Which Basic For Mac is Best? 
Author Message
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Has anyone had experience with the following:
   (1) True Basic
   (2) Future Basic
   (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
   (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
   (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
   (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

   I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
bigots need not apply).

     Thank you very much.

Steve Lutes
Center for Balance Disorders NA315
Department of Otorhinolaryngology
Baylor College of Medicine
One Baylor Plaza
Houston, TX 77030
Voice: 713-798-6336
Fax: 713-798-8658



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

> Has anyone had experience with the following:
>    (1) True Basic
>    (2) Future Basic
>    (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
>    (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
>    (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
>    (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

Basics would probably be ok for some folks, but once I started coding in Perl,
I quit using Think C on my Mac.  Basic was OK for the Commodore, but you'd
probably be happier with code you could transport to other platforms.

It wouldn't hurt to at least have a look at Perl (another reason below):

ftp://mors.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/MacPerl/Applications/MacPerl_501r1m_appl...

Quote:

>    I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
> Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
> bigots need not apply).

If you really want to spend your money wisely, pick up a copy of O'Reilly &
Associates' _Learning Perl_ and _Programming Perl_ - if you buy them together
you'll get a discount if you buy directly from ora.com and they also offer
discounts for educational institutions.
Quote:
>      Thank you very much.

> Steve Lutes
> Center for Balance Disorders NA315
> Department of Otorhinolaryngology
> Baylor College of Medicine
> One Baylor Plaza
> Houston, TX 77030
> Voice: 713-798-6336
> Fax: 713-798-8658



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?


Quote:
>Has anyone had experience with the following:
>   (1) True Basic
>   (2) Future Basic
>   (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
>   (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
>   (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
>   (6) Anything else you think would be useful.
>   I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
>Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
>bigots need not apply)

Erm, actually, YOU'RE applying........for advice I think.

Quote:

>     Thank you very much.

>Steve Lutes
<snip>
>Center for Balance Disorders

            ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^  Yup !!!! Kinda looks that way

Sounds like you've had a {*filter*} experience with a couple of 'C' heads,
but (type)casting probably isn't the best way of dealing with bigotry.
Especially as your asking for advice on "the  'C' support" (above).

There are an awful lot of people I'm sure like myself who know a number
of programming languages, 'C' included who would have been more than
happy to offer advice until they read your little quip. I suppose for
any language there will be a small 'hard core' set of junkies who will
bore you to death telling you how great one language is compared over
all the others..etc., truth is all of 'em have their good & bad bits,
(so do their proponents !). Some of the code I've written in BASIC
would take ages to port to 'C' with no real advantage in either speed
or clarity (easier to change in some cases too) whereas some of my 'C'
stuff would be verrrrry difficult to do in other languages.

Let's see,

ASSEMBLER Assemblies,
LISP Loonies,
ADA Advocates,
fortran Fanatics,
COBOL Cohorts,
BASIC Boffins,
Pascal Proponents,
TeX Avery's (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Mac donalds
PC plods

'C' Bigots..........nah, doesn't fit............

Strange way of making friends (oops,no pun intended). ;-)

***********************************************************

***********************************************************



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

> Has anyone had experience with the following:
>    (1) True Basic
>    (2) Future Basic
>    (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
>    (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
>    (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
>    (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

>    I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
> Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
> bigots need not apply).

I've never used Future Basic, but I liked True Basic.  It has some simple,
easy graphics and GUI stuff as I recall, but they are not all Mac-like.
For simple apps. this may not matter. True Basic, though, is very
portable.

--
Louis M. Pecora

/* My views and opinions are not those of the U.S. Navy.
   If you want those, you have to start a war.  */



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:



> > Has anyone had experience with the following:
> >    (1) True Basic
> >    (2) Future Basic
> >    (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
> >    (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
> >    (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
> >    (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

> Basics would probably be ok for some folks, but once I started coding in Perl,
> I quit using Think C on my Mac.  Basic was OK for the Commodore, but you'd
> probably be happier with code you could transport to other platforms.

> It wouldn't hurt to at least have a look at Perl (another reason below):

[cut-perl info]

Does Perl give you access to Graphic (GUI) items? Even roughly?  Can you
plot with it?  Can you link to C programs?

