Talk:QB64

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

NO delete?[edit]

I found the QB64 linked off of the qbasic page. I found it informative, interesting, and noteworthy as it is the only "port" of qbasic to a modern operating system that I've heard of. I don't think that there is any reason that this article should be removed. AlfredR (talk)

Delete[edit]

It doesn't even have a project page. -> delete 77.57.90.1 (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunate[edit]

I've seen this happen before....over-enthusiastic fans of a project will prematurely make a Wikipedia article before the project has matured enough to be notable. The article then gets deleted and it's reputation on Wikipedia gets forever tarnished, unlikely to ever come back when the project is further along. The "QB64" people here, who seem to have a good project going, should have waited a while longer before writing an article. PLEASE keep for now and wait for it to mature. 63.245.144.77 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

youre kidding right??? this may be one of the best languages ever made and you think it shouldnt be on wikipedia just because a bunch of lame stream programmers havent noticed it yet? lol whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorheadrush (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

I downloaded QB64 myself and the license of the last version is LGPL 2.1. The article doesn't seem that well written. I will change the license and other stuff that isn't right as a start. --Stijn Brouwer (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timers[edit]

Since this has been posted:

 ...so the Conventional memory limitations no longer applied.

I don't see why "unlimited timers" could not be included.

where: "unlimited" is a very large number.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.89.57 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't unlimited. Obviously there must be a limit, because the computer only has finite memory and address space so only a finite number of timers is possible. Saying "unlimited" means "a very large number"–well, that is not what "unlimited" means. (I don't know what the limit is in practice, but for a 32-bit executable I am sure it is significantly less than 2³².) (You could probably test this by writing a program which endless tries creating timers, and noting when it crashes – except, you couldn't cite that exercise here because it would be WP:OR, plus the actual limit in practice may well depend on your exact computer configuration (available memory, OS version, etc) SJK (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, let us say instead of an unlimited value, we assign it an upper value of "a very large number" of 32,768 or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.89.57 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source which states what the limit is? If you don't have a reliable source for what the limit is, then it is better not to state what it is at all. (Just because we know there must be some limit, it doesn't necessarily follow that Wikipedia needs to tell us what the limit is.) SJK (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a viable source that indicates the timers could be anywhere from 10,000 to 32,000: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090827-00/?p=16963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.89.57 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That blog post is talking about timers created by the Win32 SetTimer API. Are QB64 timers implemented using the Win32 SetTimer API? If not, then that blog post is irrelevant to QB64. SJK (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take the claim out until someone comes up with a citation to a reliab;e source that directly supports the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what method QB64 uses for timers, and I suppose even if there were that many system timers, QB64 could not run 1,000 of them at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.89.57 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the QB64 source code. I see no calls to the Win32 SetTimer API anywhere. Given that, I don't think the blog post you cited has any relevance to QB64. SJK (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. Thank you for the talk. btw: Timers should be turned off then freed to avoid memory leaks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.89.57 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Changes by QB64 Team" entry.[edit]

This section seemed to be targeted at the drama with RCCola a few months back, but it's confusing and doesn't lend any clarity to what QB64 is, how to use it, or where to get it. So removal seemed like the best choice. -- TomXP411^[Talk]