Qbasicnews.com

I use QB religiously. Too bad I'm an athiest.

Quote:An interpreter gives you the fastest program development time, no doubt about it.

Or, you can use an IDE with code-completion, some form of "intellisense" and integrated debugger.

Quote:torstum:

Using the 4.5 version, which Microsoft called "the compiler", every time you press Enter, the line you were on is compiled. When you give your program, or any part of it, a trial run by pressing, say F5 or Shift+F5, is done lightning fast. Me, I do a lot of testing, as I program (admittedly, I'm just an amateur at it), so, I would have to say that, for me, QuickBASIC 4.5, "the compiler" is much faster than QuickBASIC 1.1, "the interpreter". Comments?

You're right. I would probably use the 4.5 version if I had purchased it at the time. As it stands right now, I have doubts about the legality of downloading it. MS still hasn't officially released it, have they?

But for scientific applications, QBasic 1.1 is more than adequate for all needs (which is probably something that may surprise a lot of people). In fact, I can do in days what most FORTRAN (still the official language for physicists) programmers would take months to accomplish. There's nothing easier than going to the source, changing a function, and seeing the new results appear.

Quote:I use QB religiously. Too bad I'm an athiest.

torstum Wrote:An interpreter gives you the fastest program development time, no doubt about it.

Or, you can use an IDE with code-completion, some form of "intellisense" and integrated debugger.

That would also work. As long as I don't have to keep compiling, linking and deleting old compilations from the command-line, I'm satisfied. Still, if an interpreter compiles and stores the "pseudo-executable" on the RAM, and not on the disk, it should be a more elegant process. But the QuickBasic compiler version probably does the same, so there's no difference there.

Quote:That would also work. As long as I don't have to keep compiling, linking and deleting old compilations from the command-line, I'm satisfied.

Most of the time, a good IDE can eliminate the need for command-line work entirely (any post-2003 Visual Studio, KDevelop, etc.). Stubborn use of makefiles can also automate virtually all of the building process, whatever your environment is (you don't have to look far for editors with custom tools support).

I will say that Python is very easy to get accustomed to, but I don't know it well enough to say whether my productivity is inherently decreased in langs like C++ or FB.

You don't happen to know of a freeware multi-language IDE for Dos, do you? OpenWatcom's IDE is Windows only.

Try searching in Google for "IDE for DOS".

8) Already did that. No relevant hits. It's multi-language, not to say Watcom FORTRAN / DOS specific.

Setedit is an awesome IDE highly custimizable and has Linux, Windows and MSDOS versions.

Hey thanks Nathan, I'd been looking for it for some time now. Looks impressive.

Quote:Qbasic is so fun and simple! It's the best language in the--ERROR! Out of string space.

so true!! holy crap i hated that one. that usually meant your .bas file was toast, on top of the os bulescreen/crash for me anyways.

I still haven't gotten one BSOD with FB yet. not once.