Category talk:FreeBASIC: Difference between revisions
Hm.
No edit summary |
(Hm.) |
||
Line 2:
: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)
:::We don't currently have a way to represent one-way relationships. FreeBASIC surely is an implementation of BASIC, as is [[AppleSoft BASIC]]. But while (most) AppleSoft BASIC code will run under FreeBASIC, the reverse certainly isn't true. I'm worried that this sort of incompatibility will be non-trivial to represent in programming examples.
:::Go ahead, I suppose. We'll try merging backward-compatible languages, and see if we can find an elegant way to represent it in language sections on task pages. I still would want to keep [[AWK]] and [[Perl]] separate, though. And I wouldn't merge BASIC, VB and VB.Net, or even VB and VB.Net.
:::But if the code under a BASIC header doesn't have a line numbers, it should have a "Works with" line. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 09:44, 5 December 2007 (MST)
| |||