QB64by (no login)Perhaps I should read about that sometime. I have in the past tried a few supposedly modernised alternatives to qbasic that were supposed to take my old qbasic programs and run them in modern operating systems, but the ones I tried didn't work. Once I discovered DOSBox, I no longer felt the need to try to replace QBasic, so I stopped looking at that time. Maybe it would be worth it to give that one a look though since I seem to be out-growing QBasic. I can't make heads or tails out of visual programming though. I even went to school and stuff trying to learn it, so I hope I can take my old code that works fine in qbasic and just open it as is and it'll work without being edited. That way, I can gradually learn anything new it might have while still being able to do stuff I already know how to do. =3 |
| Response Title | Author and Date |
| All other previous alternative, except Power Basic, sucked. | on Nov 7 |
| In my opinion multi-module support is necessary | on Nov 7 |
| But seriously, how can you be serious? | on Nov 7 |
| Program size isn't the only reason to split a program into multiple files | on Nov 7 |
| Multi-modular | on Nov 8 |