Source for QBasic or QuickBasic
Source for QBasic or QuickBasic
Anyone happen to know if the source code for QBasic or QuickBasic (interpreter or compiler) has ever been leaked? and if so, where it might be found?
- Raspberrypicker
- Veteran
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:54 pm
- Location: Florida
now im just a noob, so he could've been talking about something else...
But awhile ago I was in the qbasic.com chatroom and I was talking to someone, and I asked him what his latest project was and he said he was making a compiler. I said, whats that? And he told me that it is so other people can use qbasic programs without actually having qbasic. That is what a compiler does, right?
i dont know if you will find this useful, cuz i have no idea what im talking about either
But awhile ago I was in the qbasic.com chatroom and I was talking to someone, and I asked him what his latest project was and he said he was making a compiler. I said, whats that? And he told me that it is so other people can use qbasic programs without actually having qbasic. That is what a compiler does, right?
i dont know if you will find this useful, cuz i have no idea what im talking about either
Fruit Pickin'
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: Nashville, Tennessee
- Contact:
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: Nashville, Tennessee
- Contact:
All programming languages (except Assembly) are interpreted languages, meaning that another program has to convert it into machine code to put it into a runable form, which is commonly known as compiling. In this sense, all programming languages should run at the same speed, right? Wrong. Q(uick)BASIC does alot of sutff that even the programmers never see, like error checking between every command that is interpreted, slowing down the language drastically. Other programming languages like C don't have as much built-in (per se) stuff, so the speed is drastically increased.
Assembly is a totally different story, as you are telling the processor EXACTLY what to do, instruction per instruction (Many BASIC commands are made up of hundreds of instructions each). A smart programmer can use this to advantage, however as you are telling the processor exactly what to do, you also risk a crash more easily, as it has no error checking at all (Assembly has nothing built in, only what you give it)
Assembly is a totally different story, as you are telling the processor EXACTLY what to do, instruction per instruction (Many BASIC commands are made up of hundreds of instructions each). A smart programmer can use this to advantage, however as you are telling the processor exactly what to do, you also risk a crash more easily, as it has no error checking at all (Assembly has nothing built in, only what you give it)
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: Nashville, Tennessee
- Contact:
FreeBASIC has a number of different reasons as to why it's faster. First off, FreeBASIC is for use in 32-bit processors, meaning it's incompatible with the older 16-bit processors, but can also use new instructions not before available to older processors. Also, FreeBASIC does less stuff between loops, and does them in a more efficient way. There are numerous other things, but I don't feel like listing them all off.
In short, FreeBASIC is better because all technology, including itself) has gotten better over the years.
In short, FreeBASIC is better because all technology, including itself) has gotten better over the years.
If I recall correctly, the source to Qbasic 1.1 was supposedly included with the DOS 6.22 source code leak a number of years ago. It was in there because DOS's text editor is Qbasic.exe (start Qbasic like: Qbasic /EDIT). Those who claimed they obtained the stolen code said Qbasic was coded in C & ASM. A few of them also claimed to be compiling a great improved version, but I never saw any results from that brag anywhere.
And to comment on a common misconception, Microsoft has never called QBasic or QuickBasic "FreeWare" (they should call them "We Don't CareWare" ). I actually bought my versions of QuickBasic -- once for less than $5 at a computer show (it's nice to have a manual ).
And to comment on a common misconception, Microsoft has never called QBasic or QuickBasic "FreeWare" (they should call them "We Don't CareWare" ). I actually bought my versions of QuickBasic -- once for less than $5 at a computer show (it's nice to have a manual ).
Don't mix up the terms like that. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an "interpreted language", you simply have interpreters and compilers. Also, you're slightly incorrect here; assembly too is "interpreted", by your definition. Assembly has to be converted to machine code like any other language. Assembly and machine code are not the same thing. It's easy to think of them as the same though since assembly is usually 1-to-1.Patz QuickBASIC Creations wrote:All programming languages (except Assembly) are interpreted languages, meaning that another program has to convert it into machine code to put it into a runable form, which is commonly known as compiling.
But everything else is right.
"cough" http://qbasic.com/wbb/filebase.php?file ... a7dc4537d4 "cough"
Faster compared to what need? I have written a zillion QBasic programs. None have made me want a faster computer or a faster interpreter.Mentat wrote:But why is FB faster than QB?
Take the program Monopoly at
http://www.network54.com/Forum/190883/m ... 1156376791
Even the years old original version which I disparaged for spaghetti techniques is instant. There is no room for improvement in speed.
But say there is something that could benefit from being faster. That is the beauty of QBasic: figure out a way to make it solve the problem faster. Only lazy, stupid programmers demand faster and faster machines and compilers to make up for their lack of talent. The latest example: Vista.
Mac
I meant in terms of equal code.
For instance:
It will run faster in FB than QB (I tried it).
So, are there different machine instructions for, say the line command in QBASIC and FreeBASIC?
Though I do agree; good coding is paramount. I program in TI-BASIC and the smallest changes make big differences. And TI calculators are SLOW.
For instance:
Code: Select all
CLS
SCREEN 12 '12 HAS A RESOLUTION OF 640*480
FOR X=0 TO 639
LINE (X, 0) - (X, 479)
NEXT X
So, are there different machine instructions for, say the line command in QBASIC and FreeBASIC?
Though I do agree; good coding is paramount. I program in TI-BASIC and the smallest changes make big differences. And TI calculators are SLOW.
For any grievances posted above, I blame whoever is in charge . . .
Re: Source for QBasic or QuickBasic
For the Qbasic 1.1 source:Stoves wrote:Anyone happen to know if the source code for QBasic or QuickBasic (interpreter or compiler) has ever been leaked? and if so, where it might be found?
Few days before today I saw it in this webpage
http://vetusware.com/select-by/category/System/?cat=2
Also somebody did put it in the Emule. There is an spanish guy who has that source, it was in his webpage at
http://imaginatica.us.es/~wopr2k/qbdl/index.html
but it's closed. His name is nathan or na_than or something alse. If you want to ask that source to him I doubt he will give it to you because is a weird person.
He has the source because an expert called Plasma gave it to him.
That file has 7.4 Mbs. = 21 Mbs. expanded, 1,489 files, and yes, like another programmers said, most files are *.asm and *.C
MY PAGE: http://Qbasic.phatcode.net" target="_blank
(I ONLY USE WINDOWS 98SE YET, BELIEVE IT OR NOT)
(I ONLY USE WINDOWS 98SE YET, BELIEVE IT OR NOT)