Is anyone using a simple free console based BASIC interpreter and/or compiler under 11.2 64 bit? No, not Gambas or graphic IDE’s. I can’t find one that compiles for me. Most of them are quite old source.
In the “Education” repository (community repository) you can find bwbasic
and gambas ready to install
the question is if you want to use this repository
can you tell me more details what you want to do with the basic you are
searching for? it makes it easier to tell you what options are available for
you
There’s a very well supported version called FreeBasic.
Home page: FreeBASIC compiler (a free BASIC compiler) - official page - News [en]
Forums: freebasic.net :: Index
HowTo get it up and running in openSUSE: HowTo Install the FreeBASIC Compiler into Suse / openSUSE 32 and 64 bit
@swerdna: I read your howto, very intersting. I shows me that there is no
time where I do not learn something new (I always thought freebasic is
something windows specific)
@ionmich: the only reason I mentioned gambas (though you said “no, not
gambas”) was because in principle you also can use it without the ide. But
looking at swerdna’s post his choice is clearly better.
I was very surprised by the original question in this thread about basic
(that’s the reason I suddenly felt the need to check what basic
compiler/interpreter exists nowadays in linux). Some nostalgic feeling (it
is almost 20 years ago I wrote the last time a ms dos program with basic,
later in rare cases a had to read some programs written in visual basic,
last year for the last time if I remeber correctly).
So if you want to answer a question from my side (and I am really interested
in the answer)
What are your reasons to specifically use basic and especially as console
application?
Running some very specific utilities written under OmniBasic, a language no longer available. I looked into Gambas but it is overly graphical and complicated for my purposes. As for bwbasic, I could not compile it. I believe I am missing some 32 bit libraries.
What a simple solution! With excellent documentation! I could have saved myself many hours of frustration by posting for help here first. Many thanks for the time you took to provide help to others like me.
Got to run. I am being called by the Source.
Yes, swerdna’s is the simpler solution.
The most compelling reason to use Basic is that I am familiar with it, and when I read my own source code I can follow the logic. Early Basics that I learned were interpreted and generally slow. Fast processors and compilation changed that. The utilities I wrote under OmniBasic handle a variety of daily tasks such as appointments, finances, and backups. They are easy to convert using a word processor’s “replace” function. As for using the console, word and number output is just as readable in a console as in a graphical presentation, and a lot simpler to write.
ionmich wrote:
> The most compelling reason to use Basic is that I am familiar with it,
> …]
Thanks for the answer, I expected something like this and I think your
points are really valid and often underestimated. I am sometimes in a
similar situation when it comes to fortran. I started programming in fortran
77 when I was a student (switched later to fortran 90 which is as different
to 77 as the modern basic dialects are different from the oldest ones) and
still feel familiar when I see the old source code (it is so straight
forward).
Since 1995 all the work in my job is with c++ and java (java the main
language since 2004) and some scripting languages, but just out of personal
interest I started programming in fortran 95 three years ago (in my case as
a hobby).
Wish you much fun and success, enjoy your favorite language.
FFI: Special files for installing the 32 bit compiler in 64 bit openSUSE 11.1 and 11.2 have today been updated on my website at location: FreeBASIC Compiler for openSUSE 32 and 64 bit
The last two days I have been trying to download the FreeBasic reference in compressed html help file format (.chm) as linked in your page. It errors out. I think the link server is down. I followed several links from Google, only to end up at the same site. Is there some other way to get this file, or the text version?
Worked for me just now. If it’s still not working for you, I’lls et up a temporary link for you, let me know OK?
Fortran is still a very viable language in science. It is extremely fast, optimized for use of arrays, and the legacy factor is not to be underestimated. Virtually all programs in climate and fluid dynamics are written in fortran 77/90/95/2003. Meaning that it is much easier to go with the masses than to be the solitair C programmer in that field.
Plus, if you know Fortran, you will have no problems with standard scientific tools like IDL, Matlab/Octave etc.
Real programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language. rotfl!
gogalthorp wrote:
>
> Real programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language. rotfl!
>
even in LISP if necessary (which I like also)
It was a temporary problem because it downloaded just now. Thanks for the offer.