QBasic 4.5 Variable Ranges? - Programmers Heaven

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Welcome to the new platform of Programmer's Heaven! We apologize for the inconvenience caused, if you visited us from a broken link of the previous version. The main reason to move to a new platform is to provide more effective and collaborative experience to you all. Please feel free to experience the new platform and use its exciting features. Contact us for any issue that you need to get clarified. We are more than happy to help you.

QBasic 4.5 Variable Ranges?

SephirothSephiroth Fayetteville, NC, USAPosts: 1,035Member
It's been probably fifteen years since I played with QuickBasic, but I recently found my old copy of QuickBasic 4.5, and I decided I'd take a break from my C++ stuff for a week and work onan old 3D engine I had written in QB4.5 years ago. My problem, is that I cannot remember the value ranges for the various data types. I know that an INTEGER type goes from -32768 to 32767, but what about LONG, SINGLE, and DOUBLE?

-[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]

Comments

  • JakykongJakykong Posts: 103Member
    : It's been probably fifteen years since I played with QuickBasic, but
    : I recently found my old copy of QuickBasic 4.5, and I decided I'd
    : take a break from my C++ stuff for a week and work onan old 3D
    : engine I had written in QB4.5 years ago. My problem, is that I
    : cannot remember the value ranges for the various data types. I know
    : that an INTEGER type goes from -32768 to 32767, but what about LONG,
    : SINGLE, and DOUBLE?
    :
    : -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/gre
    : en][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h
    : [/red][/b][/italic]

    That information should be available in the online help within QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version, you can download it at http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've got includes the online help).

    I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A nice bit of nostalgia.

    Hope it helps!
    Sincerely,
    Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
    [email protected]
  • SephirothSephiroth Fayetteville, NC, USAPosts: 1,035Member
    : That information should be available in the online help within
    : QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version,
    : you can download it at
    : http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've
    : got includes the online help).
    :
    : I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A
    : nice bit of nostalgia.
    :
    : Hope it helps!
    : Sincerely,
    : Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
    : [email protected]

    I have the full version of 4.5 and have since the early 90's. I couldn't find it in the help that you use inside the old DOS IDE. If it is there, it is well hidden.

    I am also grabbing QB7.1 from that site, but am a bit curious as to what I'd gain by using it. I grew up with 4.5 and love it. Unless it is something critical, why should I use 7.1 over 4.5?

    *EDIT*

    I know it isn't related, but I noticed that running QB4.5 in Vista uses 100% of one CPU (Pentium D/3.40GHz) and in XP it uses 50% of one (P4/3.20GHz), but in 98SE on my old P2/233 it only uses about 5%. What the HECK are XP and Vista doing that causes QB to destroy CPU like that?

    -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]
  • JakykongJakykong Posts: 103Member
    : : That information should be available in the online help within
    : : QBasic, if I remember correctly. If you don't have the full version,
    : : you can download it at
    : : http://www.qbcafe.net/qbc/english/download.shtml (the one they've
    : : got includes the online help).
    : :
    : : I've used Linux for so long that I almost forgot QBasic existed! A
    : : nice bit of nostalgia.
    : :
    : : Hope it helps!
    : : Sincerely,
    : : Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
    : : [email protected]
    :
    : I have the full version of 4.5 and have since the early 90's. I
    : couldn't find it in the help that you use inside the old DOS IDE.
    : If it is there, it is well hidden.
    :
    : I am also grabbing QB7.1 from that site, but am a bit curious as to
    : what I'd gain by using it. I grew up with 4.5 and love it. Unless
    : it is something critical, why should I use 7.1 over 4.5?
    :
    : *EDIT*
    :
    : I know it isn't related, but I noticed that running QB4.5 in Vista
    : uses 100% of one CPU (Pentium D/3.40GHz) and in XP it uses 50% of
    : one (P4/3.20GHz), but in 98SE on my old P2/233 it only uses about
    : 5%. What the HECK are XP and Vista doing that causes QB to destroy
    : CPU like that?
    :
    : -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/gre
    : en][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h
    : [/red][/b][/italic]

    Honestly, I was never impressed with 7.1. I didn't find much in the way of significant advantages over 4.5, and the language differs slightly between them. I'd stick to 4.5.

    In the mean time, I downloaded it and compiled DOSbox (got me nostalgic... darn it. I guess I'll be picking up QBasic again over the next few days...).

    The minmum and maximum limits are available under Help->Contents->Data Types (now that I had a chance to look for it). That page has a short table.

    [note that I can't cite any references for the following. I've heard these, but I really don't know for sure, so most of this may be total speculation.]

    I think 2K, XP, and Vista use the 8086-emu mode of the CPU to run any DOS program, and are just horribly inefficient at managing that mode. They probably figured, if you're using a DOS program, you probably don't need the machine to be doing much, so it affords that sort of inefficiency.

    If it were me, I'd grab a real copy of DOS and a processor emulator like qemu or bochs (or get DOSBox, if it runs in windows... I'm not sure that it does, though). If you're using 100% of your CPU, those programs WILL be more efficient, sadly. That doesn't mean they'll be as efficient as a real DOS box would be, simply because they're emulating a processor within a processor.

    Hope it helps!
    Sincerely,
    Jakykong (Jack Mudge)
    [email protected]
  • SephirothSephiroth Fayetteville, NC, USAPosts: 1,035Member
    : Honestly, I was never impressed with 7.1. I didn't find much in the
    : way of significant advantages over 4.5, and the language differs
    : slightly between them. I'd stick to 4.5.
    :
    Alright, that's what I figured, since Microsoft LOVES breaking their software between versions.

    : The minmum and maximum limits are available under
    : Help->Contents->Data Types (now that I had a chance to look for it).
    : That page has a short table.
    :
    Will check it out in a bit.

    : I think 2K, XP, and Vista use the 8086-emu mode of the CPU to run
    : any DOS program, and are just horribly inefficient at managing that
    : mode. They probably figured, if you're using a DOS program, you
    : probably don't need the machine to be doing much, so it affords that
    : sort of inefficiency.
    :
    : If it were me, I'd grab a real copy of DOS and a processor emulator
    : like qemu or bochs (or get DOSBox, if it runs in windows... I'm not
    : sure that it does, though). If you're using 100% of your CPU, those
    : programs WILL be more efficient, sadly. That doesn't mean they'll be
    : as efficient as a real DOS box would be, simply because they're
    : emulating a processor within a processor.
    :
    Why do that? I have a Tandy 486SX with 8MB of RAM running DOS 6.22 and Win3.11 in my computer room! I also have a P2/233 with 98SE, a P3/800 with 98SE, a Pentium 133 with 98SE, and a P3/866 with 98SE! I can do it for real. Just found the CPU usage odd. Oh, and I don't rent out my old machines. :p

    -[italic][b][red]S[/red][purple]e[/purple][blue]p[/blue][green]h[/green][red]i[/red][purple]r[/purple][blue]o[/blue][green]t[/green][red]h[/red][/b][/italic]
Sign In or Register to comment.