about the various misadventures of the end of the QB64 project as such, calling this new fork by its new name including the name of its executable would:
Moreover, this would avoid any possible future confusion for the users.
On my Linux boxes I did a test by changing only one line (line #90 EXE ?= qbpe) in the makefile and the two coexist very well, each in its own directory.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Fifi
You are doing an amazing and fabulous job bringing new life to QB64 by editing QB64 Phoenix Edition.
But just a suggestion/question: why continue to call it QB64 when simply QBPE would seem more appropriate and accurate to me?
Moreover, as I’ve read all the threads that talk about the various misadventures of the end of the QB64 project as such, calling this new fork by its new name including the name of its executable would:
- on the one hand avoid any new potential conflict with the alleged ‘’CEO’’,
- and on the other hand would also allow QBPE and QB64 to coexist on the same machine.
Moreover, this would avoid any possible future confusion for the users.
On my Linux boxes I did a test by changing only one line (line #90 EXE ?= qbpe) in the makefile and the two coexist very well, each in its own directory.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Fifi
Before to send the arrow of truth, dip the head in a honey pot (Cheyenne saying).
Don't tell my Mom I'm on iMac with macOS, she thinks I work on PC with Windows. 