File Details |
|
| File Size | 19.4 MB |
|---|---|
| License | Open Source |
| Operating System | Windows (All) |
| Date Added | December 25, 2023 |
| Total Downloads | 5,743 |
| Publisher | Andre Victor |
| Homepage | FreeBASIC |
Publisher's Description
FreeBASIC is an open source, BASIC compiler with the syntax the most compatible possible with MS-QuickBASIC that adds new features such as pointers, unsigned data types, inline-assembly and many others.
Latest Reviews
patrickw99 reviewed v0.18.4b on Jul 29, 2009
I agree and disagree with jaco. As it stands freebasic is not an enterprise ready language. From the stand point of a system developer, freebasic has a long way to go before it is ready for large applications. Once Freebasic has implamented true OOP it will then be ready for real use.
We just have to remember, true OOP is for the reuse of code. Nothing else. Sure a good programmer can write good code and most languages have simular syntax, but the true power of OOP is the ability to reuse and extend the original code without having to change it at all. Well written OOP code allows for this. Well written FreeBasic, quick basic dose not.
Yes a person can make the same mistakes in vb, asp, and vb.net as they can in FreeBasic. But the true OOP languages are so much better for a programmer that can both think and write code in the OOP way.
Joco reviewed v0.18.4b on Mar 31, 2008
Granted a good programmer can write good code. But structured programming from the Basic world is no longer adapted for Object Oriented Programming. Unless I am unfortunate but what I have seen is that developers used to the structured programing approach don't transition well to OOP. The old habits which have some remnants in syntax and style are minor. The abuse of broad scoping in variables, & method is already more annoying. The tendency of designing a class as a "module" which results in a monolithic class "do everything", the lack of encapsulation, the little use of inheritance (if ever), etc. are clearly a maintenance burden. Even though a class designed in a "Basic" way of thinking fulfills perfectly the requirements. The only problem is a higher maintenance effort.
Even an excellent implementation of BASIC will be subject to subtle side effects and will suffer some difficulties to cope with specs change. Because it doesn't have the facilities of abstraction, inheritance, polymorphism, etc. that OOP provides.
And as unbelievable as it could appears, I know quite well BASIC actually (or may be too well?). I have learn OOP and forced myself to think OOP. Writing good code that works is fine. Writing robust code, side-effects free, which evolves better with lower maintenance is better achieved with OOP.
If you think Basic can still fit your coding needs then, by all means use it. The comments below are pretty much similar to what I used to get from "old school" senior developers. I have no trouble of people getting the job done. But in a team working with OOP language and some developers still think the "Basic" way, that hinders the team efforts and set bad example for junior developers.
SteveJohnSteele reviewed v0.18.3b on Jan 1, 2008
what is Joco talking about ?!
whether its BASIC, C, JAVA or any other language the structure is (more-or-less) the same, its only the actual words used thats different
BASIC
FOR A=1 to 10 STEP 1:PRINT A:NEXT A
for (a=1;a
pjafrombbay reviewed v0.18.1b on Aug 16, 2007
Joco is obviously not a programmer! It really does not matter what you program in as long as you create good code. You use what you are happy with.
Regards,
Peter
rhoadesb reviewed v0.18.1b on Aug 15, 2007
I'm currently using version 0.16.something. It works fairly well. Version 0.17.something seemed not to work as well, but I may not have given it enough of a try.
You really need a companion helper/editor program like JellyFish Pro to get decent use of freeBasic.
VAXMaster reviewed v0.17b on Jul 3, 2007
Joco, sloppy programmers create bad software in any language. Giving it a 3 for now.
Joco reviewed v0.17b on Jul 3, 2007
There are already enough work to clean up the mess created by a generation of BASIC, VB, ASP and even VB.NET programmers. Don't you think BASIC has already done enough damage?
patmc7 reviewed v0.16b on Jun 15, 2006
I haven't really used it (although it's been a while since I used Qbasic as well) but I the program freezes when I try to close pop-up the window (via the X in the corner of the window).
Basic write then compile design, although it would be nice to have an interface that allowed immediate executions to do simple programs with (like formula calculation).
patrickw99 reviewed v0.18.4b on Jul 29, 2009
I agree and disagree with jaco. As it stands freebasic is not an enterprise ready language. From the stand point of a system developer, freebasic has a long way to go before it is ready for large applications. Once Freebasic has implamented true OOP it will then be ready for real use.
We just have to remember, true OOP is for the reuse of code. Nothing else. Sure a good programmer can write good code and most languages have simular syntax, but the true power of OOP is the ability to reuse and extend the original code without having to change it at all. Well written OOP code allows for this. Well written FreeBasic, quick basic dose not.
Yes a person can make the same mistakes in vb, asp, and vb.net as they can in FreeBasic. But the true OOP languages are so much better for a programmer that can both think and write code in the OOP way.
Joco reviewed v0.18.4b on Mar 31, 2008
Granted a good programmer can write good code. But structured programming from the Basic world is no longer adapted for Object Oriented Programming. Unless I am unfortunate but what I have seen is that developers used to the structured programing approach don't transition well to OOP. The old habits which have some remnants in syntax and style are minor. The abuse of broad scoping in variables, & method is already more annoying. The tendency of designing a class as a "module" which results in a monolithic class "do everything", the lack of encapsulation, the little use of inheritance (if ever), etc. are clearly a maintenance burden. Even though a class designed in a "Basic" way of thinking fulfills perfectly the requirements. The only problem is a higher maintenance effort.
Even an excellent implementation of BASIC will be subject to subtle side effects and will suffer some difficulties to cope with specs change. Because it doesn't have the facilities of abstraction, inheritance, polymorphism, etc. that OOP provides.
And as unbelievable as it could appears, I know quite well BASIC actually (or may be too well?). I have learn OOP and forced myself to think OOP. Writing good code that works is fine. Writing robust code, side-effects free, which evolves better with lower maintenance is better achieved with OOP.
If you think Basic can still fit your coding needs then, by all means use it. The comments below are pretty much similar to what I used to get from "old school" senior developers. I have no trouble of people getting the job done. But in a team working with OOP language and some developers still think the "Basic" way, that hinders the team efforts and set bad example for junior developers.
SteveJohnSteele reviewed v0.18.3b on Jan 1, 2008
what is Joco talking about ?!
whether its BASIC, C, JAVA or any other language the structure is (more-or-less) the same, its only the actual words used thats different
BASIC
FOR A=1 to 10 STEP 1:PRINT A:NEXT A
for (a=1;a
pjafrombbay reviewed v0.18.1b on Aug 16, 2007
Joco is obviously not a programmer! It really does not matter what you program in as long as you create good code. You use what you are happy with.
Regards,
Peter
rhoadesb reviewed v0.18.1b on Aug 15, 2007
I'm currently using version 0.16.something. It works fairly well. Version 0.17.something seemed not to work as well, but I may not have given it enough of a try.
You really need a companion helper/editor program like JellyFish Pro to get decent use of freeBasic.
VAXMaster reviewed v0.17b on Jul 3, 2007
Joco, sloppy programmers create bad software in any language. Giving it a 3 for now.
Joco reviewed v0.17b on Jul 3, 2007
There are already enough work to clean up the mess created by a generation of BASIC, VB, ASP and even VB.NET programmers. Don't you think BASIC has already done enough damage?
patmc7 reviewed v0.16b on Jun 15, 2006
I haven't really used it (although it's been a while since I used Qbasic as well) but I the program freezes when I try to close pop-up the window (via the X in the corner of the window).
Basic write then compile design, although it would be nice to have an interface that allowed immediate executions to do simple programs with (like formula calculation).