Slow down there big boy. What happened to Qbasic here?

by (Login burger2227)

I don't care for a lot of the NEW BS being proposed, when the premise was to create a version compatable with Qbasic to begin with!

Some time LATER would be best. Perhaps binary, but Octal is rarely needed already without one byte values. QB never had them so we got into string values.

Keep it simple for now........you have to eat your dinner to get dessert.

Ted

PS: For those few argumentative people here, I know that QB already has Octal so what is the big deal? Keep going in this direction and we won't have to do any function coding.



    
This message has been edited by burger2227 from IP address 71.60.226.47 on Jun 25, 2008 4:10 PM
This message has been edited by burger2227 from IP address 71.60.226.47 on Jun 25, 2008 12:16 PM
This message has been edited by burger2227 from IP address 71.60.226.47 on Jun 25, 2008 12:12 PM

Posted on Jun 25, 2008, 12:04 PM
from IP address 71.60.226.47

Respond to this message   

Return to Index


Response TitleAuthor and Date
qbasic already has octalmennonite on Jun 25
i'm glad you're trying to keep the "fun" in function codingmennonite on Jun 25
 Philosophy..............right up your alley Mr. ASCII on Jun 25
  okay...mennonite on Jun 25
   Those features came with the C programming on Jun 25
    i try to be super human in replying... actually i don'tmennonite on Jun 25
     *It's a bird. It's a plane! Naw it's just Mennonite......... on Jun 25
      oh i like thatmennonite on Jun 25