11 Apr
2011
11 Apr
'11
1:51 p.m.
--- On Mon, 4/11/11, Gene Buckle <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
Eh?? I've NEVER seen Quick C in
"mainstream"
use.? You sure you're not thinking of Turbo C?
I never said mainstream use. Nevertheless I know of at least 2 full time developers that
like to use if for, I'll repeat, quick and dirty tasks. I think I even saw a mention
in C User's Journal while it was commonly available.
Quick C and QB were _completely_
different product lines
and languages.
Is this so hard to grasp? Could you write a compiler "on the level" of Quick
Basic w/QC? That's what I'm asking. I'll wager some type of C compiler was
used to write most of what's out there. In the case of Quick Basic, possibly even a M$
product. Could it have been done w/QC? Perhaps I threw some people off when I started out
mentioning Pascal, it having it's own way of storing data. May not be the first choice
when endeavoring to write a compiler (though even at least early versions of Turbo C used
pascal conventions), but were any of these tools up to the task?
> 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.
Neither way, AFAIK. Delphi=updated Borland Object
Pascal, not a BASIC.
oi vay. See last post.
> I'll
assume Quick C could be used to write Quick
Basic, but what about the other way
around?