Yeah, well aware and interested in QB64. However, if the focus is on teaching children, I find QBASIC 1.1 somewhat more suitable: it provides less options, menus and other potential footguns that may scare the child away at first.
Also, most importantly, QB64 is a compiled language, whereas QBASIC is an interpreted one. I noticed that QB64 does have an additional interpreter available on the site, but it didn't feel quite as comfortable to use as the QBASIC IDE. I assume children would prefer instant results -- in this regard, waiting for an .exe generation is maybe somewhat a hindrance as compared to pressing F5 or shift+F5 in the old QBv1.1 IDE.
My plan is to first learn QB1.1 via DOSBox and maybe later, if our son shows interest, introduce him to QB64, which is definitely a more serious tool (or LowResNX which is an excellent find for sure; looks like it is somewhere in between QB1.1 and QB64 or the old QB4.5 in terms of complexity and possibilities). Also, a definite pat on the QB64 devs' shoulders for keeping that old QBASIC look! Ha.
Also, most importantly, QB64 is a compiled language, whereas QBASIC is an interpreted one. I noticed that QB64 does have an additional interpreter available on the site, but it didn't feel quite as comfortable to use as the QBASIC IDE. I assume children would prefer instant results -- in this regard, waiting for an .exe generation is maybe somewhat a hindrance as compared to pressing F5 or shift+F5 in the old QBv1.1 IDE.
My plan is to first learn QB1.1 via DOSBox and maybe later, if our son shows interest, introduce him to QB64, which is definitely a more serious tool (or LowResNX which is an excellent find for sure; looks like it is somewhere in between QB1.1 and QB64 or the old QB4.5 in terms of complexity and possibilities). Also, a definite pat on the QB64 devs' shoulders for keeping that old QBASIC look! Ha.