4 ms·
How hard could it be to just clone it, at this point?
by CamperBob2 6mo ago
How hard could it be to just clone it, at this point?
- qingcharles 6mo agoI used to run it on a very crappy PC when it came out. The binary is probably pretty tiny and can likely be decompiled quite nicely with modern tools.
- BSDobelix 6mo agoGambas ;) https://gambaswiki.org/website/en/main.html https://gambaswiki.org/website/en/main.html
- giancarlostoro 6mo agoIts too married to GTK, not cross platform and I dont remember if it even compiles natively but thats something VB6 offers.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Scroll_Swe 6mo agoThe point is that is was included in Windows. Already enterprise approved on the MS stack. I know HN is all startups with macbooks on local admin, but in bigger companies even devs cannot just install whatever they want.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- CWuestefeld 6mo agoVB was never included in Windows (although it did include the runtime files). Windows did include other BASIC-related stuff, like GW-BASIC, QBasic, and VBScript.
- Scroll_Swe 6mo agoYes, not to program it but to run. But that makes the IDE and such an easy approval for management and IT to push out/install. Also batch. aaah, I love cmd.
- chiph 6mo agoPerhaps the VBRUNxxx.dll files were distributed with Windows later, but not at first. You had to include them in your install diskettes.
- giancarlostoro 6mo agoI mean, for a “clean room implementation” you could offload the work to Claude and GPT, you have one model describe the assembly into a spec file, you pull down open source programs from Planet Source Code that SHOULD compile, and then you have it ensure it compiles 1:1. Then you watch and let it run through the process in a few weeks. If you dont care about clean room then you plainly disassemble it and translate it. I live in the US where the second option might not be legal.