|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
| Qbasic |
|
Ahhhh Penis
Member #564
August 2000
 |
I know that this is leading off the topic, but about qb, despite its lack of power, its still fun to play around with, and suprisingly popular on the 'net. Check out www.qb45.com (although last time I tried that one it was down), www.tekscode.com, www.qbasic.com... there are many other sites devoted pureley to qb. People like to take it and build good (though nowhere near as good as allegro) libries in asm, like DQB and Future, wich is still being updated today. I'm not saying that it is even near as good as allegro, or that I really even like it anymore, this message is more of just a point of interest. |
|
wolfman8k
Member #508
July 2000
 |
I used to program in qb a lot. But now I just use allegro and opengl(c/c++)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
wolfman8k
Member #508
July 2000
|
I used to program in qb a lot. But now I just use allegro and opengl(c/c++)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Marty Dill
Member #277
April 2000
 |
Yeah, I used to use QB. The main problem with it is speed. I mean, you have all these libraries written entirely in ASM, and they still can't match the speed of Allegro, which, last time I checked, was written in 90% C. |
|
james shipman
Member #552
July 2000
 |
qbasic by today standerds is really weak you can't do crap with it but it's a great starting launguage , i started in it. |
|
Justin_W
Member #655
September 2000
 |
I agree, QBasic is wonderful. Not for anyone serious about programming, but I would NEVER have gotten in to programming in the first place if it hadn't been included with MS DOS. Despite teaching "bad habits", I think it has done more for the programming community as a whole than anyone really realizes. |
|
orz
Member #565
August 2000
|
qb advantages: |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
 |
Whoa... I forgot that you don't have to declare variables. That would be so weird programming in QB again, I haven't done it in ages... okay... months... just recently I get really into C (as opposed to fairly into it) and I've been learning a lot of stuff... what was better about QB than most other primitive BASIC compilers is the fact that you don't have line numbers and such. I tried programming on a Commodore VIC-20 and it was really hard...then it broke...oops...I think the fuse blew out in it... oh well, I doubt anyone will miss it...I'm going off topic. As I was saying, though, how can anyone stand having 10, 20, 30, etc. to refer to every line of code? You'd have to not only type it on the computer, but write it on a piece of paper or something so you can go back and edit it later... or even write the whole program on paper first, then type it up. QBasic was definately better with not having to do that, but C is waaaay better... more functionality. ...I opened a QB file recently and it looked so dull, not having any of the colors that Rhide has __________________________________________________ |
|
Murray Bozinsky
Member #454
June 2000
|
qbasic was great to learn programming, but now it is dead. one reason is that it is for dos and also dos is dead because it runs in realmode. however i was coding in qb for a long time (mostly using dqb by angelo mottola), but now i use allegro with visual c++ and it is much better and really fast because i have hardware accelaration there. |
|
HappyDude
Member #547
July 2000
|
For some odd reason I learnt qb after I learnt c/c++. After playing with it for a week or two, I stopped using it, because it was crap compared to c/c++, but there were some things about it that I wish were in c/c++, like the goto command. You'd think that by now, it would actually be a dead language, but the reality of it is, qb is what most highschools that have computer courses teach at first. And it's probably much smarter to be starting with qb rather than C or C++... when I first started programming, I spent days trying to figure out what the hell a function was |
|
Goku
Member #686
September 2000
 |
Umm... C/C++ does have the goto statement. I'm not really sure if it's the same basic thing in C/C++ (pardon the pun). It's usually considered bad programming to use it (though I can think of a few cases where it would help(such as when you have multiply nested for statements (or while statements (or do statements (or even a pile of ifs; goto afterbrackets;))))) |
|
HappyDude
Member #547
July 2000
|
I believe the goto statement in C/C++ simply moves the dos cursor to a certain location on the screen. And it is also not a standard function, and only supported by borland compilers and perhaps a few others. |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
|
No, that would be the gotoxy(); function. __________________________________________________ |
|
orz
Member #565
August 2000
|
The goto statement in C is basically the same as the one in BASIC, it's just that everyone has been brainwashed to ignore it. (FNORD) |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
|
Quote: FNORD? Is the 3D Realms not the only place that's used? __________________________________________________ |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
 |
C was originally devised as a processor independant way to write near-assembly, so goto exists to the end of having something to compile to 'jr' or 'bra' or whatever your CPU likes, but is usually sidelined because C has grown to be a proper, faintly structured language. However to add my thoughts to the relevant thread, QBasic is entirely rubbish, and shares this feature with all proprietary and/or interpretted languages. Especially those with a lack of pointers. Pointers are the single most useful programming related thing on earth. It hasn't even been bundled with the OS from Win 98 onwards (unless they hid it really well), which makes programs written in it unusable on modern computers, so it is about as relevant as 68000 assembly. But slower. BASIC (albeit not QBasic - although I used that for about a week once) was my first language, followed by C then Pascal, Scheme, Ada and back for C++. This just makes me realise how dreadful it is! Actually, just for the record I dislike Ada more although thats just because it is so damned pedantic and you can't just throw some casts in to make the compiler aware that actually you do know what you are doing. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
orz
Member #565
August 2000
|
I believe that the term FNORD orignated in the book "Illuminatus!", although I've also seen it used extensively in later editions of the "Principia Discordia" (another book) and in Steve Jacksons popular games based upon "Illuminatus!". "Illuminatus!" described the FNORDs as "If you can't see them then they can't eat you.". |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
quote:QBasic is entirely rubbish |
|
|
.
.