You missed the point of my argument.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm saying it won't work.

It's taken QB64 an entire year to compile itself; I think that's a fair amount of time to see where it's going.
FreeBasic compiled itself in just two or three months, so by comparison, QB64 is taking forever...
Only the basics have been implemented, so I don't see this project ever concluding.

-> And since QB64 is self compiling right now, continuing the project doesn't even specifically mean having to code in C++ to do so. hence, you were saying?

Yes it does. QB64 isn't a compiler; it's a C code generator, so you'll have to completely rewrite the project to produce for another language.

-> But even if he did use threads, within the thread it can probably be managed pretty easily.

Have you used threads? You can't have one thread telling the other thread where to go.
You can have one thread pause the other and then call a SUB, but this is different.

-> Galleon has shown that he's taking this aspect of QB64 very seriously.

Hardly. He prioritized sound libraries over QB compatibility based on personal whims.
Supporting new features conflicts with the goal of compiling old code, anyway.
Once you've compiled your old code, what's the point in using QB64? It makes bloated programs far from commercial quality.

-> What makes you think they are problems to begin with?

For one thing, half the people can't get it to work.

-> Did you read somewhere, from him (Galleon) that he had yet to figure those out and wasn't sure what to do about it?

The implied goal is to support things FreeBasic doesn't.
I might have missed something, but I have yet to see proposed methods of supporting the few things FB doesn't.

-> As far as Galleon getting tired and not finding anyone to keep the project going without him. So far, that's not part of his plan clearly.

Of course no one plans to quit a project when they start it.
But he will stop development sometime, and the project is not prepared for this.

-> But it's open source.

No it's not.
You can't keep claiming the project is open source forever, unless you actually open the source.




I might be back in a year to prove my point, if I remember.
I thought this project was about to make some progress, but I'm thoroughly tired of watching this slow development.