Guess I missed the construction signs.
Printable View
Guess I missed the construction signs.
https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....ht=qbasic+curl
In this thread SmUX2k claims QBasic had web access with a utility called curl. Call me pedantic, but that is borderline nonsense imho. Why? First of all there is no version of utility for MS-DOS which means this solution wouldn't work on the platforms QBasic was designed for. Second, it is just a clever trick using an external program.
I know networking existed for DOS and access to the early internet was possible with just software for that OS. Out of curiousity, has anyone ever accessed the internet using some BASIC dialect for DOS actually running under DOS?
This reminds me of an e-mail I once recieved decades ago, someone thought that calling the Sound Recorder in Windows 95 to play wave files using the SHELL statement in QBasic meant they had made a program capable of text to speech. If they had used actual port I/O and snippets of assembly code (CALL ABSOLUTE) I might have been mildly impressed by a program reciting the letters in a text.
This seems more suited for the General developers forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels
I am curious why your interested in software that runs on MS-Dos.
You're pedantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels
Your post, however, was meta. This is the post race, everything here is discontinuous nonsense, but what you posted wasn't nonsense, which makes it discontinuous nonsense. So it both was and wasn't at the same time.
Nah, such outdated languages don't really have any relevance anymore, so for me it is more chit chat than a real discussion. I am not really interested in obtaining software that runs under DOS if that is you what mean, it is more that I am interested in old programming languages and by extension old software. Mostly for nostalgic reasons and a curiousity about how such old software works. While it isn't really all that useful or practical to know in most cases, it can still be fun and interesting to learn about the inner workings of old software and even hardware. While it serves no practical purpose, I have for example tried pushing Q(uick)BASIC to its limit by writing programs capable of using EMS/VESA/the mouse/soundcard/MIDI. It is interesting to see how those things we take for granted in a more modern language have to be manually implemented in an older language. Also, an interesting topic for debate here is where to draw the line between a program that depends on something minor external utility and a program that is essentially a script making another program do most of the work.
If those things interest you, go ahead reply in depth to what I brought up or ignore it. It's not that important, just fun to me.
PS:
I didn't want to hijack a thread about HTML parsing for the purpose of debating whether or not calling curl QBasic constitutes giving QBasic true access to the web. This thread seemed as good as any a place to post something like this. It appears to be full of random topics by other people anyway.
Ya think???
I am not sure how to take that, but I guess it is good to be pedantic at times, I believe it is important to not just throw something together that works but to think about how you write it when developing a program. Also, it occurs to me, that if you are going to use a utility that needs at least Windows 95 to work, you might as well use a programming language more suited to that os.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I think a lot, too much at times, probably. LOL - What exactly were you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
How should you take it??? You told us to call you pedantic, so I did. You should take it literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels
I was replying to the final two sentences in your post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels
Quote:
This thread seemed as good as any a place to post something like this. It appears to be full of random topics by other people anyway.
LOL
I thought as much.
That's Quantum theory in a nutshell :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, I noticed that, but I got too distracted trying to decide whether Peter's cat was dead or alive.
Now you’re just trying to get entangled in philosophical questions….:bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Well, I do own a dog! :-) :-)
Named Pavlov?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels
Hahaha, no her name is Tessa. :-)
So, if tessa wrecked the place, would that be fourth dimensional destruction?
Probably! :-)