Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2524 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3194 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!rogerhef From: rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC Message-ID: <1991Jun20.034205.2661@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> Date: 20 Jun 91 03:42:05 GMT References: Sender: news@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (The News Guru) Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu In mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >Look, is it BASIC or is it not? If it's nothing like BASIC and Microsoft are >just calling it BASIC, then that's stupid marketing. They might as well call >Word for Windows "Visual EDLIN". >If it *is* BASIC, or BASIC with a few extensions, as I expect, then I stand >by my comments. You yell about BASIC being bad. Have you ever used Microsoft QuickBasic? It is structured and considerable easier to use than any other language. The language look pretty much like any other structured language, such as C or Pascal, the only limitation that QB has is it does not have pointers, otherwise it is at least as good as C or Pascal for good coding form. There are even several application programs that were written in this BASIC. This BASIC has full recursive modules, functions, and structures. You are reading too much into the word BASIC. You are taking what GWBASIC looks like and most of the other old BASIC versions and assuming that all BASICS are the same, they are not. The BASIC has more than a few extensions. I can write a bad program in it, but I can do that in any language. I expect Microsoft is basing Visual Basic on this. The QB line has existed for several years, they did just not give it out for free. > -- Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu Roger Heflin EECE Grad Student (913) 532-5600