string and numeric variable questions

[jgr]

Nobody has caught on to what I said yet about FORMAT$

If you use FORMAT$(num) then you don't need to use LTRIM$ since there is no leading space. Why make two function calls when you can make one. Especially when QB is so slooooow about function calls.

Tried it but get subscript out of range error

[1000101]

hrm, maybe QB doesn't have Format$?

Yup, just checked, wasn't introduced until PDS (QB7).

Sorry about that, but then, who still uses QB45 when the VBDOS compiler is a better one? ;P

[Moneo]

I miss the direct files...this random stuff sucks

I totally agree.
*****

[Moneo]

hrm, maybe QB doesn't have Format$?
Yup, just checked, wasn't introduced until PDS (QB7).
Sorry about that, but then, who still uses QB45 when the VBDOS compiler is a better one? ;P

I don't consider PDS(QB7) as part of the QB or QuickBASIC family. It has entirely too many different features. Including PDS feature in a conversation is like mentioning C++ or C# features in a C programming discussion.
*****

[TheBigBasicQ]

Hey! QB7.1 was just an improvement over the previous versions of QB and they did add a lot of new features. So dont say that its not a part of QB family =P.

[na_th_an]

It is not. The last QB version was QB 4.5

What you call (wrongly) "QB 7.1" is MS Basic Professional Development System 7.1 which included the Basic Compiler 7, following the BASCOM product line. It is a different product line.

[TheBigBasicQ]

Whatever. All I know that I can make my QB programs using it and compile it into an .exe =P. So for me it belongs to the QB family :wink:

[Moneo]

Sorry, BIgBasicQ, but that's my opinion. My QuickBASIC came with 3 half-inch thick manuals and a few disketttes. When PDS came out, a software distributor here lent me the complete set of PDS which came in a very huge box full of manuals and I can't remember how many diskettes. I installed this behemoth language and tested it for about a week. Needless to say I didn't like it, so I returned the whole lot to the distributor and deleted it from my harddisk.

I didn't like PDS because:
* It's not portable. I can carry QuickBASIC 4.5 with the BC, linker, a library, etc. on a diskette, wherever I need to go.
* It made changes, not just enhancements to the Basic language.
* The much raved about ISAM, stinks. I used the real Indexed Sequential Access Method on IBM mainframes, so I know how it's supposed to work.
* I especially didn't like the IDE environment or whatever it was called. I don't need all that stuff which makes me feel like I'm in a prison --- reminds me of XTree which wants you to live inside their environment and do only those things which it envisions for you. I'm perfectly happy working from the command line where I have all the utilities I need, and if I don't, I write them.
* The bottom line: PDS does not enhance my programming capabilites at all.

But then again, that's my opinion --- you're entitled to yours.
*****

[1000101]

I don't consider PDS(QB7) as part of the QB or QuickBASIC family. It has entirely too many different features. Including PDS feature in a conversation is like mentioning C++ or C# features in a C programming discussion.
*****

Whether you 'consider' it to be or not, it is.

Also, comparing PDS and QB to C++ and C is stupid.

It's more like comparing MSC 4.0 to MSC 6.0, yes, there are lots of improvements and chages, but aside from a couple things the programmer has to worry about, they are mostly internal.

[TheBigBasicQ]

Thats exactly what I've been trying to tell everyone. BASIC is a language while 4.5 and PDS(7.1) provide different compilers/libraries. So they are different versions of the *same* software.

BTW nath i dunno why you keep saying QB 7.1 is not a part of the Qbasic line of products but this is what I see at the bottom of the IDE:

Microsoft ® QuickBASIC Extended v7.1 © Copyright Microsoft Corp, 1982-1990

Microsoft ® QuickBASIC 4.50 © Copyright Microsoft Corporation, 1985-1988