Category talk:FreeBASIC: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(I don't think so, but I'm not sure.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Should FreeBASIC be its own language, or an implementation of [[BASIC]]? --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 13:35, 3 December 2007 (MST) |
Should FreeBASIC be its own language, or an implementation of [[BASIC]]? --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 13:35, 3 December 2007 (MST) |
||
:I don't think it's BASIC proper; No line numbers. The listed examples look 1:1 compatible with QBASIC, so if anything, they should be grouped with QBASIC. But I'd hesitate to tie QBASIC in with BASIC, just as I'd hesitate to tie Visual Basic.NET with Visual Basic 6. (Granted, there's more forward compatibility from BASIC to QBASIC than from VB6 to VB.NET. The problem with derived languages is a sticky one; There are similar problems with the Pascal family. Hm. I should create a [[Template:Family]] to give some sort of structure to such relationships. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 20:27, 4 December 2007 (MST) |
:I don't think it's BASIC proper; No line numbers. The listed examples look 1:1 compatible with QBASIC, so if anything, they should be grouped with QBASIC. But I'd hesitate to tie QBASIC in with BASIC, just as I'd hesitate to tie Visual Basic.NET with Visual Basic 6. (Granted, there's more forward compatibility from BASIC to QBASIC than from VB6 to VB.NET. The problem with derived languages is a sticky one; There are similar problems with the Pascal family. Hm. I should create a [[Template:Family]] to give some sort of structure to such relationships. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 20:27, 4 December 2007 (MST) |
||
::I would call this an implementation. 1) Its intent is to be compatible with older versions like [[QBasic]], which are themselves [[BASIC]] implementations. 2) Unless it is pushing a standard, it is doubtful that there will ever be more than one implementation with this name. BTW, modern Basic variants haven't required line numbers for decades. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 08:50, 5 December 2007 (MST) |
|||
Revision as of 15:50, 5 December 2007
Should FreeBASIC be its own language, or an implementation of BASIC? --IanOsgood 13:35, 3 December 2007 (MST)
- I don't think it's BASIC proper; No line numbers. The listed examples look 1:1 compatible with QBASIC, so if anything, they should be grouped with QBASIC. But I'd hesitate to tie QBASIC in with BASIC, just as I'd hesitate to tie Visual Basic.NET with Visual Basic 6. (Granted, there's more forward compatibility from BASIC to QBASIC than from VB6 to VB.NET. The problem with derived languages is a sticky one; There are similar problems with the Pascal family. Hm. I should create a Template:Family to give some sort of structure to such relationships. --Short Circuit 20:27, 4 December 2007 (MST)
- I would call this an implementation. 1) Its intent is to be compatible with older versions like QBasic, which are themselves BASIC implementations. 2) Unless it is pushing a standard, it is doubtful that there will ever be more than one implementation with this name. BTW, modern Basic variants haven't required line numbers for decades. --IanOsgood 08:50, 5 December 2007 (MST)