Thoughts on BAM and QBJS (etc.)

[CharlieJV]

To address the competition question, I see it this way...

Imagine if QBasic programmers thought QB64 was competition? What a disastrous start that would have been. Instead, we welcomed it as a way to extend our abilities to new platforms, without the need of emulators.

When Rob and I talked about this in 2007, I convinced the then owner of The QBasic Forum, Mac, to include a forum on the boards, moderated by Galleon. The purpose was to help further the development and awareness of the development and use of QB64. I see QBJS in much the same light.

Now if either of you would like to enlighten folks like me, who know absolutely nothing about the BAM project, I'd appreciate it. Either here or in a new thread is fine by me. I really can't speak to something I have no awareness of in regard to competition or other aspects.

Pete

Okay, seems like I am learning a little more about myself: I have particular difficulties with rabbit hole discussions that are very narrow-focused on something not-related (in my mind, anyway), but seem to have interest piqued when the OP is elevated to a broader view.?

Huh.

About Basic Anywhere Machine.  I'll do that in another thread and cross-reference in this one.

About QBJS: duh, I totally missed mentioning what I think is the best thing about it: the ability, or the promise/goal, of taking QB64PE programs to the web.  So one source code for compiling to whatever destination OS, and/or running in web browsers.  Talk about leveraging a single code base.  Adding that to the OP now.

[mnrvovrfc]

The BAM is good enough to be able to do some stuff offline. But I think it needs even more examples than those shown on Reddit. I cannot log into that site anymore, I'm treated like "type zero" bad guy there because I don't like "liking" and "upvoting" and junk like that.

It's difficult for me to get into the BAM because there are syntax differences from QB64 and limitations from certain statements and functions that must be remembered. But that's only at my end.

I didn't start the other thread to propose anything to make QBJS better, it had observations that I made. Could have done the same thing with BAM, but I don't like telling lies.

[CharlieJV]

The BAM is good enough to be able to do some stuff offline. But I think it needs even more examples than those shown on Reddit. I cannot log into that site anymore, I'm treated like "type zero" bad guy there because I don't like "liking" and "upvoting" and junk like that.

It's difficult for me to get into the BAM because there are syntax differences from QB64 and limitations from certain statements and functions that must be remembered. But that's only at my end.

I didn't start the other thread to propose anything to make QBJS better, it had observations that I made. Could have done the same thing with BAM, but I don't like telling lies.

BAM is a slow work in progress.

I'm working on things slowly but surely.  I am on my own (better that way because cognitive disabilities make multi-team member work too challenging, and the related tools for multi-team work, like Github, are not designed for my challenges.)

So my end product will never be as polished/powerful or compatible with QB64PE like QBJS.  Doesn't matter, because my objective is not to have BAM be what QBJS is (or what QBJS will be soon enough.)

My primary mission is now to get as close to as I can to GW-BASIC compatibility.  Whatever I get working there, those are pretty much things that will then be compatible with QBasic / QB64 / QB64PE / QBJS. (While still picking away at some QB64PE things.)

I'm not expecting you or anybody else to embrace BAM, but I am mentioning it because it started with intent on building what QBJS is.  To not be in the same lane, i'm no longer making BAM into the way to get QB64PE programs to the web.  BAM will be a supporting sidekick for the full software development life-cycle of large QB64PE projects, aside from being a standalone BASIC programming environment for a certain breed of projects.  If anything, I was hoping this could be a thread to clarify what folk think both QBJS and BAM aspire to be vis-à-vis QB64PE.

Something like that.

Your reasons for starting the other thread don't matter much.  Your thread gave me thoughts of a discussion that I wanted to start, but I figured did not make sense to start in your other thread.  So all of this wasn't directed at you or your OP over there.

Related references to my long-winded reply above:

• BAM enhancements to the embedded version of wwwBASIC
  
• Tracking BAM's Compatibility with GW-BASIC (EDIT: fixed the link)
  
• Very hodge-podge/scatter-brained partial/untested tracking of BAM's Compatibility with QB64
  
• Current list of all keywords and special characters
  

[CharlieJV]

... SNIP! ...

Now if either of you would like to enlighten folks like me, who know absolutely nothing about the BAM project, I'd appreciate it. Either here or in a new thread is fine by me. I really can't speak to something I have no awareness of in regard to competition or other aspects.

Pete

Yikes.  I got seriously wordy.  Meh, first crack at it:   What is BASIC Anywhere Machine (aka, maybe: BAM)