4 features common to all application software?
Realistically? For modern application software, I'll give you five. Well, I guess you can't actually call them "features." Maybe "traits" would be a better word. By the way, is "features" the word that you should really be using here? There are all kinds of application software and I can't think of 4 common features. 1) Insanely bloated, slow code. 2) Program documentation that ranks from poor (at the very best), to non-existant. (It wasn't always like this for Windows programs. Find some old Win 9x and Win 3.1 programs and you'll see it yourself.) 3) Bloated files due to crappy design and bloated, slow code. 4) The program code and design is so horrible that the entire program needs to be completely re-written by someone who is actually competent. 5) Obvious bugs caused by stupid, lazy, and irresponsible "programmers" who think that "time to market" is more important than releasing a fully working product. Letting the end user/customer find the bugs is a truly stupid and irresponsible thing to do. The problem may even be worse with Linux --and they don't even have the stupid "time to market" excuse. What do I know? Well, unlike over 96% of all "programmers" today, I actually have the computer and programming knowledge to be able to evaluate most aspects of computer programming. I've been programming for over 30 years, I've been programming on the Windows platform since Windows 3.1, I do most of my Windows coding with assembly language, and I know optimized machine code programming for various CPUs which means that I can REALLY evaluate programming code. Over 96% of programmers today (including computer science teachers) can't evaluate anything regarding computer programming because they don't know anything. Nor will they EVER know because they are too stupid and lazy, despite having the internet. You put those people back to the time when I started programming (or earlier) and they definitely wouldn't have a career in computer programming.
Is it a wise decision to pursue MS after 4 years of work experience?
I'm in the same boat as you, only difference being that I am yet to start gathering some work experience. Here's my analysis: It surely can't hurt, especially if you do it from a good place. We're in a skill based industry, and thats been the sole basis of your hiring. An MS will refine your skills and broaden your knowledge, which can only make you more productive.Downside, however, is that the kind of jobs open prior an MS and after an MS seem to be exactly the same. So if you expect to get a different or a "better" job post MS, I won't be so sure. Had you been talking about an MBA, or an MS in a different or specialized field, it might still have made a difference. In technology, not having an MS or a PhD is rarely a barrier to career growth.If your reason, thus, is career growth, an MS might not do too much for you and you should seek growth within the industry - or even the company. Amazon is a great company (possibly one of the top soft-dev recruiters in India at the moment), so I fail to see how an MS would aid in career-growth within the same line of work.
What is the difference between QBASIC and C programming language?
It depends on what you are doing and why. I still use QBASIC (and used MBASIC and used IBM's ROM-based BASIC [BASICA] as far back as 1983) for some things. And I'm a professional. Mostly, it's used for quick tests/verifications or where I don't need Windows' facilities and don't want to bother about setting them up. It's quick to use. I also will use HP 2000F BASIC, via an emulator, because it includes very sophisticated floating point transcendentals (Cheby + minimax) and has built in matrix facilities like inverse, determinant, and multiplication, for example. (MAT A=INV(B) for example.) I've also had clients insist. Though usually from one of the compilers, such as QB 4.5 or BC 7.1 or VB-DOS. Doesn't happen much, but it happens. (I also happen to have complete sources to QB 4.5 and DOS 6.0. But that is another matter.) QBASIC is easy to use and easy to share with others. And yes, it's great for hobby work. One of the better ways to learn game programming is with QB 4.5, for example. You get certain graphical modes and with Microsoft's emulation of the VGA hardware, you can do some pretty fancy things with it while learning the ropes. Eventually, you grow out of it. But you can do fast page flipping, tiling, animation, and smooth scrolling effects within QB, as well. (It's not quite so good with QBASIC, but doable.) Finally, debugging is trivial in QBASIC. If something breaks, you can sit down at the bottom lines and just enter immediate mode statements to print out variable values and so on. Figure out what went wrong. So you learn fast. C on the other hand is a very different domain. Debugging is good, but takes a little more effort. And it is a compile-run mode, which does slightly slow down some of the debug efforts. But it is incredibly versatile and is very good to learn. Only you can decide which is better. But they are both pretty easy to try out with a few simple programming tasks. Why not set yourself the goal of doing some simple programs in both and see what you decide about it. It'll just be a day or two of effort and you can quickly get a feel for the two development environments. (I don't know which C you are talking about, but it may or may not be tricky to install [if you aren't already knowledgeable about it] and use depending on which you are considering.)