TwinBasic

[Eduardo-]

My concern about new features is that...
OK, this assumes that RadBasic will succeed. I think Carles is making progress, but I don't have much information about that now.

So, at the moment we have something that is already working, and well (twinBASIC) and something that we don't know (RadBasic).
So, we can't "ask" for nothing on that basis now.

But assuming that RadBasic will succeed, I would like for the VB6 successors to form something like a "consortium", where they could agree on the language.
Of course I don't mean the I want identical products, but I mean as compatible as possible.
For example, if both languages will add tuples, do it with the same syntax.

twinBasic already added lots of new features and syntax, and some of us have been helping on that process (OK, personally I very little). We discuss things trying to find the best way to do something.
I think, "and what would Carles do?". I don't know, but I think that the best syntax for tW will also be the best for RB.

Carles already stated that his route is (like the ideas of yereverluvinuncleber) first to achieve full replacement of VB6 and only after that to introduce improvements and add new features.
But of course he will have to do that at some point (to add new things and syntax), so my concern is that both languages should be as compatible as possible and more important: the language itself should use same syntax.
That is my wish, of course, it is my opinion.

OK, it is still too early.
We'll have to wait until RB is available to the open, and if Carles sticks to the idea of not adding new features until the full replacement is achieved, until then.
But I wanted to express my concern, and my wishes (in advance, for that moment).

[Niya]

My concern about new features is that...
OK, this assumes that RadBasic will succeed. I think Carles is making progress, but I don't have much information about that now.

So, at the moment we have something that is already working, and well (twinBASIC) and something that we don't know (RadBasic).
So, we can't "ask" for nothing on that basis now.

But assuming that RadBasic will succeed, I would like for the VB6 successors to form something like a "consortium", where they could agree on the language.
Of course I don't mean the I want identical products, but I mean as compatible as possible.
For example, if both languages will add tuples, do it with the same syntax.

twinBasic already added lots of new features and syntax, and some of us have been helping on that process (OK, personally I very little). We discuss things trying to find the best way to do something.
I think, "and what would Carles do?". I don't know, but I think that the best syntax for tW will also be the best for RB.

Carles already stated that his route is (like the ideas of yereverluvinuncleber) first to achieve full replacement of VB6 and only after that to introduce improvements and add new features.
But of course he will have to do that at some point (to add new things and syntax), so my concern is that both languages should be as compatible as possible and more important: the language itself should use same syntax.
That is my wish, of course, it is my opinion.

OK, it is still too early.
We'll have to wait until RB is available to the open, and if Carles sticks to the idea of not adding new features until the full replacement is achieved, until then.
But I wanted to express my concern, and my wishes (in advance, for that moment).

Well the number #1 goal above all else is VB6 compatibility. I think this could be achieved while giving most people what they want.

[Eduardo-]

Well the number #1 goal above all else is VB6 compatibility.

Yes.

I think this could be achieved while giving most people what they want.

I have no idea what that means in the context. I was talking about agreeing on the same syntax for new language additions and improvements.

[Niya]

I have no idea what that means in the context. I was talking about agreeing on the same syntax for new language additions and improvements.

What I mean is they can give people modern features while still achieving the goal of VB6 compatibility. All I'm saying is that these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

For example, if I were to use TwinBASIC on a full time basis, I'd want to have higher order functions. It would be one of my biggest wants. I doubt that this would conflict with the ultimate goal of VB6 compatibility. Some people want Tuples and I've seen a whole lot of very interesting suggestions on their GitHub discussions and to my mind, I think most of them can be implemented without impacting the main mission of VB6 compatibility.

[Eduardo-]

What I mean is they can give people modern features while still achieving the goal of VB6 compatibility. All I'm saying is that these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

For example, if I were to use TwinBASIC on a full time basis, I'd want to have higher order functions. It would be one of my biggest wants. I doubt that this would conflict with the ultimate goal of VB6 compatibility. Some people want Tuples and I've seen a whole lot of very interesting suggestions on their GitHub discussions and to my mind, I think most of them can be implemented without impacting the main mission of VB6 compatibility.

VB6 backward compatibility and full replacement (of VB6 main core, I mean the IDE, compiler) is out of the question. Both have been totally clear about the point.

To enhance it, is also well explicitly set on both cases.
The difference is the path, while RB plan is to achieve the full replacement first, tB path is to add new features in the way, and from the beginning.

I say this based on what I read on their websites.

[Niya]

VB6 backward compatibility and full replacement (of VB6 main core, I mean the IDE, compiler) is out of the question. Both have been totally clear about the point.

To enhance it, is also well explicitly set on both cases.
The difference is the path, while RB plan is to achieve the full replacement first, tB path is to add new features in the way, and from the beginning.

I say this based on what I read on their websites.

Ah ok I see what you're getting at. I'm not sure I have much of a strong opinion on differences between tB and RB. I'd have to see what RB is doing to really form a solid opinion.