RE: Don't bother making a native 64-bit QB64 port

I'm not sure who "Anonymous" is but...

"The 32-bit version works fine on Windows and almost no one uses other OSes."
Wrong. Lots of people use MacOSX and lots of people use Linux. In fact, where I work they only have Macs!

"Plus, you only need 64-bit upgrade to 64-bit in January 2038, or when you install upwards of 4 GB RAM. So if people don't upgrade beyond 4 GB of RAM until the world ends in QB64, there will be no need for Galleon to waste his time making QB64 64-bit clean."
I already want more than 4GB of RAM thanks very much! I don't know where you plucked the '2038' date from but I intend to still be alive then (approx. 50 years old but hey!) and if QB64 is as successful as I'm thinking it could be it will still be around then too. QB64 isn't some last ditch attempt to keep QBASIC/QB4.5 alive for a few last dying years (as some QB64 haters may hope), QB64 is the continuation of something good and the beginning of something with even greater potential.

"Work on the compiler!"
That's all I have been doing for the past couple of months. Progress seems sluggish atm because a lot of what has been fixed was postponed because of the difficulty involved. When V0.84 is released you'll find QB64 can compile without modification many many more original QBASIC programs than before. It's not the sole result of an singular improvement, but rather the combined effect of all of these seemingly small changes at once.

What exactly about the compiler would you like to see added next? My current research (research consists of downloading lots of programs from net & trying them out) indicates (after behind the scenes changes towards V0.84) that the DRAW statement is now the most likely reason (of many) why a pure QBASIC program won't run. There's no reason the DRAW statement couldn't already have been added, it's just that other things have been a higher priority up until now and the DRAW statement is predicted to require a large amount of time to implement properly.