03-31-2025, 11:27 PM
Much like mdijkens, I've also used Qbasic, QuickBasic 7.1, and more recently QB64 professionally, for years. In my case, for navigation or tactical software, military programs. The test scenarios, test results, listing of the code, do become included in formal reports, contract deliverables, which detail the requirements for operational software. I also provide the .exe files with these reports, if it helps the users to run their own tests, to double check the algorithms.
The actual software development team have always transcribed these to either C or C++, depending on the programmer involved. The point I wanted to make is that I've never had the slightest problem with the QB64 code listed in the deliverable reports. The software guys have never had trouble understanding the code or even just transcribing it verbatim and then verifying the results with the ones documented in whatever report.
I think that one big advantage of using Basic this way, similar to Pascal in this regard, is that just about any programmer can decipher the Basic code easily enough.
I'd almost describe it as a lingua franca, for this type of work anyway.
The actual software development team have always transcribed these to either C or C++, depending on the programmer involved. The point I wanted to make is that I've never had the slightest problem with the QB64 code listed in the deliverable reports. The software guys have never had trouble understanding the code or even just transcribing it verbatim and then verifying the results with the ones documented in whatever report.
I think that one big advantage of using Basic this way, similar to Pascal in this regard, is that just about any programmer can decipher the Basic code easily enough.
I'd almost describe it as a lingua franca, for this type of work anyway.