whats wrong with QBASIC...in a way

This is a discussion on whats wrong with QBASIC...in a way within the C Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; I want to know why a language like QBasic is shunned as a reasonable interface for SIMPLE uses with a ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20

    whats wrong with QBASIC...in a way

    I want to know why a language like QBasic is shunned as a reasonable interface for SIMPLE uses with a program in that it reduces data type problems.

    to the point why not make a standard on dealing with strings in C much like QBasic did. what is the advantage of I/O and string handling that C does compared to (im gonna have to say it) the 'ease' (i didnt use power for a reason) of QBasic.

    I'm all about freedom of the programmer to make their own at the same time re-re-re-reinvent the wheel..?

    do we really have to make our own headers and what not to handle an array that QBasic does without thinking about it??

    somebody please tell me what makes it worth ALL our whiles to treat a char sting as an array we have to run loops just to print it back to the screen where an old 'useless' language could do with 1 command.

    not taking away from other powers of C just why is dealing "I hate old hamburgers" so hard to re print, compare, and generally deal with in C

    sorry im stoopid but i hope you can explain why there is no standard to C strings that actually makes sense

    btw the bar was great tonight

  2. #2
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    QBasic is higher level than C.

    And C strings are pretty close as to how it's actually represented, they're just arrays of bytes (usually packed into 'words') that 'end with NUL'. Strings are not datatypes in C.

    BTW this is in the wrong forum.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    wait... how do you print strings in C?

    printf ( "%s", string ) ;

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8,868
    QBASIC was a wonderful language - such a step up from old BASIC with just a line editor and very few loops so you had to use goto's or gosub all over the place.

    Problems I saw was:

    1) QBASIC was a MS product, and they wanted to keep it proprietary. There were no language standards, competing but compatible BASIC products from other companies, etc.

    2) By the time QuickBasicPro (QBx) came out, it was too little, way too late. Great language and IDE, with both a compiler and interpreter, lots of great built in data types, etc.

    Time had marched on, and C, then C++, were the languages of choice, amongst others.

    That's when MS decided to abandon QuickBasic. It couldn't compete, especially with the OOP craze that was going on.

    There are some rather powerful versions of BASIC still around however: True BASIC is one of the better known one's, but there are several others. All have the same problem - no language standard, no compatibility among competing versions, and all the work is done by a single company. Really, just a very small group of programmers.

    I tried one of them a few years back, but they wanted upgrade fee's every two years, for very little improvement to the language.

  5. #5
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,538
    Quote Originally Posted by guyfromfl View Post
    to the point why not make a standard on dealing with strings in C much like QBasic did. what is the advantage of I/O and string handling that C does compared to (im gonna have to say it) the 'ease' (i didnt use power for a reason) of QBasic.

    I'm all about freedom of the programmer to make their own at the same time re-re-re-reinvent the wheel..?

    do we really have to make our own headers and what not to handle an array that QBasic does without thinking about it??

    somebody please tell me what makes it worth ALL our whiles to treat a char sting as an array we have to run loops just to print it back to the screen where an old 'useless' language could do with 1 command.

    not taking away from other powers of C just why is dealing "I hate old hamburgers" so hard to re print, compare, and generally deal with in C

    sorry im stoopid but i hope you can explain why there is no standard to C strings that actually makes sense
    You're looking at the wrong language. C was designed to be low level and portable. Therefore, it doesn't have many higher-level constructs such as strings.
    What you need to look at is C++. It's today's C - a higher level language with the power of flexibility and speed of C, while all the while providing mechanisms for strings and the like.

    Unless compiling for an embedded system where a C++ compiler is not available, you don't have to use C. You can use C++ and get all the bells and whistles that QBasic had while still reitaining the power of C.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-15-2004, 03:30 PM
  2. Debugging-Looking in the wrong places
    By JaWiB in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-03-2003, 09:50 PM
  3. Confused: What is wrong with void??
    By Machewy in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 12:40 PM
  4. God
    By datainjector in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 746
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 11:01 AM
  5. Whats wrong?
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 01:04 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21