Choice is good with Linux, the problem is a bunch of distros are garbage (such as Linux Mint although the D.E. they created is OK).
@Kernelpanic I don't know what you mean by "all the basic versions now remind me of Linux" but somebody is trying to share something which is not easy to program, and even if it's incomplete or it works differently from a BASIC dialect somebody is most comfortable with. I've had a hard time getting accustomed to SICK64 because it wants line numbers and single-letter variables, and doesn't support string arrays but those are my ignorance and limitations.
EDIT: How about a BASIC that supports full-blown subprograms (not "GOSUB" and not half-effort like "DEF FN") and a full math/logic expression parser? Two things difficult to do for somebody who doesn't have enough patience and time but would like to have his/her own BASIC-like or MS-DOS-batch-language-like interpreter.
Maybe somebody could team up with Luke and come up with a BASIC dialect that supports graphics and music, although in a limited way. Because a few BASIC interpreters are offered for Linux which don't dare go beyond 16-bit stuff. Also, not everybody could install or compile Freebasic because it's fairly demanding with dependencies. It seems to want a specific version of "gcc" or "glibc" and refuses to work if that's not put down correctly.
One of the "QB64 Samples" programs is a LISP interpreter. I should have taken some time to play with it, instead of trying to dive into Racket. I mean, Racket has good documentation but it's not really suitable for a beginner into a 60-year-old programming language trying to compete with other heavyweights like Python. Could I welcome another LISP interpreter written by someone anyhow? Absolutely. Only please be based on Scheme, I had to choose between that and Common LISP and I'm beginning to resent the latter seems to be more commonplace. Originally I was going to learn Scheme ("script-fu") to mess around with pictures in GIMP LOL.
@Kernelpanic I don't know what you mean by "all the basic versions now remind me of Linux" but somebody is trying to share something which is not easy to program, and even if it's incomplete or it works differently from a BASIC dialect somebody is most comfortable with. I've had a hard time getting accustomed to SICK64 because it wants line numbers and single-letter variables, and doesn't support string arrays but those are my ignorance and limitations.
EDIT: How about a BASIC that supports full-blown subprograms (not "GOSUB" and not half-effort like "DEF FN") and a full math/logic expression parser? Two things difficult to do for somebody who doesn't have enough patience and time but would like to have his/her own BASIC-like or MS-DOS-batch-language-like interpreter.
Maybe somebody could team up with Luke and come up with a BASIC dialect that supports graphics and music, although in a limited way. Because a few BASIC interpreters are offered for Linux which don't dare go beyond 16-bit stuff. Also, not everybody could install or compile Freebasic because it's fairly demanding with dependencies. It seems to want a specific version of "gcc" or "glibc" and refuses to work if that's not put down correctly.
One of the "QB64 Samples" programs is a LISP interpreter. I should have taken some time to play with it, instead of trying to dive into Racket. I mean, Racket has good documentation but it's not really suitable for a beginner into a 60-year-old programming language trying to compete with other heavyweights like Python. Could I welcome another LISP interpreter written by someone anyhow? Absolutely. Only please be based on Scheme, I had to choose between that and Common LISP and I'm beginning to resent the latter seems to be more commonplace. Originally I was going to learn Scheme ("script-fu") to mess around with pictures in GIMP LOL.