"winston19842005" <bjjlyates@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "winston19842005" <bjjlyates@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "David Williams" <david.williams@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -> I want to program in 1980;s basic, where can I get an apt
compiler. It
>>>> -> is my first langauge, I still love it, and want to use it even if
it
>>>> -> obsolete. Where can I get a freeware copy or any other.
>>>>
>>>> Why not use QBasic? Sure, it has additional capabilities which you
may
>>>> get to like, but it *can* be used just like a 1980-style BASIC, with
>>>> line numbers, GOSUBs, GOTOs, etc., etc..
>>>
>>> And you need never go into the IDE to use it.
>>> What was the command line to run?
>>> qbasic /r file.bas or qbasic /run file.bas?
>>
>> As long as you remember to terminate your program with SYSTEM,
>> otherwise you'll wind up in the IDE when the program completes.
>
> Definitely. And it can be disconcerting to use someone's program, that
you
> don't realize is running in Qbasic, only to have a logic error throw you
> into the middle of the IDE...
Another problem is that I never figured a good way to pass command
line arguments to the QBASIC program when executed this way. Also,
a program error abort dumps you into the IDE.
But I like QBASIC. Even though I have QuickBASIC 4.5 installed, as well
as a number of far more powerful compilers for several languages, I still
often find myself running QBASIC for little 'quickie' programs. One of
the things I love about the QBASIC/QuickBASIC interpreters is that I can
load the interpreter, write a small program, run it and have the results,
before I could even get started writing a program using one of the more
sophisticated compilers I have, like Visual Studio.
The 32bit PowerBASIC compilers are comparably quick for such things, but
I never liked the PowerBASIC for DOS IDE, though the compiler is great.
For a one time quickie, I'll probably use QBASIC or QuickBASIC, but for
a similar program I plan to keep, I'll use one of the 32 bit PowerBASIC
compilers, because they are extremely powerful, sup****t long names,
interface easily with Windows API functions, and generate tight, fast
32bit code.
Over the last several months I've written a number of useful utility
programs that I want to add to my website for downloading when I get the
time. One that I use all the time is named CloneDir and it clones drives
or folders to other drives or folders. I used to use LapLink for that,
but LapLink crashes when cloning large or complex folders. The bug has
been there since DOS days, and LapLink won't acknowledge it. Grrr! I
hope CloneDir puts a dent in their sales. :-) There are also several
calendar programs that print year-per-page or month-per-page calendars
with user defined dates like anniversaries and birthdays, similar to
those from tools like Calendar Creator, though mine have far less bells
and whistles, and are much simpler to use. Don't want to hurt their
sales, I just hate to install a huge app that I only use once a year to
print family calendars. :-)
But I haven't written substantial applications using such tools since
the 1980's. That's where the more sophisticated tools ****ne, because
they offer powerful user interface facilities lacking in the more simple
and straightforward compilers. For example, it's hard to beat Visual
Studio for ease of creating, using and modifying Windows forms. You can
choose from a number of powerful languages from several vendors, and the
Express Edition of VS 2008 can be downloaded free. You can even download
a free .NET version of Micro Focus COBOL that works with Visual Studio.
--
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."
|
