Re: BASIC & strings [Was: Why use Basic at all? (was Re: BASIC with built-in matrix functions?)]

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I still use GWBASIC (on Win XP Pro :) for playing around with data
> that need to be "shuffled".  If the job is a bit more complex I use
> QB4.5.  (And, if I can ever find my old PDS7.1 floppies, and if they
> still work, I'll try to install that instead of using 4.5 ...

Why in the world would you want to write anything in GWBASIC? I've used
BASIC heavily since 1975, have written several million lines 
of BASIC, in numerous dialects (including GWBASIC), and can't imagine why
you would want to. Line numbers were simply a mechanism 
for maintaining source code in old, outdated line oriented text editors,
from the days of timesharing and teletypes. Screen editors 
and labels are superior to line editors and line numbers in every respect!
Unless you need to run or maintain a system written in 
GWBASIC that would be too much trouble to convert, or perhaps convert a
tokenized GWBASIC program to ASCII for use with a later 
BASIC, GWBASIC is worthless and pointless. Use QBASIC instead. The syntax
is identical to QB 4.5, which you say you use, and it is 
far and away more powerful than GWBASIC. If you don't have QBASIC already,
you can download it free from Microsoft. Do a search for 
OLDDOS.EXE, which self extracts into several old MS-DOS files, including
QBASIC.EXE and QBASIC.HLP. QBASIC will create QBASIC.INI 
the first time you use it. And QBASIC runs happily under WinXP. But if you
have QB 4.5 already, why don't you simply use the QB IDE 
instead?
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."