I am a code hobbyist, I have learned from self-help books and websites like this one.
It seems to me that Basic is a much greater and more flexible tool and it paves the way to learn Visual Basic. It doesn’t take much more knowledge to use then a batch file or dos and is more versatile then C for a one person programming operation.There are even Compilers that convert Basic language into Unix executables My advice to anyone using a batch file to write programs would be to forget it and learn Basic.
Does anyone have a reason that this isn’t a good idea?
My humble and neglected web page http://hometown.aol.com/basicdoshlp/

Because BASIC runs in a 16 bit DOS environment. Windows is 32 bit and there is no DOS in Windows 2000/XP.

BASIC only has a very vague similarity with Visual Basic which runs in a Windows environment which is a totally different thing altogether.

As for being more versatile than C - you have to be joking.

Stuart

Hi Stuart
Lol.. I knew the C comment would get to someone.
I don’t know about windows 2000. But my old basic programs do work on windows millennium.
"As far as I know" Windows is backwards compatible and allows old basic programs to run in a black box window. I would be very angry with Bill Gates if he stopped allowing my basic programs to work on windows.
I have found that in Visual Basic, although, all of the Old Basic commands don’t work or aren’t even needed (mostly graphics commands) that the loop, if then, key, Print and file commands are almost the exact same commands. I am not a professional
All I am saying is basic is a great language to use to learn "the basics" and is very useful for an individual Pac man and those games can all be recreated using basic.
Back to "C", I was really fishing for an answer there, because in basic I have many graphics commands for color and images. But I cant find any for C I know they must exist? And that is why I said basic was more versatile
I realize C is better for running peripheral devices but that whole modular oop program argument I don’t buy because it is very easy to create separate modules and chains in Old Basic and Visual Basic is easier to use then "C".(as far as mouse and image use)
If you gave me a "C" draw, line, or get/ put command I’ll begrudgingly agree that "C" is a better language.

My Page has many quick explainations of basic commands
Feel free to contribute Or enlighten me with code examples that are not on my page
I am particularly interested in learning hardware periph

>> Windows is back-wards compatible and allows old basic programs to run in a black box window. <<

Not on Windows 2000/XP they wont.

>> I would be very angry with Bill Gates if he stopped allowing my basic programs to work on Windows. <<

Start getting angry!

BASIC is not a good language to learn on as it teaches you bad habbits that will do you no good if and when you get onto writing any serious apllication to run under Windows. Its a whole different ball game. Mainly because BASIC and DOS or single user/single task environments. Windows is a multi user/multitasking environment.

BASIC was developed in the early 1970s when technology was primative compared to what it is now. Things have moved on a bit since then. The last time I wrote any BASIC was fifteen years ago. If you want to stick with 1970s technology fine, but most of us have moved on a bit since then. BASIC and DOS are part of history.

Stuart

BasicDosHlp said
>> Windows is backwards compatible and allows
>> old basic programs to run in a black box
>> window.
Stuart said
> Not on Windows 2000/XP they wont.

That is not strictly true. Sure if you program at the system I/O or interrupt level then your DOS QBASIC programs probably won't be 100% functional in Windows XP or 2000 but if you stick to basic programming and graphics then your programs will probably work.

I have Windows XP Pro. I just got done running QuickBasic 4.5 for DOS. I loaded and ran and old DOS 6.22 program called "Gorilla.bas". With QuickBasic I can run it inside it's editor or make a standalone "exe".

I am not saying QBASIC or QUICKBASIC is for everyone. I am saying that it does work in Windows XP and is still a good language for beginners to learn. As a professional I use Visual C++ 6.0 with Windows XP and 2000.

Thats Quick Basic which is run-time compiled - slightly different thing than BASIC which is interpreted line by line at run time.

Stuart

Thanks Kenny
I was wondering about that winn 2000 compatability
as I said , I do this for fun playing with graphics and opening files in Q basic 4.5 Ive made a simple overtime pay calculator for work,and have created simple question and answer test for kids school projects with score tallies,some beeps and graphics. I have applied the QBasic programming code to controls in visual basic where I created a very useful database that I use all the time
I havent programed anything for peripherals except the monitor printer keyboard and mouse
no networking
But I did try to learn some C and C++ but it seems that C language is unessecarily cryptic and doesnt seem to have any graphics commands
Im sure a proffessional would have reasons to use C/C++ but visual basic seems the easiest to use to create pro like results. In reality the only reason I brought up the thread at all is that there are so many questions here about Batch files. I would skim over learning them and recommend spending the effort learning Qbasic
(*although I am retrolearning the batch commands from this site Just to increase my knowledge I guess thats Odd Huh?)
Good day

My Page has many quick explainations of basic commands
Feel free to contribute Or enlighten me with code examples that are not on my page
I am particularly interested in learning hardware periph

"I am a code hobbyist", "...forget it and learn Basic.", "black box window", "C...doesnt seem to have any graphics commands [sic]"...etc. etc.

