I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Category talk:PowerBASIC

From Rosetta Code


I first marked this page as a stub because I put up what was essentially an incomplete rough draft on Friday. I think it's as finished as it's going to get for now; who decides when it's not a stub? Me? Short Circuit? "The community"? (If it's me, I vote "now".) -- Eriksiers 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think any more info will be put on here then get rid of it. If someone else doesn't like it they can put it back. --Mwn3d 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why a separate category?[edit]

Why is PowerBASIC specified as a separate language (a category)? After all, it is just one implementation of BASIC.

Other BASIC implementations are listed in the category BASIC Implementations and the examples inserted under BASIC with "works with" tag. This way, the BASIC source can be found where you expect, at letter B, and you can easily compare different implementations.

Note that for example FreeBASIC has at least as many unique features (and incompatibilities) as PowerBASIC has.
--PauliKL 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because there are currently three different versions (PB/DOS, PB/CC, and PB/Win; a fourth version (PB/Linux) has supposedly been in development for about a decade) that are incompatible to some degree with each other. (It's possible to write code that works unchanged in both PB/Win and PB/CC, but you frequently (often? usually?) need seperate code for PB/DOS.) If it had been possible to use the same source code in all three flavors, I would've just made it a page, but the differences are big enough that I feel that the category is justified. (I had other reasons, but they're minor compared to this.) -- Eriksiers 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)