I no longer use QB. I just installed WinXP over WinME over the weekend. I had saved the most recent FBIDE+FB installer package and figured that I can use FB to code QB programs just as easily (Plus, I wasn't sure if DosBox would be needed to run QB 7.1. I decided to keep my PC as clutter-free as possible this time). There aren't that many differences between the keywords that are present in both FB and QB, so why have both? :???:
Anyway, I don't code using the BASIC syntax very often anymore, but when I do, I use FB.
As for the compiler issue, who cares what compiler is used? Me. Whichever one takes the least time is the best IMHO. This is why I like C++ rather than PEEKing/POKEing at memory addresses. C++ is faster usually (yes, I know there are some exceptions).
I don't want to prolong this discussion. I do not doubt that there has been comercial systems made in qb moneo. What i meant was that i haven't seen anything of comercial quality from anyone in the qb community the last 6-7 years i've been here. Wether it's in qb, fb, c, c++ or anything else. My point being that no one gives a crap what language and compiler you use. Except nerds with too much time. Those who matter are the users, and they couldn't care less. I'm tired of these pointless qb vs c or qb vs fb or whatever discussion. Farking pointless. We have some of those in my univ classes, they argue with the lecturer about pointless things. Thinking that they seem smart or whatever. In reality they just look dumb. And they don't know as much as they think they do.
Quote:most modern computers are completely uncompatible with EMS no matter which OS they are running
if there is no doubt about that truth then i am really sad, this is not an irony or sarcasm, i am planning to make my own texts editor and planning to use the Plasma's tutorial to use the EMS until 64 Mbs. (
http://www.phatcode.net/articles.php?sub=memory ). i will keep the hope.
EMS only work on this computer if USB is turned off and a few other things..
In short, too much loss to get a DOS program running.
Quote:I don't want to prolong this discussion. I do not doubt that there has been comercial systems made in qb moneo. What i meant was that i haven't seen anything of comercial quality from anyone in the qb community the last 6-7 years i've been here. Wether it's in qb, fb, c, c++ or anything else. My point being that no one gives a crap what language and compiler you use. Except nerds with too much time. Those who matter are the users, and they couldn't care less. I'm tired of these pointless qb vs c or qb vs fb or whatever discussion. Farking pointless. We have some of those in my univ classes, they argue with the lecturer about pointless things. Thinking that they seem smart or whatever. In reality they just look dumb. And they don't know as much as they think they do.
I get your point, and, in general, I agree with you.
However, you say: "Those who matter are the users, and they couldn't care less". This depends. If the user is a medium or large company, they will be very interested in knowing and controlling what development language was used. If you offer a product written in QB or FB, it would be rejected immediately.
The user company either wants to have ownership of the source code, or at least an escrow agreement for custody of the code. The development language must be on the company's list of accepted languages, which, no matter how much we love QB or FB, would not be on such a list, for obvious reasons.
However, if you are a major, reputable software development company, then it's possible that you could sell an executable version of a product that you developed in QB or FB. But being this reputable company, you offer a warranty to the client company.
*****
I would say that COBOL is superior, actually, and I have a pile of punched cards to prove it.
Real coders code in binary!
real coders write love letters in binary too...LOL.
Quote:Real coders code in binary!
Good programmers compiles their code in the head before it turns the computer on. :rotfl:
Joshy