Qbasicnews.com

Someone please link me to the download of the latest version...I think its 4.5??

Im having a helluva job tryin to find it...... :???:

Thanks

qb4.5 was made in 1988
qb7.1 was made in 1990
vbdos is the latest and greatest, but it's still 10 years old.

you can find all here: http://qbutil.hypermart.net/compiler.html

when you choose a compiler, keep in mind, that qb4.5 is the most popular due to the plethora of libraries out for it, qb7.1 is the second most popular (barring qb1.1) and the best one with the "classic" ide, and vbdos is the best, but there arent many libraries or utilities out for it. all of 'em are slow, but easy so pick the one that you like best.

Thanks for that......just as a matter of interest we are taught by our tutor here to dimension all our variables at the start of the program here to create structure in it rather than using synbols at the end of the variables.
I notice this isnt very commonplace in code found on the net.
Is this method commonplace nowdays? Its supposesedly a good habit to get into if one goes on to program in other languages such as C, Java etc etc.
Thanks again
Kiwibloke

I like those suffixes... without them my code looks... empty

in c, yeah, that's a totally different story, and i'd declare your stuff if you consider qb to be a stepping stone to a more rigid language if you just program in qb for fun (or in all seriousness for some reason) then it's kind of annoying to sit there and type "dim this as that" over and over if you dont have to.

I use LISP for my current cosi class in college and I don't use arrays for x, y.. I use size.x, size.y instead of size(2)...

I did use size(2) on another program. Sometimes it's easier and more bug-free to do it one way. Sometimes the other way...

About declaring vars: yeah, I declare most of my vars as globals in QB..

I don't declare those in a FOR loop..
Forced declaring of vars is a stupid aspect of C/C++/Java IMHO. There is no technical limitation, so don't give me any "it wasn't defined" crap, like some of my stupid professors. Sure it was. As soon as I mentioned it.. it became 0. D'oh. Stupid excuses for lazy compilers.

i am getting into a rant here, aren't I? Well... my philosophy is that an easy-to-make compiler shouldn't be the objective of a programming language. The objective should be ease for the programmer. doh

This is why C has { and }, ; for ALL of its loops and functions. It's easier to parse. Ironically C does have ++, --, and various other ones... that IS easy for both the compiler AND the programmer..

It is not easier for the programmer to use }, {, and ;. It might be faster than typing END IF in the short run. In the long run it makes for hours and hours of debugging code.

Of course I'm not saying QB doesn't have limitations. It does. There is no bitstring or unsigned int. It uses DOS machine code and supports only old graphic modes. (without LIBS) There are limitations, but not in the syntax.

Ranting, eh?

Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

Read and laugh. Ranting about compilers is ageless.

I am perhaps 80% a real programmer.

I most definetly agree to the discarding of this notion of "structured programming" and "lists, queues," and cr*p.

And I definetly do this often:
"If there is not enough schedule pressure on the Real Programmer, he tends to make things more challenging by working on some small but interesting part of the problem for the first nine weeks, then finishing the rest in the last week, in two or three 50-hour marathons. This not only impresses the hell out of his manager, who was despairing of ever getting the project done on time, but creates a convenient excuse for not doing the documentation."