--
Lou Pecora
code 6341
Naval Research Lab
Washington  DC  20375
USA

/* My views are not those of the U.S. Navy.
   If you want their views, you have to go to war. */



Sun, 17 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?
Quote:

>Steve,
>   Each BASIC has its +'s and -'s.  A few months ago I did a comparison of
>the speeds of a number of different Mac languages including 3 BASICs and 2
>"C"s for transcendental computations.  I used the following loops:

>LOOP1:
>   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i)^2))
>   b = (SIN(a))^2 + (COS(a))^2
>   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

>LOOP2:  (no power functions)
>   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i) * SQR(i)))
>   b = (SIN(a) * SIN(a) + COS(a) * COS(a))
>   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

>Time to complete 100,000 iterations of LOOP1 and LOOP2 (see below):
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>  Platform               Language              Computation Time (s)
>                                                 LOOP1   LOOP2  
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>IIci w/68040/33MHz/FPU  QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e (FPU)    17    19
>          3             CodeWarrior 6 (FPU)         29    16

                                                        ^^^^^^^^
Quote:
>          3             CodeWarrior 6 (non-FPU)     39    25

                                                        ^^^^^^^^
Quote:
>          3             Think C 5.0.4 (FPU)         54    22

                                                        ^^^^^^^^
Quote:
>          3             Think C 5.0.4 (non-FPU)     58    29

                                                        ^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>          3             QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e(non-FPU) 44    63
>          3             VIP BASIC 1.5.2             100   65
>          3             FutureBASIC 1.01            814   1133

That's very weird. Loop1 should *not* take more time to complete
than loop2. How did you implement the power function in C?
pow()?

--

           <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~shimpei/index.html>
     Stanford Symphony Concert   Dec. 1  8pm   Dinkelspiel Auditorium
 Works by Debussy, Handel, Dvorak | See <http://www.stanford.edu/group/sso/>



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

> Has anyone had experience with the following:
>    (1) True Basic
>    (2) Future Basic
>    (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
>    (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
>    (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
>    (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

>    I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
> Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
> bigots need not apply).

I have only used FutureBasic, but I can say it's an excellent language.
The forthcoming version, called Future Basic II, will include Program
Generator 4, a graphical interface layout package and shell generator. The
apps I write in FB look as good - or better - than most C apps, and
because FB is a compiled language, not interpreted, my apps are nice and
fast as well (some people think I write in pure assembly). It supports
inline assembler and it can INITs, cdevs, DAs, etc.


If you want to see samples of one man's FB work (mine), drop by my site
(address below) and follow the link to my shareware page.

- Joe

                 +-----------------------------------+
                 |          Joseph Ashear            |

                 | http://www.interport.net/~jashear |
                 +-----------------------------------+



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?
Steve,
   Each BASIC has its +'s and -'s.  A few months ago I did a comparison of
the speeds of a number of different Mac languages including 3 BASICs and 2
"C"s for transcendental computations.  I used the following loops:

LOOP1:
   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i)^2))
   b = (SIN(a))^2 + (COS(a))^2
   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

LOOP2:  (no power functions)
   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i) * SQR(i)))
   b = (SIN(a) * SIN(a) + COS(a) * COS(a))
   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

Time to complete 100,000 iterations of LOOP1 and LOOP2 (see below):
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Platform               Language              Computation Time (s)
                                                 LOOP1   LOOP2  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
IIci w/68040/33MHz/FPU  QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e (FPU)    17    19
          3             CodeWarrior 6 (FPU)         29    16
          3             CodeWarrior 6 (non-FPU)     39    25
          3             Think C 5.0.4 (FPU)         54    22
          3             Think C 5.0.4 (non-FPU)     58    29
          3             QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e(non-FPU) 44    63
          3             VIP BASIC 1.5.2             100   65
          3             FutureBASIC 1.01            814   1133

    Clearly, FutureBASIC is a dog in terms of speed but has toolbox
accesss.  QBasic is faster, but not as compatible with different
CPUs/OSs.  VIP-BASIC is a good middle ground. BASIC is a great language
for quick development, but you can only go so far with it.  If speed,
features and compatibility are your main concerns (as they were mine),
you're better off with a C language such as CodeWarrior.  I'm not a C
"snob" (programming in BASIC is relaxing and enjoyable for me), but until
MicroSoft comes out with an updated BASIC for Mac (probably never), you
may as well bite the bullet and learn C.  

