BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2) 
Author Message
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)


 NA> I use ASIC 5.0 regularly. I was able to get Tom Hansen's IBRARY for
 NA> ASIC before he went out of the ShareWare business and the combination
 NA> makes ASIC a very nice Quick & Dirty  FAASSSTT compiler
 NA> that produces very small .COMs & .EXEs.
 NA> I can strongly recommend ASIC for any beginner who can't afford the
 NA> powerbasic products.

PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.

(e.g. PowerBASIC: x%=((x%+6)*y%^(z%-1))/2
            ASIC: a%=x%+6
                  b%=z%-1
                  b%=y%^b%
                  a%=a%*b%
                  x%=a%/2
                          - I guess :))
Bye,
 Peace,
Eran Meuhas t iSWA BBS SysGOD t SuperWare WHQ t PowerNET RING_D t HKS ?
???????????????????????????????????????????[ ! ?? €? ,PowerNet €? ]???
... Meuhas's Law
... Every program has a bug.
... Corollary - Any bug fix will create two new bugs.
??? SuperEDiT v1.70 [REG'ED: The Author]
--- FMail/386 1.02
 * Origin: iSWA BBS t SuperWare WHQ t +972-3-6730436 t 1GB t 24H (23:600/600)



Sun, 04 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

On Oct 16, 1996 16:10:18 in article <BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)>,

Quote:


>NA> I use ASIC 5.0 regularly. I was able to get Tom Hansen's IBRARY for
>NA> ASIC before he went out of the ShareWare business and the combination
>NA> makes ASIC a very nice Quick & Dirty  FAASSSTT compiler
>NA> that produces very small .COMs & .EXEs.
>NA> I can strongly recommend ASIC for any beginner who can't afford the
>NA> PowerBASIC products.

>PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
>can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.

>(e.g. PowerBASIC: x%=((x%+6)*y%^(z%-1))/2
>ASIC: a%=x%+6
>b%=z%-1
>b%=y%^b%
>a%=a%*b%
>x%=a%/2
>- I guess :))
>Bye!

Well, you're right about that but ASIC is quite useful if you need to make
a small utility or something... It's a matter of preferences really, you
can't call one the better. Personally, I like QuickBasic 4.5 better than PB
or ASIC, but when something calls for it I'll use either...

Bye! :)

--
----=======< White Shade >=======----
====-------<   DuoTech   >-------====


=- http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/6431 -=



Mon, 05 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:

> NA> I use ASIC 5.0 regularly. I was able to get Tom Hansen's IBRARY for
> NA> ASIC before he went out of the ShareWare business and the combination
> NA> makes ASIC a very nice Quick & Dirty  FAASSSTT compiler
> NA> that produces very small .COMs & .EXEs.
> NA> I can strongly recommend ASIC for any beginner who can't afford the
> NA> PowerBASIC products.
>PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
>can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.
>(e.g. PowerBASIC: x%=((x%+6)*y%^(z%-1))/2
>            ASIC: a%=x%+6
>                  b%=z%-1
>                  b%=y%^b%
>                  a%=a%*b%
>                  x%=a%/2
>                          - I guess :))
>Bye,
> Peace,

Hi EM!

1) Depends on what you need to do - test a for next LONG INT loopp in
PB, QB and ASIC and see which is fastest. My result's:

QB4x - 1982 milliseconds.
PB3x - 1083 milli's.
ASIC - 722 milli's.

2) Also, check out EXE/COM size's. For smaller utility's, ASIC is
fine.

3) Finally, assembly requires one "statement" per line. Sometimes this
makes things more clear when programming.

Ep

Ed Parry - Southern California, USA



Mon, 05 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

I've often heard that ASIC's one line / one command structure is a
limitation, but that's kind of rediculous, isn't it. After all, it
certainly prevents the "spaghetti code" monsters from attacking your
programs.



Tue, 06 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)


 >> PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
 >> can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.
 g> Well, you're right about that but ASIC is quite useful if you need to
 g> make a small utility or something... It's a matter of preferences
 g> really, you can't call one the better. Personally, I like QuickBasic

Right.

 g> 4.5 better than PB or ASIC, but when something calls for it I'll use
 g> either...

