Source for QBasic or QuickBasic

If you have questions about any aspect of QBasic programming, or would like to help fellow programmers solve their problems, check out this board!

Moderators: Pete, Mods

User avatar
Stoves
Veteran
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Source for QBasic or QuickBasic

Post by Stoves » Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:54 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?

User avatar
Raspberrypicker
Veteran
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Raspberrypicker » Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:57 pm

now im just a noob, so he could've been talking about something else...

But awhile ago I was in the qbasic.com chatroom and I was talking to someone, and I asked him what his latest project was and he said he was making a compiler. I said, whats that? And he told me that it is so other people can use qbasic programs without actually having qbasic. That is what a compiler does, right?

i dont know if you will find this useful, cuz i have no idea what im talking about either :?
Fruit Pickin'

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:22 pm

Why does Microsoft control it? Why can't they just make it freeware or whatever they call it. They aren't offering it or making a profit, so why hold it? :?
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

User avatar
Nodtveidt
Veteran
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Quebradillas, PR
Contact:

Post by Nodtveidt » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:18 pm

As far as I know, the sourcecode for QuickBASIC 4.5 was released on the internet a few years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to snag it, but there's probably someone out there who has it.

User avatar
Stoves
Veteran
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Post by Stoves » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:40 pm

Cool. Well if anyone finds a link to the source, I'd be interested in knowing about it. Thanks for the info.

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:53 am

So...
What's going to compile 4.5? :D
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

User avatar
Patz QuickBASIC Creations
Veteran
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by Patz QuickBASIC Creations » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:55 pm

If I were to give a guess, I would say Microsoft's old C compiler would compile it, but note that this assumption has no base :P

User avatar
Nodtveidt
Veteran
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Quebradillas, PR
Contact:

Post by Nodtveidt » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:25 pm

If I remember correctly, the sourcecode was in C and assembly, so it's likely that it was built with one of Microsoft's older C compilers, possibly QuickC.

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:56 am

Cool. CBASIC. 8)
There probably is a language already named it. :)

Edit:
THERE IS! :lol:
It's the succesor to BASIC-E or something.
If it's written in ASM or C, then why is it so slow?
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

User avatar
Patz QuickBASIC Creations
Veteran
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by Patz QuickBASIC Creations » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:49 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. In this sense, all programming languages should run at the same speed, right? Wrong. Q(uick)BASIC does alot of sutff that even the programmers never see, like error checking between every command that is interpreted, slowing down the language drastically. Other programming languages like C don't have as much built-in (per se) stuff, so the speed is drastically increased.

Assembly is a totally different story, as you are telling the processor EXACTLY what to do, instruction per instruction (Many BASIC commands are made up of hundreds of instructions each). A smart programmer can use this to advantage, however as you are telling the processor exactly what to do, you also risk a crash more easily, as it has no error checking at all (Assembly has nothing built in, only what you give it)

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:52 pm

But why is FB faster than QB?
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

User avatar
Patz QuickBASIC Creations
Veteran
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by Patz QuickBASIC Creations » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:36 pm

FreeBASIC has a number of different reasons as to why it's faster. First off, FreeBASIC is for use in 32-bit processors, meaning it's incompatible with the older 16-bit processors, but can also use new instructions not before available to older processors. Also, FreeBASIC does less stuff between loops, and does them in a more efficient way. There are numerous other things, but I don't feel like listing them all off.

In short, FreeBASIC is better because all technology, including itself) has gotten better over the years.

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:16 pm

Then why are the languages slow in the first place? Why doesn't microsoft or whoever make it right the first time. I understand some things are learnt over time, but the speed/memory spectrum seems quite wide.
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

Dav
Coder
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:23 am
Contact:

Post by Dav » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm

If I recall correctly, the source to Qbasic 1.1 was supposedly included with the DOS 6.22 source code leak a number of years ago. It was in there because DOS's text editor is Qbasic.exe (start Qbasic like: Qbasic /EDIT). Those who claimed they obtained the stolen code said Qbasic was coded in C & ASM. A few of them also claimed to be compiling a great improved version, but I never saw any results from that brag anywhere.

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 :D ).

User avatar
Nodtveidt
Veteran
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Quebradillas, PR
Contact:

Post by Nodtveidt » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:56 pm

Patz QuickBASIC Creations wrote: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. :D

davinci28
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by davinci28 » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:46 pm


Mac
Veteran
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:00 pm

Post by Mac » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:01 pm

Mentat wrote: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

User avatar
Mentat
Veteran
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: NC, US

Post by Mentat » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:35 pm

I meant in terms of equal code.

For instance:

Code: Select all

CLS
SCREEN 12           '12 HAS A RESOLUTION OF 640*480
FOR X=0 TO 639
     LINE (X, 0) - (X, 479)
NEXT X
It will run faster in FB than QB (I tried it).

So, 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.
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .

OPRESION
Veteran
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Mexico

Re: Source for QBasic or QuickBasic

Post by OPRESION » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:49 pm

Stoves wrote: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
MY PAGE: http://Qbasic.phatcode.net" target="_blank
(I ONLY USE WINDOWS 98SE YET, BELIEVE IT OR NOT)

User avatar
Stoves
Veteran
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Post by Stoves » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:10 am

Opresion, Thanks!

Post Reply