QuickBASIC vs. QBasic

[Moneo]

I've been using QuickBASIC 4.5 for years. I never used QBasic at all.

I recently saw an article that said that the difference between QuickBASIC and QBasic is as that QuickBASIC has a compiler, and that QBasic can only run interpreted.

Is that true? Most of the people on the forum say they have QBasic. Does that mean that they can't compile their programs?

*****

[Peter]

For the most part people use Qbasic and QuickBasic interchangeably. It's not correct, but it's still done

[Dio]

[noob]what the hell is the difference? i always thought they were the same thing[/noob]

[torstum]

I've been using QuickBASIC 4.5 for years. I never used QBasic at all.

I recently saw an article that said that the difference between QuickBASIC and QBasic is as that QuickBASIC has a compiler, and that QBasic can only run interpreted.

Is that true? Most of the people on the forum say they have QBasic. Does that mean that they can't compile their programs?

*****

Correct. QBasic does not produce executables. QuickBasic does. But many people may have both versions.

[na_th_an]

I had this explained in my website (but it is offline until things calm down - blame microsoft).

Basicly, MS started in compilers in 1982 with BASCOM, which went up to version 5.something, then started the QuickBASIC line ,which added an IDE (hence the "quick" - you could develop "quickly"). The QB line reached version 4.5 in 1987.

Meanwhile, MS was shipping GW-BASIC, an interpreted which used the same syntax and limitations of BASCOM (i.e. line numbers, no SUBs or FUNCTIONs, no true procedural structures...) with MSDOS to aid with batch scripting. In 1990, GW-BASIC was way too outdated, so they took QB 4.5, fixed a couple of things (creating the runtime module v. 5.0), took out the compiler and made a couple of changes more, so QBasic 1.0 was born.

Esentially, QBasic 1.0 y like QB 5.0 but without compiler, to put it right.

In 1989, MS took the BASCOM product line where it was interrupted and released the MS BASIC Compiler 6.0, which was shipped inside PDS 6. In 1990, MS BASIC Compiler 7.0 was released, then 7.1. That's why I always say that PDS is not QB.

This product line ended as well when MS released "MS Visual BASIC for DOS" and "MS Visual BASIC for Windows" in 1992 to 1.- Provide an easy step from DOS to Windows and 2.- Promote the recently released MS Windows 3.0.

[Ralph]

Na_th_an:
The QB line reached version 4.5 in 1987.

I'm a little bit confused. I have a circular letter from Microsoft,undated, that, in part, says:
"And, if you acquired or updated to any version of Micosoft QuickBASIC on or after October 1, 1988, all you need to send is $2.50 shipping and handling per unit. The update is FREE!"

I sent $2.50 for my copy of version 4.5 on October 30, 1988, right after receiven this offer. All the files that I received on the three 5 1/4" floppies are dated from July 07 to September 28, 1988, except for a DEMO1.BAS and DEMO2.BAS, dated September 29 and 16, 1987 and FIXSHIFT.COM, dated October 6, 1987. Howver, these last three files are not really QuickBASIC files.

So, I would say that QuickBASIC version 4.5 came out around late September or October of 1988.

Any better proofs of actual date version 4.5 came out?

As to the rest of Na_th_an's narrative, I am thankful that he takes the time to instruct us on so many things.

[Moneo]

Na_th_an,

Thanks for the very informative history of QuickBASIC and QBasic.


Ralph,

All the principal files for the QuickBASIC 4.5 that I have are dated September 28, 1988, so I assume we both have the exact same version.

*****

[Ralph]

Moneo:

Yes, I have 11 dated 9-28-88, they are .exe, .lib, .qbl and .hlp files. I assume those are the ones you called "principal" files, which would put the date for version 4.5 as "late September of 1988" as the earliest possible for publication. Let's say "late September or October of 1988".

[Moneo]

Ok, Ralph, I think we're in agreement on the dates for QuickBASIC 4.5.
*****

[Ralph]

By the way, Moneo, how did you get the awesome title of Na_th_an? I would think that there can only be one na_th_an!