11 Apr
2011
11 Apr
'11
9:10 a.m.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Liam Proven wrote:
Eh? I've NEVER seen Quick C
in "mainstream" use. You sure you're not
thinking of Turbo C?
A brand new QB45 would be
fun to have - then again, so would PDS 7.1 with
a manual set. *wistful sigh*
Delphi could be used to create ActiveX controls for VB, but VB could not
create components for Delphi - unless they were ActiveX controls in which
case Delphi could use them.
Quick C and QB were _completely_ different product
lines and languages.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
Quick C had
become popular w/developers (not for primary use) long
after M$ canned it. Not sure why, maybe they just liked the IDE. And
liked using it for quick and dirty tasks.
I spied QB 4.5
on eBay, brand new (someone placed a bid, I won't at
this juncture). Is there any big difference between early versions of
QB or QC? Early version of Visual C++ for instance are doggish compared
to later ones, but that's a different world.
Already
straying offtopic, a book I own states that Delphi could be
used to write Visual Basic, but not the other way around.
Neither way, AFAIK. Delphi=updated Borland Object Pascal, not a BASIC.
I'll
assume Quick C could be used to write Quick Basic, but what about
the other way around?