4 ms·

It's compiled, not interpreted. You have no idea what I'm doing over here.

• laumars 13y ago
  The compiled point was wrong, I'd already conceded that. But that doesn't mean I have no idea what what you're doing. I just wrongly assumed that the QB64 devs would just embed the .bas inside the PE as a resource file rather than going to the trouble of writing a compiler. Honestly, I'm impressed they bothered given the niche appeal of the IDE and number of other BASIC compilers on the market (FreeBASIC, PureBASIC, PowerBASIC, VisualBasic, etc) - some of which so closely resemble QB64 that I had to disassemble the compiled binary just to make sure there wasn't some plagiarism involved.
  • klipt 13y ago
    > Honestly, I'm impressed they bothered given the niche appeal of the IDE It reminds me a bit of the freepascal project. Beautiful compiler, tons of extensions (including generics: http://wiki.freepascal.org/Generics http://wiki.freepascal.org/Generics), graphical RAD IDE (Lazarus) ... yet relatively few people use it because C++ does all of that and more. Ultimately, I guess syntactic preference isn't really enough of a justification for yet another compiled imperative OOP language...
    • laumars 13y ago
      I know exactly what you mean. I used to love Pascal back in the 90s so installed Lazarus a few months ago with the intention of writing a few Qt apps. I think I spent 10 minutes in there at the time, thought "this is fun", and have never touched it again since.