Limitations? what limitations?

[prof_flex]

In QB there arent limitations are there?

memery- get the EMS lib

Size - just make the main exe open up seperate bas files
anything else?

[na_th_an]

There is an important limitation: All your executable code must be in conventional memory, which lets you very little mem to play with (I haven't seen QB EXEs bigger than 280Kb). In a 32 bits environment you can have as many code as you like (up to 4 gigs).

[Glenn]

Of course not. Who would ever think it has limitations? Everything else on the planet has limitations, but not QB. Oh no. It, of all things, is limitless.

[wizardlife]

Hmm... the ant does not believe in the tree because he cannot see it.

Ever heard of pointers? Dynamic memory? Protected mode? Complex data structures? Classes? Objects?

[toonski84]

most of those arent necessarily limitations, but things like setting interrupt vectors, and accessing protected memory or relying on bios and not dos, or performing 32-bit operations are.

[wizardlife]

most of those arent necessarily limitations, but things like setting interrupt vectors, and accessing protected memory or relying on bios and not dos, or performing 32-bit operations are.

Um, I consider not having proper data structures or pointers a severe limitation.

Also, no inline ASM -- although that's more of a compiler/IDE thing.

[Agamemnus]

no macro support!
I want my code to run through a macro executable before I run QB. That way, we can have our "CONTINUE" functions!!

EDIT: And that way, wizardlife, you can add in your pointer support too. (By using pointer arrays)

[toonski84]

well, you underestimate qb (but not by much). What you define as complex data structures? in 4.5 on you can use type structures within type structures, and in 7.1 you can include arrays within them. But pointers arent necessary, they're just helpful. I'm not sure what you meant by dynamic memory, but with '$dynamic you can reallocate and switch around memory. and again, the classes and object things are suited for an object-oriented language like c++, but it isnt necessary for a capable language. (hence, why c is still a popular language). some people consider object oriented programming a drawback.

qb's biggest limitation: "ITS AN OLD SLOW M'FN REAL MODE COMPILER"

not to say i dont still love programming on it

[Agamemnus]

when I think of C++/Java, I think:

would I rather program in C++/Java using a black and white emacs with font 5 resolution and indecipherable key controls on a UNIX//K-something system that is barely alive because 90% of its power is being used from outside, using a sticky brown keyboard in a stale university computer lab, that has no graphics? And then compile by using a bunch of ~, #, @, %, /, -, _, etc. with changing instructions on how to use the so-called compiler every day, and trying to figure out typos in the command-line instructinos?

or

Use the brilliantly-conceived DOS keyboard where I can do a lot of things very quickly and I understand everything and where everything is in big honkin' white ASCII characters surrounded by a sexy blue background? And with UGL and Win98, it's gr348T!

(okok so I have Dev C++, but I prefer QB. I don't feel like ranting ATM, though...)

Blah. MACROS.

[pr0gger]

Hm, you know, it would be interesting if someone rewrote the QB compiler, with all the stuff that's currently in libraries built in..

maybe even an ASM thingie, so you could write ASM directly, such as...

Code:

ASM
mov ax, 1
int 33
END ASM