Linked by twitterfire on Mon 24th Oct 2011 22:52 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 494572
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
The BASIC interpreter of the Commodore 64 & Commodore 128 were licensed from Microsoft if I'm not mistaken. I think that counts as a successful developer product.
Microsoft BASIC was one of the worst variants going.
Plus nobody used BASIC for serious development, even back then and even on better BASIC implementations.
Developers wrote in machine code.
Visual Basic can be pretty much ignored as it's pretty laughable for any serious development and Borland tools were significantly better than VS for quite some time. (IIRC I was still using Borland's C++ Builder in the late 90s)