(11-07-2022, 12:04 AM)mnrvovrfc Wrote: The BAM is good enough to be able to do some stuff offline. But I think it needs even more examples than those shown on Reddit. I cannot log into that site anymore, I'm treated like "type zero" bad guy there because I don't like "liking" and "upvoting" and junk like that.
It's difficult for me to get into the BAM because there are syntax differences from QB64 and limitations from certain statements and functions that must be remembered. But that's only at my end.
I didn't start the other thread to propose anything to make QBJS better, it had observations that I made. Could have done the same thing with BAM, but I don't like telling lies.
BAM is a slow work in progress.
I'm working on things slowly but surely. I am on my own (better that way because cognitive disabilities make multi-team member work too challenging, and the related tools for multi-team work, like Github, are not designed for my challenges.)
So my end product will never be as polished/powerful or compatible with QB64PE like QBJS. Doesn't matter, because my objective is not to have BAM be what QBJS is (or what QBJS will be soon enough.)
My primary mission is now to get as close to as I can to GW-BASIC compatibility. Whatever I get working there, those are pretty much things that will then be compatible with QBasic / QB64 / QB64PE / QBJS. (While still picking away at some QB64PE things.)
I'm not expecting you or anybody else to embrace BAM, but I am mentioning it because it started with intent on building what QBJS is. To not be in the same lane, i'm no longer making BAM into the way to get QB64PE programs to the web. BAM will be a supporting sidekick for the full software development life-cycle of large QB64PE projects, aside from being a standalone BASIC programming environment for a certain breed of projects. If anything, I was hoping this could be a thread to clarify what folk think both QBJS and BAM aspire to be vis-à-vis QB64PE.
Something like that.
Your reasons for starting the other thread don't matter much. Your thread gave me thoughts of a discussion that I wanted to start, but I figured did not make sense to start in your other thread. So all of this wasn't directed at you or your OP over there.
Related references to my long-winded reply above: