DOS ain't dead

Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS (Developers)

posted by Rugxulo , Usono, 18.03.2019, 09:44

> The FreeBasic is also not bad

It's FOSS, multi-platform, supports (some) backwards compatibility, new extended syntax, compiles itself, has "-gen gcc", etc. It's very good.

> But OK, you have on mind the 16-bit environment.

Why not Turbo Pascal or FPC's i8086-msdos? I know they're different languages with different legacies and strengths, just saying ... {$mode tp} ain't bad.

> And I am not sure how the pointers are implemented in FB.

It has them, but I don't recall the syntax offhand. (Of course, FB is 32-bit DPMI, which is a different environment.)

As you probably know, classic Pascal didn't use pointers (except for the heap). Unlike C which used them for everything (arrays decay into pointers). So Pascal, traditionally, was safer and easier. Even Modula-2/Oberon relegated them (well, raw "addresses") to SYSTEM (only for low-level stuff). You shouldn't need them for normal apps just to use arrays.

> But what I like on the Powerbasic is the nice IDE.

Most people have third-party editors that they prefer over IDEs. There are billions of text editors. Exuberant Ctags is old but has some support for BASIC (hence good for VILE, JED, VIM, or whatever else). Not sure about GNU Emacs, but there's probably some support "somewhere".

Complete thread:

• Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - rr, 16.03.2019, 19:33 (Developers)
  • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - Guti, 17.03.2019, 06:49
    • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - Laaca, 17.03.2019, 07:19
      • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - Rugxulo, 18.03.2019, 09:44
    • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - Guti, 31.03.2019, 10:59
  • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - Rugxulo, 18.03.2019, 09:37
    • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - marcov, 21.03.2019, 12:03
  • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - DosWorld, 24.03.2019, 15:33
  • Getting PowerBASIC 3.5 for DOS - rr, 14.04.2019, 22:28