Checking some demos?

[Charles Pegge]

Yes certainly, Mike.

We are now on A41 There are still a few C-isms which need fixing.

OxygenBasic's maintenance department would like to know whether you have further plans for OxyScheme. There are a few small fixes in A40: projectsC/OxyScheme

.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

Being one of the aforementioned Oxygen users, I hasten to inform the Maintenance Dept of my willingness to resume my dev work as soon as O2 Stable is announced.

In the meantime, inspired by the recent developments at the thinBasic front, I'm totally absorbed by my own W.I.P., brand new FBSL Executable Compiler, that's going to automate the process of FBSL script compilation and enrich it with access to all sorts of Windows resources that were not so easy to integrate in an FBSL standalone executable until now.

.

[Charles Pegge]

Will it be able to compile down to binary, Mike?

[Mike Lobanovsky]

No, not in v3.5. Compile-to-native-code will be an option in v4.0 that's also going to have a BASIC jitter in place of current BASIC interpreter. Yet I'm planning to keep the BASIC jitter Variant-based and fully backward compatible with v3.5, Inshallah.

The compiler depicted above is written entirely in FBSL BASIC except for a dozen lines written in DynC to parse an RCDATA resource that's to be shown in the respective tab's hex viewer. Interpretative parsing is annoyingly slow when the resource size is larger than some 100KB. But FBSL BASIC's GUI per se is rock solid.

The app GUI is a friendly cartoon of linuxoid Code::Blocks that we've been using to compile the FBSL sources in for over a dozen years. The alternative (rejected) options for the app name were Goldie::Locks and Code::Sucks.

.

[Charles Pegge]

And are you planning for 64bit JIT 

Coming back to OxyScheme. I am trying to establish whether Lisp, Scheme, and the various concatenation languages are doomed to confinement in academia, and whether they are worth pursuing as practical high level languages.

I can see the benefits of using them as infrastructure.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

I guess v4.0 is going to be my swan song. I'd very much like to see it 32- and 64-bit capable under Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX -- six times Inshallah, respectively.

I'd be also eager to see a functional language (Scheme is currently my closest) that's as efficient, GUI-wise, as any other compatible PL product. I guess that's not so hard to do but IMHO it would require some skilled practitioner involvement rather than sporadic attempts to develop its/their functionality and interface only inasmuch as required for this or that immediate academic task.

It is really painful for me to look at Rob's quest for a working toolchain to at least minimally suit his needs. And I think he isn't the only one of the kind.

[Charles Pegge]

I think it would be easier to incorporate functionalism into Basic than to provide full GUI to these languages.

Basic has the most complex syntax, yet is amongst the most user-friendly of programming languages.

[JRS]

I think the TinyScheme extension module for Script BASIC offers the best of both worlds. One could create a library of Scheme functions and call them from BASIC.

[Charles Pegge]

I would like to see a practical task that is better expressed in Scheme/Lisp, than in Basic. I am taking a sceptical stance

[JRS]

+1

Scheme's pitch for illegitimacy

FWIW - Racket (PLT Scheme) weighs in at 3.5 MB. About the same as Python and PHP. (SB < 700KB)