Eric Bowman bobo
bowman at reed.edu
Thu Aug 27 16:04:10 EST 1992
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
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
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,
bowman at reed.edu
More information about the Bio-soft