Home | Reviews | GUIpedia | Forum | Fun500

BrandonFun500 5: FB or QB?
I plan to spend Thursday, Friday, and maybe some of the weekend working on Fun500 5 B3. I will make sure the UI is all working etc, but I am wonder if people would like it to be in FB instead of QB? Porting wouldn't take that long? What do you think? The Package Manager should be done this weekend and ready for app developers.		2009-04-149:23 PM
jasonwoodlandRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Have it in Kew Bee		2009-04-149:59 PM
ToddRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Porting won't take very long but remember that FB manages memory more directly while QB's runtime limits memory usage. :P		2009-04-159:19 AM
BrandonRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Um, that doesn't really tell me which you think I should use :P		2009-04-159:46 AM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
On the one hand, there aren't many QB GUIs left and it's nice to have one. The FB community and language have become very different from those of QB and I prefer the old QB culture. On the other hand, FB lets you have larger arrays and more memory management. Myth, the open source QML rendering engine I'm writing, would work better in FB and wouldn't have to pre-render to temp files. I'd rather write it in FB than in QB, and so far the code I'm using for the QB build is just translated code from ViolaQML (written in FB) changed to use a temp file instead of an array.		2009-04-1510:08 AM
ToddRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I would use FB for efficiency with memory (if I needed to) but I usually try QB. The only time I use FB is when I can't tap into extra memory and don't want to bother with EMS/XMS.		2009-04-1510:14 AM
BrandonRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Here's the thing, I want apps in the repo. Do you as app developers think apps would be easier in QB or FB?		2009-04-1511:56 AM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Apps tend to be easier in FB. Libraries are definitely easier, FB has better library functionality.		2009-04-151:55 PM
Re:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Don't bother with QB. With QB, you can only use less then 640kb of ram without ems or xms, it is slow as fuck, low resolution (svga would be slow). The only reason I use QB because I like it and its what im used to. I never bothered learning freebasic.		2009-04-154:09 PM
ksrRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I personally wouldn't develop if it was QB-only. It's just too much hassle.		2009-04-155:34 PM
BrandonRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
FB it is!		2009-04-155:46 PM
BrandonFun500 5: VGA Support?
Should I support screen mode 12 or just 16bit modes?		2009-04-157:41 PM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: VGA Support?
Screen 12 is fine... Remember that FB can still run on DOS, I like to feel like my apps will be compatible on a wide range of machines :).		2009-04-158:06 PM
BrandonRe:Fun500 5: VGA Support?
How about this: Apps are in screen 12, and eventually I can make the API work in SVGA, so apps can be 4 or 16bit,to benefit things like image viewers?		2009-04-158:15 PM
jasonwoodlandRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Count me out. 'svga would be slow' - use paging. 'only use less then 640kb of ram without ems or xms' - the future.lib supports them. 'It's just too much hassle.' - challenges are fun. 'FB it is!' - ah crap		2009-04-158:23 PM
agumaRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
[b]Horatio wrote:[/b] [quote] 'svga would be slow' - use paging. [/quote] How does paging make it any faster? [quote] 'only use less then 640kb of ram without ems or xms' - the future.lib supports them. [/quote] It's not as fast. [quote] 'It's just too much hassle.' - challenges are fun. [/quote] Okay, then why not code it in C or assembly or machine language?		2009-04-158:29 PM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I did kind of appreciate the challenge. There's something to be said for QB. I remember it fondly, if only for the easy editor and really excellent built in documentation (nothing even comes close). I hardly ever write it voluntarily though because it's easier to hack together FB on linux boxes. I would have for this project.		2009-04-158:51 PM
jasonwoodlandRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
Aguma, Paging - well you don't wanna see all the shit gettin loaded up pixel by pixel. Memory - what do you expect for the late 80's? Mac OSX? Programming language - Read the title damn it 'Fun500 5: FB or QB?'		2009-04-159:02 PM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I like that we've got somebody defending good ol' Qbasic, even if it isn't the popular choice anymore.		2009-04-159:14 PM
ksrRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
What you use is up to you of course, but I'm not sure why a lot of you don't like FB. If you don't like the new features you can still use -lang qb and use the QB syntax. Future.lib won't work, but then you don't need it because everything is built in.		2009-04-167:05 AM
pharoahRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I haven't seen anyone here write that they don't like FB, but QB does present different challenges and advantages. FreeBASIC's QB dialect isn't compatible enough or supported enough to make it worth using (that's why QB64 is being developed).		2009-04-169:15 AM
BrandonRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
QB would mean smaller executables, 286 support, and generally lower requirements, but with lower requirements, we have less to work with.		2009-04-169:33 AM
trollyRe:Fun500 5: FB or QB?
I like FreeBasic's functionality. i use QuickBasic only because my habits ... and because i find that his editor is easy to use (easy access to sub, function, etc)		2009-04-165:34 PM

GUIs

2021 Brandon Cornell