]]>
Anyone happen to know if the source code for QBasic or QuickBasic (interpreter or compiler) has ever been leaked? and if so, where it might be found?
Stoves,Even if you had the original source code for QBasic, you would also need the corresponding original version of the C compiler, plus any libraries used back then, and also the assembler. Having all these exact elements would be miraculous. Another variable might be the actual operating environment, the hardware and the original operating system, used at the time to produce the executable code of QBasic.
The bottom line is that even given limitless time and money, I don't think you could ever put together a comparable working version of QBasic, let alone make enhancements to it.
Regards..... Moneo
Statistics: Posted by moneo — Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:42 pm
]]>
Anyway, if the list is in the archive, how do you plan to access it? I'd like to hear that one.
Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:31 am
]]>
But you forgot something pretty vital to memory
is better of asCode:
900->dim(L6 For(A,1,900 A->L6(A End
Code:
GarbageCollect 'its under Catalouge. Saves Memory and RAM.Unarchive LMYLIST 'just in case it's archived 900->LMYLIST 'the calc makes the list if it can't find the nameFor(A,1,999 '999 is upper limit of list sizePrgmFunction 'Some Sub that returns the function of A as BB->LMYLIST(A 'B can be a set of changing data from A EndArchive LMYLIST 'Saves it to ARC, thus RAM acts like it isn't thereAnd many of my programs are modelled more or less this way. Maybe not as fast, but I don't run out of memory and it's more flexible.
TI has too little RAM. Thus Archiving saves valuable memory, and protects data.
But in QB (QBASIC or QuickBASIC), the way to 'archive' is to save to something else and then write over the variables and/or strings.
Statistics: Posted by Mentat — Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:21 pm
]]>
That's what I wanted to know. 
But I can't call QBASIC slow becuase I came from TI-B.
Cycles once per a tenth of a second.
QB counts to somewhere in the tens of thousands by the time TI gets to 10.
But:Runs 100 cycles per second (in TI 83 SE). So optimization can make a big difference. Maybe not enough, but still a difference.
Leave off your parentheses. But I can't call QBASIC slow becuase I came from TI-B.
Code:
0->xLbl 1Disp xx+1->xGoto 1QB counts to somewhere in the tens of thousands by the time TI gets to 10.
But:
Code:
For (X,1,1000)Output(1,1,X)End*vomit*
Seriously, on a limited platform such as the TI-83(84)(+)(SE), you need every bit of optimization you can get.
Like when people do...
Code:
900->dim(L6For(A,1,900A->L6(AEndCode:
seq(A,A,1,900->L6Code:
cumSum(binomcdf(899,1->L6Statistics: Posted by Patz QuickBASIC Creations — Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:53 pm
]]>
But I can't call QBASIC slow becuase I came from TI-B.
Code:
0->xLbl 1Disp xx+1->xGoto 1QB counts to somewhere in the tens of thousands by the time TI gets to 10.
But:
Code:
For (X,1,1000)Output(1,1,X)EndStatistics: Posted by Mentat — Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:30 am
]]>
Code:
BC C:\QB45\MONOPOLY.BAS/O/T/C:512;Microsoft (R) QuickBASIC Compiler Version 4.50(C) Copyright Microsoft Corporation 1982-1988.All rights reserved.Simultaneously published in the U.S. and Canada. 008D 000C CONST GO = -2 ^ Syntax error 4025 0DBA CASE GO ^ Syntax error 6584 0DBA END IF ^ Subprogram error 69DD 0DBA END IF ^ Subprogram error A095 0DBA Setup 0, GO, "?GO" ^ Syntax error42029 Bytes Available11787 Bytes Free 0 Warning Error(s) 5 Severe Error(s)Press any key to continueStatistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:00 pm
]]>
Obviously, FB programs aren't going to run on a 286 or lesser CPU, whereas QB programs generally will. But who's using such obsolete systems these days? If you're looking to develop performant applications on modern systems, you're not going to look at QBasic or even QB. You can only push the limits of QBasic so much; you're not writing a realtime hi-resolution 3D engine in QBasic anytime soon...not until they invent 9GHz processors that run in 8086 mode. It simply doesn't have the calculation speed, nor can it take full advantage of modern video hardware. In FB, this isn't difficult to do, and has already been done dozens of times. Windows GUI applications, linear framebuffer SVGA modes, applications that run natively in Linux...all things QBasic could never do that are completely brainless in FB. About the only straw someone could grasp for is that QB 7.1 can develop applications that run in OS/2...but that's a major straw.