Hope this helps,


->Has anyone had experience with the following:
->   (1) True Basic
->   (2) Future Basic
->   (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
->   (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
->   (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
->   (6) Anything else you think would be useful.
->  
->   I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
->Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
->bigots need not apply).
->
->     Thank you very much.
->
->Steve Lutes
->Center for Balance Disorders NA315
->Department of Otorhinolaryngology
->Baylor College of Medicine
->One Baylor Plaza
->Houston, TX 77030
->Voice: 713-798-6336
->Fax: 713-798-8658

--
John M. Coggi                | "What I have written, I have written"
The Aerospace Corporation    |     P. Pilate, c. 35 AD
http://www.aero.org          |

----------------------------------------------------------------------
****  KEEP BILL OFF THE HIGHWAY **** SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT ISP ****



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

> Has anyone had experience with the following:
>    (1) True Basic
>    (2) Future Basic
>    (3) True Basic vs. Future Basic
>    (4) Using the C support in either Future Basic or True Basic
>    (5) True Basic's Fortan to True Basic converter
>    (6) Anything else you think would be useful.

>    I'm buying a BASIC for the lab and want to spend $$$ wisely. (Note:
> Posts in the vein of "get a real language like C" will be ignored. C
> bigots need not apply).

>      Thank you very much.

Steve,
  A friend of mine was interested in FutureBasic, which he said was an
excellent implementation of Basic, but when he approached the company, he
didn't get a response.  He thinks that they are out of business.  He,
therefore, tried VIP Basic (VB).  He found that VB was fairly peppy on his
stock LC and that it had good libraries, i.e. 3D and 2D graphing routines
which may be useful for labs.  Mainstay has created VB so as to have
higher order routines that allow access to the mac toolbox and interface
elecments, such as windows, etc.  It is an impressive environment.  VB is
now interpreted, but in the next version due in January, there will be a
translator that will send the Basic to CodeWarrior which will be able to
compile it.  Furthermore, Mainstay (1-800-484-9817 X4636) has a special
for members of user groups till Dec. 31, if you wnat to check it before
buying, of $49.95 as opposed to $295.
  Now here are my $.02 about TrueBasic.  It is straight forward enough to
create a program and has good specialty libraries that I haven't seen with
any other environment - such as science, business and 3D graphing - but I
don't like it for the following reasons:
  - doesn't have a real mac interface, which means basic stuff like
printing in the background is not possible or printing with laser printers
can be a challenge
  - slow since it is interpreted
  - claims you can interactively debug; no, it doesn't work very well!

  P.S. I'm working with graphing using TrueBasic and although I enjoy its
ease of use, I realize that the applications I'm producing will make most
mac users run shouting DOZ clone and {*filter*}y {*filter*} :-)!

--
marlonAGriffith,   :-)

"Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education."  Mark Twain



Mon, 18 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

>     Clearly, FutureBASIC is a dog in terms of speed but has toolbox
> accesss.

FB uses BCD arithmetic by default.  My understanding is that this is
highly accurate at the cost of speed.  If the other languages uses
other floating point storage methods, this might account for the
difference.  Did you try any integer-based tests?


Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:

> Have a look at the *freeware* "chipmunk basic".  It is surprisingly
> good
> for freeware and it runs native on PowerPCs also.  Despite the
> disclaimers, I find it fast enough, and it has a lot of functions.

Thanks, but, just so that no one gets their hopes up... Chipmunk Basic
is an old-fashioned interpreter.  It's 40 to 300 times slower than C
code compiled by CW6 running on a PowerMac.  I know because I rewrote
and optimized a large part of the Mac version of Chipmunk Basic.

The latest version is still freeware and available for ftp here:
<ftp://ftp.rahul.net/pub/rhn/chipmunk-basic-3.2.6.sit.hqx> or
<ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rh/rhn/chipmunk-basic-3.2.6.sit.hqx>

It does includes such structured constructs as WHILE WEND loops and
named SUBroutines with local variables.  It does not allow direct
access to the Mac toolbox; but it does allow native code plug-ins.
I'm working with the OOBASIC-L mailing list to define some object
oriented extensions to it, but no promises.

The only benchmarks where it's even remotely competitive with
FutureBasic are those that require a large proportion of floating
point arithmetic and functions and the extra precision of BCD
math isn't required.  Otherwise, it's slow.  It's BASIC, but it's
*slow*...

