06-08-2022, 03:11 PM
"frankly, I had not considered using qb64 at the beginning. I tested many very interesting basic interpreter, I thought that the speed of development and the instantaneous execution of the programs is an important criterion, finally the speed of execution is more important when it is necessary to make many treatments. I will thus use qb64 intensively. I would continue to use freebasic equally."
It does take some practice to appreciate the full scope of what QB64 IDE offers. What you lose in the little bit of compile time before execution of new code is more than made up for avoiding typo's and syntax errors, fast lookup of keywords and a host of things you wont get from a third party editor IMHO. Don't look at compile time, execution time is way more important because you only compile once to make an exe. I would say that development time is at least as important as execution time (maybe more so when turning one proggie after another :-)) It use to be space for memory and length of programs but now it's about time, humans' more so than computers.
It does take some practice to appreciate the full scope of what QB64 IDE offers. What you lose in the little bit of compile time before execution of new code is more than made up for avoiding typo's and syntax errors, fast lookup of keywords and a host of things you wont get from a third party editor IMHO. Don't look at compile time, execution time is way more important because you only compile once to make an exe. I would say that development time is at least as important as execution time (maybe more so when turning one proggie after another :-)) It use to be space for memory and length of programs but now it's about time, humans' more so than computers.
b = b + ...