🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jfoy.715320808@glia> jfoy@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Jeff Foy) writes:
>>It's probably futile, but if there ever will be a version 5, it should have...
>
>Definitely futile. QuickBASIC is, essentially, a non-product. Microsoft
>is going to be announcing a Visual BASIC for DOS (that's right, for DOS)
>that will put the final nails into QuickBASIC's coffin. That should
>happen any day now (early September according to my sources).

I have VB (version 1 I guess, it doesn't say on the box) and I don't
like 
a) won't do peeks/pokes/in's/out's
b) can't do a CALL ABSOLUTE
(I do heavy duty data aquisition from custom hardware, and use debug
to write high speed aquisition/storage routines.  I then use bload
and bsave to move the routines into 'unused' memory areas (&h6000 to
&h9000), where they can be called from QB.  I use peek's and poke's to
set/alter the routines and to retrieve collected data.  Hey, it's fast,
painless, it works, no assembler to mess with, etc).
It would be nice to use VB to make a front-end for data display and
instrumentation control, but I guess it won't work the way I'm
doing it.

>>- pointer (mouse) support
>Said to be in VB/DOS. QB has the support for it (the rodent) in the
>environment. If you mean rodent support for your own programs, you should
>get Microsoft's PDS 7.1. It has a nice rodent module (user-interface
>toolbox if you prefer).

If there are no mouse functions in VB/DOS then it's a crock
(ie, let's say you've got a bit-map and you want to do image
analysis, so you want to display the coordinates of the mouse on the 
screen regardless of wheather or not you click any buttons).
like can you do this: x = MOUSEX : y = MOUSEY  ???

>>- more choice in screen editor modes (up to 132 X 66 ?)
>I'd kill for 132x66 on my monitor. But this bloody Paradise VGA card only

I've got a cheap ($70) 1 meg Trident based card that I can set to
132 X 66 (jeeze what small letters!), but when I go
qb /h, it goes into 80 x 50 (why can't it stay in 132 x 66?)

>>- support for in-line machine language code? (Wow, that would be cool)
>Uh, I dunno if I like that idea. Much prefer external asm routines.
I'd rather not mess with external libraries and junk.
If I wanted to do that, I'd also slide down the sharp end of a razor
blade on my balls, or learn C.