---

#include <canonical.disclaimer>    // I speak only for myself, etc.
(even slow stuff runs fast on PowerMacs and Silicon Graphics Indys)



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?

Quote:



>> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>   Platform               Language              Computation Time (s)
>>                                                  LOOP1   LOOP2  
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> IIci w/68040/33MHz/FPU  QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e (FPU)    17    19
>>           3             CodeWarrior 6 (FPU)         29    16

>Don't you think there is a problem here ? CodeWarrior C is much
>faster that QuickBasic.

>--
>Jean Thioulouse - Laboratoire de Biometrie - Universite Lyon 1
>69622 Villeurbanne Cedex - France        Fax: (33) 78 89 27 19
>          http://biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr/JTHome.html

And FutureBasic II is about the same speed as CW. Pick your poison.

Mel Patrick
Wabbit Wangler



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?


Quote:
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   Platform               Language              Computation Time (s)
>                                                  LOOP1   LOOP2  
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> IIci w/68040/33MHz/FPU  QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e (FPU)    17    19
>           3             CodeWarrior 6 (FPU)         29    16

Don't you think there is a problem here ? CodeWarrior C is much
faster that QuickBasic.

--
Jean Thioulouse - Laboratoire de Biometrie - Universite Lyon 1
69622 Villeurbanne Cedex - France        Fax: (33) 78 89 27 19
          http://biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr/JTHome.html



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?



->> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
->>   Platform               Language              Computation Time (s)
->>                                                  LOOP1   LOOP2  
->> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
->> IIci w/68040/33MHz/FPU  QuickBASIC(b) 1.0e (FPU)    17    19
->>           3             CodeWarrior 6 (FPU)         29    16
->
->Don't you think there is a problem here ? CodeWarrior C is much
->faster that QuickBasic.

    In general it is true that the C language is "faster" than BASIC;
however, take a good look at the code that's being run.  There are no
pointers to arrays being passed, no pointer manipulation-- basically
there's none of the "C" speed
tricks being implemented, just a few math statements contained in a loop.
What we're looking at here is the compiler's ability to optimize a few
math routines, not the overall optimizing capability of the compiler.  It
just turns out that Microsoft's QBASIC compilier is pretty good at
compiling transcendental math functions.
   By the way, in Loop 1 the pow() function was used in C.  I knew this
was a slow function in C so that's why I also ran Loop 2.

Regards,

John

LOOP1:
   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i)^2))
   b = (SIN(a))^2 + (COS(a))^2
   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

LOOP2:  (no power functions)
   a = EXP(LOG(SQR(i) * SQR(i)))
   b = (SIN(a) * SIN(a) + COS(a) * COS(a))
   c = i/1.001 * 1.001

->
->--
->Jean Thioulouse - Laboratoire de Biometrie - Universite Lyon 1
->69622 Villeurbanne Cedex - France        Fax: (33) 78 89 27 19
->          http://biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr/JTHome.html

--
John M. Coggi                | "What I have written, I have written"
The Aerospace Corporation    |     P. Pilate, c. 35 AD
http://www.aero.org          |

----------------------------------------------------------------------
****  KEEP BILL OFF THE HIGHWAY **** SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT ISP ****



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 Which Basic For Mac is Best?
Hi:

I've used FutureBASIC for years and like it a lot! I highly
recommend the language. You can review their home page via:

http://www.ids.net/~paumic/FutureBasic/Index.html

BTW - FB II is just about to be released. I look forward to it.

tedd

---
   ____
  |[  ]| mac programmer                        tedd  f. sperling

  |___-|            http://sojourn.com/~sperling/web/resume.html
---



Tue, 19 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 39 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Mac: Best *simple* BASIC program for teacher?

2. Future Basic(Mac) and Visual Basic Compatability

3. Future Basic(Mac) and Visual Basic Compatability

4. Good statistical software package for the Mac

5. ANY VB PEOPLE OUT THERE GOOD WITH MAC?????

6. I am looking for a good place to buy dev software online

7. I am a VB newbie, looking for good manual

8. Timer Question - I have explained better what I am looking for

9. I am looking for the best book for learning VB.

10. Am I better off without MTS (more...)?

11. The fastest BASIC - the best BASIC ?

12. BETTER BASIC - old Basic Language Compiler

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software