Talk:QBasic: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(done) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4:
: As I recall, QBASIC and QuickBasic were different branches of the same implementation of the same derivative language of BASIC. The chief difference I remember was that QuickBasic had a compiler built-in. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 03:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::Not even different branches, really. I imagine that they might very well have built QBasic from the QuickBasic sources by using defines or even something in the makefile. (QuickBasic 4.5 has some things that QBasic doesn't, mostly related to asm, includes, command$ (QB's version of argv[], sorta), and some memory stuff.) -- [[User:Eriksiers|Eriksiers]] 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:There are a few differences for the user: 1/ QBasic was free and available with MS-DOS and later with Windows 95 (on an accompanying CD-ROM), while QuickBasic was a commercial product. 2/ I am not sure and I'll have to check, but apparently there was a QuickBasic for OS/2: if it produces OS/2 executables, then it's more than QBasic that is a DOS program on OS/2 3/ Since QBasic is not compiled and lacks many thing regarding interrupts, a few things can't be done or require machine language tricks. 4/ Memory limitations are probably different. Now, Whether any of this require a separate language page is not obvious. I deduped since a few users have links specifically to the QBasic user page, but it's possible to reverse this. [[User:Bastet|Bastet]] ([[User talk:Bastet|talk]]) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||