On 07/27/09 11:07, clipka wrote:
>> QuickBasic was it's highest development.
>
> Just out of curiosity: Did they ever introduce such things as structs (records
> in Pascal)? That was the thing that bothered me most about BASIC ever since I
> first wanted to store a list of data tuples. Using a separate array for each
> "dimension" of the tuple just didn't feel right.

	I've forgotten, actually.

>> I was able to display an image and VBnet seemed to promise good image
>> handling capabilities if one could only figure them out.
>
> If graphics (or any other non-textual user interaction, for that matter) is what
> you want to do, it comes as no surprise to me that you don't like modern
> computer languages. The major problem, however, is not an inherent feature of

	I can sympathize with David. As a kid, graphics was one of the fun 
things about BASIC/QuickBasic. For someone new to programming, there are 
a lot of things you can do using language concepts with graphics, and 
it's a lot more interesting than writing a silly calculator program.

	I think that's what kept me and many away from "serious" languages like 
C/C++ for a long time. No book I picked up covered what I thought should 
be straightforward: How do I color a pixel on the screen. Doing graphics 
seemed to be a lot more complicated.

	I didn't have Internet access, nor did I know anyone who knew much 
programming, so no one pointed me to better ways to do graphics in C, 
nor was I aware of other languages where it may be easier.


-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/27/09 15:29, andrel wrote:
> On 27-7-2009 21:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> +1
>
> seen this more often recently here. Yet another cross fertilization of
> the internet, I assume.

++

-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/27/09 11:58, clipka wrote:
> I think it was not before DOS 5.0 that Microsoft started to bundle BASIC again
> with DOS, possibly in an attempt to revive the dwindling popularity of BASIC;
> still it was not as omnipresent as it had been in the home computer era, so it
> didn't manage to attract as many new enthusiasts.

	Not 100% sure, but I think every version of DOS I had had either qbasic 
or gwbasic or basica.

-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:41:09 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 07/27/09 15:29, andrel wrote:
>> On 27-7-2009 21:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>
>> seen this more often recently here. Yet another cross fertilization of
>> the internet, I assume.
> 
> ++

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 27-7-2009 23:24, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> +1.  BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming logic 
>> (just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
> 
>   I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
> is incompetent... ;)
> 
Have you met the majority of programmers?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:43:02 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 07/27/09 11:58, clipka wrote:
>> I think it was not before DOS 5.0 that Microsoft started to bundle
>> BASIC again with DOS, possibly in an attempt to revive the dwindling
>> popularity of BASIC; still it was not as omnipresent as it had been in
>> the home computer era, so it didn't manage to attract as many new
>> enthusiasts.
> 
> 	Not 100% sure, but I think every version of DOS I had had either 
qbasic
> or gwbasic or basica.

I vaguely remember there being a BASIC interpreter in MS-DOS 3.3...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:

> I remember right the first "real program" I ever wrote was a program to
> calculate ozone
> concentration on a Commadore Pet. It was the first computer I ever dealt
> with
> and after a *very* short time playing with it I was able to write a
> program to replace
> the one we had been using on a TI55(?) calculator (the one with the card
> reader --remember
> that?)

Unfortunately not - I started my computing career no earlier than in the
mid-80s, after having seen (and toyed around with) a C64 somewhere; and I
wasn't older than 12 back then.

> If I remember right, the QuickBASIC and QuickC
> IDE's were models of what a good simple IDE should be. Microsoft was
> good in those days!

They're not bad these days either. It's just that the typical scale of
applications and desired UI paradigm has changed a lot.

> Yes access to Windows graphic functions seem unnecessarily complicated and
> poorly documented. I can't see any good reason for this.

As for being poorly documented, I'm not sure. Might be one of those cases of
documentation written for people already familiar with the concepts. As for
unnecessarily complicated, I'm quite sure this was originally due to
performance constraints in the advents of GUIs, and later due to compatibility
issues.

> I don't understand a lot of what you say, but it fascinates me, I may
> have to learn OOP
> and more about modern programming just for the fun of it.

Go ahead :)

> > Speaking of Borland, maybe they still come with the good old "graph" library and
> > the BGI graphics driver format, in which case I'd expect them to include a BGI
> > to interface to Windows, too.
>
> Maybe it does, if so I haven't be able to find it--or recognize it. The
> old "graphic.h" was for DOS and
> won't work on XP, anyway, and I think the routines are incompatible with
> modern graphic
> cards.

Turbo Pascal - and I think Turbo C/C++ as well - did not use hard-coded routines
to access graphics, but proprietary graphics card driver ("BGI" = "Borland
Graphocs Interface") modules, in order actually access the graphics hardware.
There were drivers at least for CGA, EGA, Hercules, 16-color VGA, and IBM
8514/A, and there was also some 3rd-party 256-color VGA driver available for
the famous "Mode 13h".

I wouldn't be too surprised if people found a way to provide a BGI driver that
could open a window of a particular size and use it as a canvas. Heck, I even
personally wrote a driver for the SuperVGA modes of my own Trident TVGA 8900
card (except for the blitting operations which I found I didn't need) =B)


> > C is really not a pretty language, by the way.
>
> No, but it's fascinating, and in my little experience addictive.

Don't get *too* addicted to it - it has some bad habits, and its own share of
being frowned upon :P

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think that's what kept me and many away from "serious" languages like 
> C/C++ for a long time. No book I picked up covered what I thought should 
> be straightforward: How do I color a pixel on the screen. Doing graphics 
> seemed to be a lot more complicated.

>         I didn't have Internet access, nor did I know anyone who knew much 
> programming, so no one pointed me to better ways to do graphics in C, 
> nor was I aware of other languages where it may be easier.

  It's funny that even today graphics in C/C++ development (and in fact quite
many other languages) is a difficult issue.

  What makes it ironic is that a large part of C/C++ programs out there are
heavily graphical (most prominently the computer games), and seems like
everybody just somehow manages to get the graphics done, but when you ask
for a simple way of getting graphics, they will usually shrug and say that
it's a bit complicated... (Because it *is* a bit complicated.)

  Also, rather curiously, most programming languages which have integrated
graphics routines, are usually the most inefficient ones, and thus the least
adept for making eg. heavily-graphical games. There are a few exceptions
(such as ActionScript, although its capabilities for making games is quite
limited, as it's not the most efficient of languages around), but they often
tend to be a bit inaccessible (such as precisely ActionScript).

  The reason why in older computers it was easier to draw graphics was that
the language was very integrated to the system in question and didn't need
to be portable to a wide range of different systems. You had one fixed OS
(no updates or anything), one fixed hardware (no different graphics chips,
CPUs, amounts of RAM, etc) and one fixed scripting language which was tied
to that precise system.

  Immediately when you started having different users with different
hardware setups, the whole graphics programming stumbled on a huge problem.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 27-7-2009 23:24, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> +1.  BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming logic 
> >> (just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
> > 
> >   I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
> > is incompetent... ;)
> > 
> Have you met the majority of programmers?

  I have seen quite a lot of programs. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
> is incompetent... ;)
> 

A convenient excuse anyway. "Everybody needs someone to look down on. If you
ain't got nobody else, well help yo'self to me!" -Kris Kristofferson 
(quoted from
memory) :)

David

Post a reply to this message