Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2539 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3238 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 91 16:24:37 GMT References: <91169.084617F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> <4k4q47w164w@mantis.co.uk> <1991Jun20.034708.2816@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> <1991Jun21.002629.17528@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 77 In-Reply-To: rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu's message of Fri, 21 Jun 91 00:26:29 GMT In article <1991Jun21.002629.17528@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) writes: In mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >You mean QB already understands C, C++, Pascal and ... ? No it doesn't understand C.. but Microsofts other integrated enviroments do and all of the work exactly the same, they also work the same as most all of the windows applications. So I can't use the QB editor for a multilanguage project. That's a major strike against it. >Of course, if I have to use QB commands (if it's one of the >pain-in-the-ass mouse/function key editors, forget it) and can't >configure it to my habits, then it's going to be an incredible pain to >use. Given the choice, I'd rather teach an editor I know about a >new language than teach an editor I don't know how to look like an >editor I do know. Ah, a completely closed mind. Ah, a gratuitous insult. You obviously never considered that someone might have different tastes than you do. I don't like moving my hands from the mouse to the keyboard; any environment that requires me to use the mouse for things other than indicating screen positions or objects is a pain to use. Editors built around the mouse/function key paradigm tend to have features that aren't available except through those two devices. Function keys are slightly better than the mouse, but don't move well from platform to platform. >Is QB one of those awfull "integrated environments" so loved on >mono-tasking environments? In general, they're just a pain, but better >than the alternatives. I much prefer the system I've got, where the >editor/compiler/debugger all run as seperate tasks and commmunicate >with each other via IPC. That way, I can use any editor I want, and >not have to worry about what other people are doing. The integrated enviroment that you so had acts just like the rest of the windows enviroment. Ah, another strike against them. The windows interface, MS-DOS and the 8086 architechtures deserve each other. You bitch about those "pain-in-the-ass mouse/function key editors", what editor are you using that doesn't use function keys? Emacs, the editor with many shift keys? Yup. I get the same interface across all the platforms I use, from 68000 boxes to Crays. If they're running X, I get a very good match on the mouse interface. Being able to move that way is important to some people, not to others. That is only easier to use after you have spent months learing the key sequences. I can train someone to use the QB editor in a day, you cannot say that for your editor. Yup, emacs isn't for the infrequenst user. I don't use my editor infrequently (I probably spend more time typing at it than anything else on the system). I don't care if I need to spend a couple of days (that's all it took me, anyway) learning to use it nearly as much as I care that it's fast and powerfull. Of course, I'm also bright enough not to try insisting that anybody has to use it, or that it's right for any particular purpose. Based on which questions you chose to ignore, I can only conclude that QB (and it's editor) are wired down to mice/function keys, isn't very configurable, won't work with multiple languages, and don't support IPC so they can be integrated with other tools. Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for a development environment to me.