Re: Oh sorry, you need an IDE to go with that?by notthecheatr (no login)
>>>Are you another FB loser STILL waiting for version 1.0? Or do you really care?
Yes and yes. And I'm not a loser.
>>>This project has a long way to go and it will have some problems along the
>>>way. At least we don't have 3 knuckeheads writing a supposedly QB compatable >>>compiler and changing it to some kind of Gameboy machine!
There are more than three. They are not knuckheads or knuckLeheads either. If you can produce anything as good as FB let me know. When QB64 is actually equal to or better than FB then we'll have reason to argue.
>>>If you used to like QB and you don't wanna mess with C, then this is the place >>>to be. (I think I'm starting to sound like Casius Clay)
As I pointed out before, QB64 is a lot further from QB compatibility than FB is at this point. Now if I were a QB fanatic I'd probably still be at FB for the time being, though I'd gladly return to QB64 if at some point QB64 began to support all the really important features like subs, functions, UDTs, etc. At this point, there's little reason for me to use a language which requires all programs to be spaghetti-code (at least I assume that's how you do it without Subs/Functions). It's old-school BASIC, true, but modern BASIC is much better. When you get to the point of modernity - who knows? I don' expect to switch to QB64, but I know there are plenty of FB programmers who are only there because of QBASIC compatibility. If there's a better alternative, they might switch. At this point, though, FB is the most QB-compatible compiler available, and that's a fact.
I hate to be "elitist" in saying that FreeBASIC is better than QBASIC, but if you're going to insist on calling our good developers nasty names when they have done nothing against you or your friends, I do have to respond in kind. I don't consider myself a better person than you because I use FreeBASIC, but I do consider FreeBASIC a better language than QB64 because at this point it is.