Viewed from the perspective of someone who wasn't connected to the internet, had no previous knowledge of computing and only had a PC with MS Dos/Windows/(V.)Basic installed, this thread would all make sense. Well... all except the suggestion to not bother learning how to use the shell.

C doesn't have any graphics "commands" because processors don't have an innate ability to project images onto monitor screens. That's what libraries are for. Given the availability of the vast wealth of different OSs, shells, interpreters, mini-languages, languages etc. the idea that a "code hobbyist" would want to exclusively use one language and even deliberately avoid learning to use the few tools he leaves available to himself is extraordinary.

"processors don't have an innate ability to project images onto monitor screens."

Did you know that G3/G4/G5 chips have pixel writing built into the processor's instruction set? I read this somewhere, and I thought it was pretty cool. No wonder Mac's boot right into graphics and stuff.

G'day,

Stuart wrote: "As for being more versatile than C - you have to be joking. "
Most hobbyist programmers will never get to the point where BASIC and C depart. Both languages can be considered equal up to a level (ie you could write a simple program in C and BASIC without any perceivable difference). C comes into its own at a higher level.
I agree with BasicDosHlp in that BASIC makes a very good replacement for DOS batch files; I also think it makes for very good psuedo code because it has the basic logic structures required for that purpose.
I wouldn't attempt to write a new complete operating system in GWBASIC: I also wouldn't attempt to write a simple calculator programme in C.
Having said all that, I think Pascal is the real deal..........
regards,
Elric

In Hindsight!

allow me to say, I believe all aspiring progammers should first learn Assembly Language thouroughly.

I didn't, but I can see That knowledge of assembly is usefull no matter which language you continue to program in.

Reguard's

My Page has many quick explainations of basic commands
Feel free to contribute Or enlighten me with code examples that are not on my page
I am particularly interested in learning hardware periph

"...you could write a simple program in C and BASIC without any perceivable difference"

"I also wouldn't attempt to write a simple calculator programme in C."

A somewhat contradictory pair of statements. BASIC is not well thought of in the hacker/academic community - as Djikstra has (rather hyperbolically) said: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that
have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated
beyond all hope of regeneration".

The only reason not to write a 20 line simple calculator programme in C is that it has been done a million times before and is not an interesting or enlightening problem. I suppose it might be a useful exercise if you were learning to use the layouts in a GUI builder like Glade or QT designer though.

"Most hobbyist programmers will never get to the point where BASIC and C depart."

Most of the hobbyist programmers that I bump into these days are users and contributors to the global FLOSS community. I understand that it is a very different world to that of the PC/DOS hobbyist of the '70s onwards (perhaps still the majority of hobbyists?) but nowadays I can't see any reason a hobbyist would need or want to remain restricted to (and by) an anachronistic paradigm.

"...knowledge of assembly is usefull no matter which language you continue to program in."

Yes, for many people that may be true and Paul Carter even has a tutorial aimed at introducing programming using assembly:

http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/index.php

...though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is necessary. What I would say is necessary is that the environment in which you program is as rich and replete with powerful tools, languages and libraries as you can possibly make it, that you do not develop a wheel re-invention mentality and that you read widely (from both documentation and source code).

“Tutorial aimed at introducing programming using assembly:
...Though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is necessary…..Wolf”

Thank you for the assembly page wolf.

I didnt say it was necessary I said it was useful. Not for reinventing, but as I said, for linking purposes. Linking of the very replete and powerful libraries of which you so eloquently Wrote.
I suspect C’s importance and widespread acceptance by academia is attributable to its undue pomposity and self perpetuating hyperbole
While it is the simplicity of basic is what makes it beautiful, dont you think?

But Basicly that’s just me

My Page has many quick explainations of basic commands
Feel free to contribute Or enlighten me with code examples that are not on my page
I am particularly interested in learning hardware periph

I think Djikstra was right.

It depends on what you wanna do - you need to select the right tool for the job. There are also issues such as code portability, maintainability etc..

And, sometimes (shock-horror!) you'll find that there is a learning curve - decide if you wanna climb it; but don't bury your head in the sand - or if you do, you'll need to invest in flame retardant undergarments.

;D

Respectfully, H.

I came to this forum to try to find out if QuickBasic 4.5 programs compiled into .exe will run correctly under Windows XP (home and Pro). Any thoughts?

Hi BasicDosHlp,

I ran SALCMP.EXE without problem on my trustworthy WIN95B computer. However, it seems there may be a bug in the program. When I enter 2 (for weekly input), the prog still asks for annual input.

My original question still is -- Will QBasic 4.5 run under WIN XP home and/or office.

Tom
Its Not a bug its bad programming (lol)
I just whipped it together in a about a half hour, just experimenting with some code at the time.
I sent it for you to try it and see if it ran on Win XP (I beleive it will, and just as badly)
somehow one of the allegations in this thread claim it would not run in XP,
As I do not own XP I cannot determine that.
Does XP have a dos Icon????
Thanx Tom, for the input anyway.

My Page has many quick explainations of basic commands
Feel free to contribute Or enlighten me with code examples that are not on my page
I am particularly interested in learning hardware periph