Thoughts on BAM and QBJS (etc.)

[CharlieJV]

I didn't want to risk clogging "JavaScript-ing it, I need to get with it" with anything of no interest to anybody (or of interest and creating a whole discussion maybe not fitting the OP in that thread.

To me, every BASIC implementation out there that isn't "dead" is filling a place for however many folk that no other BASIC implementation can.

I can imagine that some folk might very well use one ore more BASIC implementations, each for one or more specific purposes.

Although both BAM and QBJS can outright stand on their own for what they are good at, I think both of them also have the potential of being great sidekick helpers for QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC (the big boys) programming.

If not 100% compatible with the big boys, then at least compatible enough for coding certain snippets of code.  Why?  To be able to create/edit those snippets of code from anywhere anytime (you just need a web browser), regardless of device and without an available install of "a big boy" BASIC.

This is a pretty big deal not just for anywhere-programming-anytime, but also for testing algorithms/functions/subroutines/whatever.  You can put the code on the web not just for viewing the code, but also running it.  That kind of world-wide access/availability means you can get collaboration from anywhere at any time easy peasy.

In my mind, QBJS and BAM are otherwise very different beasts.  I think:

• QBJS is and will be the cat's meow for compatibility and performance
  
• BAM is and will be the cat's meow for serious project management, source code management, and all things software development process, including documentation (being a TiddlyWiki instance, BAM inherits all of the core TiddlyWiki goodies, and the goodies from whatever TW plugin's get added as you make BAM your own)
  

Just like neither QBJS nor BAM can ever be competition for QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC, QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC can never be competition for either QBJS or BAM, just like QBJS and BAM can never be competition to the other: all very different beasts really good at specific things.

QBJS and/or BAM as sidekicks for QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC for whatever projects?  There is some bad-a$$ potential there.

[Pete]

Sam don't do BAM, but is big fan of QBJS. Wonderful project and hope to see it well supported at our forum as dbox continues development.

Pete

[CharlieJV]

Sam don't do BAM, but is big fan of QBJS. Wonderful project and hope to see it well supported at our forum as dbox continues development.

Pete

You get it.

If the stuff that BAM excels at are of no use to Sam, then it would be ridiculous for Sam to do BAM, because BAM isn't at all interested in doing Sam.

Now I'm thinking of ham for some reason.  And green eggs ...

[vince]

Sam don't do BAM, but is big fan of QBJS. Wonderful project and hope to see it well supported at our forum as dbox continues development.

Pete

100%, I have plenty of QBJS stuff I want to share, let's make it happen

[Pete]

I'll put some time into it, and see what develops.

Pete

[vince]

here's my QBJS session from last night

[CharlieJV]

Kind of odd to try and initiate a discussion of both BAM and QBJS as beneficial sidekicks (in their own ways) for big QB64PE projects, and have a feeling the intent of the OP is in the process of being quashed and/or hijacked.

Maybe I'm just finding the thread devolving into something weird to me.

It is so easy for any OP to devolve into however many rabbit holes of discussion, and the OP intent just bites the biscuit.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.  Maybe just disappointed with where the discussion is going.

Meh.  Good?  Bad?  Maybe.

[Pete]

Yeah, but in this thread, you are the OP. Now if you want to drive the discussion in a specific direction, then I recommend making a post that does so; but I get it. I've experienced some of my threads, like Sam-Clip. being derailed... and not just by some goof ball, by Steve! The Head goof-ball! Honestly in 25 years of going from QB Forum to QB64 Forum in regard to participation, moderating, and ownership of the former, I've known the folks in general to be a pretty loose group when it come to "staying on topic" but a really great group in terms of getting things done, and done well.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic...

Pete

[vince]

I agree that just like neither QBJS nor BAM can ever be competition for QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC, QB64/QB64PE/QBASIC can never be competition for either QBJS or BAM, just like QBJS and BAM can never be competition to the other, and like either QBJS or BAM should not be competition for QB64PE. That is why I'm for QB64PE to be the home of both QBJS and BAM. Unfortunately, there currently no good places to discuss or share content in regards to these browser variants which is important for general competition

[Pete]

To address the competition question, I see it this way...

Imagine if QBasic programmers thought QB64 was competition? What a disastrous start that would have been. Instead, we welcomed it as a way to extend our abilities to new platforms, without the need of emulators.

When Rob and I talked about this in 2007, I convinced the then owner of The QBasic Forum, Mac, to include a forum on the boards, moderated by Galleon. The purpose was to help further the development and awareness of the development and use of QB64. I see QBJS in much the same light.

Now if either of you would like to enlighten folks like me, who know absolutely nothing about the BAM project, I'd appreciate it. Either here or in a new thread is fine by me. I really can't speak to something I have no awareness of in regard to competition or other aspects.

Pete