¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

Re: QDOS vs Python vs c vs ...


 

Hi John

Yes, exactly... nobody is suggesting writing a large general purpose application using BASIC or QDOS. It's for scripting the behaviour of a radio and to some extent, customizing the radio and allowing people to play with their own modifications if they wish. QDOS will get significant updates when used in QMX, adding more features and making it even easier to use than in U4B.

A core principle is that all QDOS should be entirely hosted on the device (U4B, QMX) itself without relying on any external software development tools on a PC or PC utilities to program it; just simple terminal?emulator is sufficient. This is also consistent with the rest of the concept with QRP Labs rigs. There's no rig utility on a PC, no accompanying fancy software that would do plots and things. It's all by terminal access. This keeps it simple for me, and for you. Remember I do not have a large software development department. I *am* the software development department, as well as a number of other roles all mixed up in one; so keeping it simple is an absolute requirement. There's nothing so simple a BASIC in QDOS where you just type it in, and it's ready to go; you can run many of the commands at the command line too, and see their effect.?

Another interesting comparison is with the Elecraft transceivers. ALL of them, K3S, KX2, KX3, K4, KH1. Same concept. There was a whole book on Elecraft Macro programming written by Fred?KE7X (SK). Yet all the macros really are, are sets of the familiar CAT commands. There isn't any programming as such. Just execution of CAT commands. Yet there was enough material for a book, and enough flexibility to accomplish many things. Imagine how much further we can go with QMX.?

73 Hans G0UPL



On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 11:08?AM John Baines via <jbaines=[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,

My 2d¡¯s worth.

QDOS is extremely limited in the number of available commands compared with other languages.

BUT I have been using it with a U4B and have the following comments:

? ? ? ? It is very easy to learn

? ? ? ? It has more than enough power/flexibility to do whatever I want to do with the U$B

? ? ? ? It would be totally unsuitable for complex mathematical caclulations, extensive databases etc.

My conclusion

? ? ? ? As a programming language out in the wild it would be a non-starter, but in its designed place it is perfectly adequate.

? ? ? ? I look forward to its extension for the QMX(+).

¡°It is vain to do with more what can be done with less¡±

73/72
John
M0JBA




Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.