Lazy, stupid programmers learn to code in C# and buy 3GHz computers to make programs that are less functional and efficient (yet more flashy!) than similar programs written in C twenty years prior on 386-based machines running Windows 3.1. But thinking that "just code it better!" is the solution to the slowness problems of QBasic is silly when it's been shown countless times over the years that it is slow, inefficient, and above all else, limited in what it can pull off by itself. QB removes some of those limitations but even QB has limits that cannot be overcome. It's a harsh reality that a select few people are having a very difficult time coming to terms with.
The beauty of QBasic is in its simplicity. The beauty of FB is in its raw power. The beauty of this post is in its truth.
Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:43 pm
]]>
]]>
Anyone happen to know if the source code for QBasic or QuickBasic (interpreter or compiler) has ever been leaked? and if so, where it might be found?
For the Qbasic 1.1 source:Few days before today I saw it in this webpage
http://vetusware.com/select-by/category/System/?cat=2
Also somebody did put it in the Emule. There is an spanish guy who has that source, it was in his webpage at
http://imaginatica.us.es/~wopr2k/qbdl/index.html
but it's closed. His name is nathan or na_than or something alse. If you want to ask that source to him I doubt he will give it to you because is a weird person.
He has the source because an expert called Plasma gave it to him.
That file has 7.4 Mbs. = 21 Mbs. expanded, 1,489 files, and yes, like another programmers said, most files are *.asm and *.C
Statistics: Posted by OPRESION — Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:49 pm
]]>
For instance:
Code:
CLSSCREEN 12 '12 HAS A RESOLUTION OF 640*480FOR X=0 TO 639 LINE (X, 0) - (X, 479)NEXT XSo, are there different machine instructions for, say the line command in QBASIC and FreeBASIC?
Though I do agree; good coding is paramount. I program in TI-BASIC and the smallest changes make big differences. And TI calculators are SLOW.
Statistics: Posted by Mentat — Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:35 pm
]]>
But why is FB faster than QB?
Faster compared to what need? I have written a zillion QBasic programs. None have made me want a faster computer or a faster interpreter.Take the program Monopoly at
http://www.network54.com/Forum/190883/m ... 1156376791
Even the years old original version which I disparaged for spaghetti techniques is instant. There is no room for improvement in speed.
But say there is something that could benefit from being faster. That is the beauty of QBasic: figure out a way to make it solve the problem faster. Only lazy, stupid programmers demand faster and faster machines and compilers to make up for their lack of talent. The latest example: Vista.
Mac
Statistics: Posted by Mac — Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:01 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by davinci28 — Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:46 pm
]]>
All programming languages (except Assembly) are interpreted languages, meaning that another program has to convert it into machine code to put it into a runable form, which is commonly known as compiling.
Don't mix up the terms like that. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an "interpreted language", you simply have interpreters and compilers. Also, you're slightly incorrect here; assembly too is "interpreted", by your definition. Assembly has to be converted to machine code like any other language. Assembly and machine code are not the same thing. It's easy to think of them as the same though since assembly is usually 1-to-1.But everything else is right.
Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:56 pm
]]>
And to comment on a common misconception, Microsoft has never called QBasic or QuickBasic "FreeWare" (they should call them "We Don't CareWare" ). I actually bought my versions of QuickBasic -- once for less than $5 at a computer show (it's nice to have a manual
).Statistics: Posted by Dav — Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
]]>