object-oriented BASIC???

[Eric Bowman bobo]

In article <27AUG92.12080846 at wums.wustl.edu> wetsel_r at wums.wustl.edu writes:
>YES!  BASIC can be OOP.  Originally, BASIC was seriously flawed as one
>could just write anything one wanted without regard to format or structure.
> Recently, the Microsoft (and a few others) modified BASIC in such a way so
>that one would be "coaxed" into an OOP format -- thus the QuickBasic
>Compliers were born.  I can attest to this from personal experience. 
>Subroutines in QuickBasic become what are called modules, where a program
>is actually a collection of modules held together with a central program. 
>Many books on advanced QuickBasic programming exist which allow one to
>setup 'pop-up' windows and make your program easier on the eye and the
>end-user.  

I think you are confused. QuickBasic is *not* an OOPL.  It is somewhat more
evolved than vanilla BASIC since it allows structured programming.  It may
even allow certain primitive OOP techniques, but I think they are limited;
QuickBasic for the Mac doesn't really support pointers; the PC version may;
I know it's considerably better than the Mac version.

>However, when BASIC (through Quickbasic) was going through this
>evolution, C came along and I know of a number of BASIC programmers who
>jumped ship.   

Huh?!? BASIC: 1967.  C : 1973.  QuickBasic:  mid '80's.

>To answer your question, Yes, BAsic can be OOP through the QuickBasic Compiler.
>Easily obtained at your local discount Software store, PC-MAG, Egghead...

Well...QuickBasic allows some pretty sophisticated (for BASIC) structured
programming techniques; using them, one can employ certain object-oriented
techniques, just as one can do the same thing in C or Pascal.  
However, QuickBasic is *not* an OOPL in the sense of C++, Objective
C, Object Pascal, or SmallTalk.  I highly doubt it will ever become an OOPL;
I just don't think there's any reason for it.  There are far better languages.

Just my $0.02,
bobo
bowman at reed.edu