Is QB Ass? YingYangFace Off

Among programmers everywhere, one thing is whispered like a secret nobody really wants to reveal, but it must be brought to light; QB may just be ass. SJ Zero will be arguing in No nonsense bold, while basix will use evasive italics.

QB? Ass? Perish the thought! Never has there existed a programming language so well designed that an idiot like me could pick it up and slowly create a great RPG engine! Never was there a language whose elegance is matched only by it's versatility! QB isn't just a programming lanugage, it's an experience; feel what it's like to be a programmer without memorizing a million stupid windows API calls! Even when you're using a lib, it's sheer simplicity, and the only way you could deny that is with some kind of crack running through your veins!

So you agree that you are an idiot. well, i am mostly a C/C++ programmer. its sheer power is awesome. the control over the h/w is just superb. The speed of execution is extremely fast, its eazy once you get to know it properly and its compatibility is unmatched! Where as QB is slow, platform dependent and is confined in basically DOS' limitations. So only sheer idiots would use it.

Is C the only programming language on the planet? Why not compare apples to apples and take high level languages like Visual Basic or Java and compare it to QB, and QB comes out on top for the same reasons C comes out on top when compared to QB. As for me being an idiot, only an idiot would use a language that requires admission into MENSA to write code for it that is half as efficient or readable as in QB.

Don't bring up MENSA, we are arguing about the language itself. You want to compare QB to VB/Java. Fine! FYI Java inherits *all* its properties, without a single exception, from C++. It is platform independent. Has all the features of C++ and an added improvement, which was a draw back of C++(something that QB had and C++ doesnt), garbage collection(auto mem mgmt). So QB is again very primitive compared to Java. As for VB,  VB is something like C++, Java and Basic combined together. It has ease of Basic's commands(syntax mostly), it has the OOP features of C++ and garbage collection of Java. Though it is dependent on the windows platform which is superior to DOS! Also, C/C++ is more efficient than QB!

Stop flinging useless acronyms at me! "Oh look, I'm java! I have garbage collection! Oh look, I'm VB! I have OOP!"... Bollocks. Pure and simple bullshit. What has Javas garbage collection ever done for a programmer? NOTHING! THAT'S WHAT! You're a programmer. Keep track of your own memory! Before you say anything else good about java, lets not forget that it is, in spite of all your prattling, far, FAR slower than QB in anything that matters, and all the inhereted libraries from C++ won't save you, since Java runs on top of a freakin' Virtual processor! As for OOP, it's nothing but an excuse for morons to waste a companies money by spending all day long making functions like "geta", because actually accessing variable.a is insecure or something! OOP is a waste of time and memory, and only a bunch of moronic acronym chasing code jockeys would care about it. As for C/C++ being more efficient than QB, look at QuickC. Oh gee, I forgot, compiler technology just sucked back then! Well, since we're just talking about the language, speed must not be an issue, since QB parses to Assembly code just like C does. And as for platform dependancy, DOS exists in emulated form on every platform in existance, win32 does not. Beat that!

C/C++ doesnt *need* an emulator for win32. This is a *major* misconception about C/C++. Most of us are aware of Turbo C, Borland C++ etc... which compile for Microsoft OSes. But since C/C++ is platform independent, it means you dont need an emulator for it! Muwahahaha. If I dont use platform dependent services in C/C++ then I can compile the *same* program for platforms like, Win32, Linux(and all its variants), UNIX, FreeBSD, **DOS**, Mac OS and the list goes on!!! Beat that! And about OOP, some people are very much against it. But they are not real coders in my opinion. They dont understand the need for reusablility of code, abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance etc... They just want to write messy procedural code which no one understands after a certain no. of lines are written.Also, I can see you have many common misconceptions about QB. Though, QB and C/C++ may compile to ultimately produce ASM code. But they dont produce the exact, same ASM code. It differs a *lot* and believe me when I say a lot! And as for Java, yes it is slower but doh! it has to run for *any* platform unlike QB which has to run in the confines of DOSs 640K and did i mention C++/Java/VB all have built in inet support? (list of 100 or so OSes, removed for your entertainment) some, only some of the platforms supported by C

 Sure, Basic doesn't NEED DOS either, in fact, basic runs on so many more platforms than C, without any major interface changes(because unlike dos, basic is all standard between OSes), that I'm suprised you decided to back into that corner so soon! Every platform with a C compiler almost certainly has a basic compiler for it as well. Why? Because BASIC is what people who actually need to get stuff done use, and always has been. Sure, it's nice that you pocket protector types can use C, but for engineers, technicians, users, and other people who use computers to do stuff other than using comptuers, it's the standard. C is never used. And "real programmers" in my opinion are antiquated goons who think they're still relevant in a day where any joe can walk up to a computer, use BASIC to make the program they want, and use it. They're like the ivory tower. They just don't realize how out of touch they are yet. Maybe when all the programming jobs are in india they'll understand.

Wtf are you talking about a 3rd world country?  you dont get it still do you? BASIC was ok to generate random numbers, calculate are of a circle, generate math tables. But for complex stuff it cannot be used. How ever you screech, howl, or rant and rave about it, the truth wont change - BASIC is useless as a programming language. It is possible to make compilers for BASIC on all known platforms but what use would that  serve? The language will be still useless.
 I think we both can come to a common solution/conclusion. Basic in its current form is useless. Its beauty is its syntax. VB was a good attempt at blending QB's syntax and C++'s usefulness but was a failure. I think Opensource developers must give it a shot at this blend. I think whatever that will transpire will be something elegant as QB while robust as C++

Moderation? NOT ON MY WATCH! I will hunt down and kill every single one of you Java loving QB hating nancy boys, and I'll be able to do it too, because my killer robot'll have killed you long before your java imbued death machine has even loaded it's shitty VM!

SJ Zero codes using a 30 year old programming language and a 15 year old compiler.

Basix codes in or something.

  Comment on this article in our Forum