of course: http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/ chipmunk basic
30 years later, QBasic is still the best
201–210 of 308 posts
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#202“OMG please don’t teach him GOTOs!!”
GOTOs are easy to abuse, but they would really come in handy sometimes.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed out - there is nothing quite like getting your first picture on the screen with the Copper, or doing your first scroller with the Blitter, or hearing your first Future Composer tune play correctly inside of a working level 3 interrupt request...
Yeah, we couldn't afford a computer back then. I learned by spending my Saturdays on the public computers at the library, hence why having access to an interpreter that didn't need to be installed was awesome.
I coded a good bit of my first Amiga intro on my neighbour's Amiga 500, because I could not afford my own...
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visual Basic 6.0 was great for learning how to program! You could create GUIs and easily share self-contained exes with your friends. Also very cool was the documentation, complete, offline and and with lots of examples. I initially got into programming through Apple HyperCard/HyperTalk on the outdated school computers, but it was rather clunky and limiting in what you could do without going through the C interface.
> Also very cool was the documentation, complete, offline and and with lots of examples. I think 'online' [1] is the word you wanted to use. ;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_help
Well yes it was online in that sense, which was great. But what I meant to point out was that the complete MSDN help library came shipped on two CDs that you could locally install. It was really really good. There was a description, detailed background info, and usually at least a few example code snippets using the function. I was later a astonished at how sparse and useless documentation for many other libraries/languages was compared to that, especially when it came to example usage. Some notable disappointments included e.g. the Java/JDK docs (v1.4) and the early Android docs (v1), which both required looking at the code because the docs were severely lacking (both have improved by now).
I think you can still download the whole MSDN help library for offline use, but I don't believe that nowadays that would be enough for daily work use. Lots of useful info and example use is scattered around blog posts and StackOverflow answers now, instead of being a part of the documentation itself.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#205I tried (+ 2 2) on a four-year-old once.
Instant, complete acceptance; no complaints about parentheses or lack of infix or anything.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why does every single key press have to beep??
So that you know it worked. Even without looking at the small display that also usually changes in response. This is what I miss about older technology - especially dumbphones. The input always worked, and always worked with the same timing. I could operate my Sony Ericsson K800i without looking at the screen because my brain memorized the sequences of buttons and timings of common operations. Joystick press, up, up,…
Input lag is the mortal sin of UI design, and it's ignored everywhere except on dedicated appliances (touch phone, microwave, fridge). Instant response is not a given. I wish OS designers treated the user as a real-time system with hard deadlines.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#207I learned code from QBasic and its help because books were in short supply at the library and there was no internet for me.
As much as Xcode or VS or Qt creator are great tools they seriously lack in that regard, as do most modern development environments. QBasic is very easy to learn and easy to use - and trying to solve hard problems with it requires some genuine skill and ability...
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#208I tried (+ 2 2) on a four-year-old once. Instant, complete acceptance; no complaints about parentheses or lack of infix or anything.
There was no previous assumptions there that caused impediment for learning.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always Python+X somehow, where X is a whole different thing you have to learn to get a fraction of the whole thing shipped in Python. Keep I.T. simple - teach the kids BASIC.
The basic issue is that Python do not have a UI lib of its own, so if you want to do anything beyond a CLI you need to introduce a third party.
Well, Java does have a UI lib of its own and it doesn't make shipping an executable simpler.
Re: 30 years later, QBasic is still the best
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we couldn't afford a computer back then. I learned by spending my Saturdays on the public computers at the library, hence why having access to an interpreter that didn't need to be installed was awesome.
I coded a good bit of my first Amiga intro on my neighbour's Amiga 500, because I could not afford my own...
I've had life long friendships start based on the fact that they had a C64 Disk Drive and/or printer.