QuickBASIC is NOT better than PowerBASIC, QB's compiler is far
from being perfect, PowerBASIC's compiler is MUCH better, besides,
PB has a more commands to make your life much easier.

One thing bad about PB - its IDE sux.

Bye,
 Peace,
Eran Meuhas t iSWA BBS SysGOD t SuperWare WHQ t PowerNET RING_D t HKS ?
???????????????????????????????????????????[ ! ?? €? ,PowerNet €? ]???
... Skinners's Constant
... That quanity which, when multiplied times, divided by, added to, or
... subtracted from your answer ... gives you the answer you should have
... gotten.
??? SuperEDiT v1.70 [REG'ED: The Author]
--- FMail/386 1.02
 * Origin: iSWA BBS t SuperWare WHQ t +972-3-6730436 t 1GB t 24H (23:600/600)



Wed, 07 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)


 NA> I've often heard that ASIC's one line / one command structure is a
 NA> limitation, but that's kind of rediculous, isn't it. After all, it
 NA> certainly prevents the "spaghetti code" monsters from attacking your
 NA> programs.

Try to execute:

a%=rtrim$(lcase$(rec%(a% * (b% mod 10), r% + 9 / y%)))

in ASIC... :)

Btw: I don't understand what is so hard in making multi-commands
in one line, you just store the mid results in memory.
Tell this to ASIC's author...

Bye,
 Peace,
Eran Meuhas t iSWA BBS SysGOD t SuperWare WHQ t PowerNET RING_D t HKS ?
???????????????????????????????????????????[ ! ?? €? ,PowerNet €? ]???
... Goodin's Law of Conversions
... The new hardware will break down as soon as the old is disconnected and
... out.
??? SuperEDiT v1.70 [REG'ED: The Author]
--- FMail/386 1.02
 * Origin: iSWA BBS t SuperWare WHQ t +972-3-6730436 t 1GB t 24H (23:600/600)



Thu, 08 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:


>  >> PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
>  >> can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.
>  g> Well, you're right about that but ASIC is quite useful if you need to
>  g> make a small utility or something... It's a matter of preferences
>  g> really, you can't call one the better. Personally, I like QuickBasic

> Right.

>  g> 4.5 better than PB or ASIC, but when something calls for it I'll use
>  g> either...

> QuickBASIC is NOT better than PowerBASIC, QB's compiler is far
> from being perfect, PowerBASIC's compiler is MUCH better, besides,
> PB has a more commands to make your life much easier.

> One thing bad about PB - its IDE sux.

Wait a minute, hypocrite! :-)  Above you agree with the notion that
compiler "greatness" is a matter of opinion, and you can't call one
better than another.  But in the next sentence, you ramble on about how
PB is better than QB!  What's the deal here?  

In YOUR OPINION, the PowerBasic compiler is better.  You didn't mention
the lack of inherent mode 13h support or page flipping.  I fail to see
how that makes my life easier.  

-Jesse

--
====================================
Very funny Scotty!
Now beam down my clothes!
====================================



Thu, 08 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:


>  >> PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
>  >> can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.
>  g> Well, you're right about that but ASIC is quite useful if you need to
>  g> make a small utility or something... It's a matter of preferences
>  g> really, you can't call one the better. Personally, I like QuickBasic

> Right.

>  g> 4.5 better than PB or ASIC, but when something calls for it I'll use
>  g> either...

> QuickBASIC is NOT better than PowerBASIC, QB's compiler is far
> from being perfect, PowerBASIC's compiler is MUCH better, besides,
> PB has a more commands to make your life much easier.

> One thing bad about PB - its IDE sux.

Wait a minute, hypocrite! :-)  Above you agree with the notion that
compiler "greatness" is a matter of opinion, and you can't call one
better than another.  But in the next sentence, you ramble on about how
PB is better than QB!  What's the deal here?  

In YOUR OPINION, the PowerBasic compiler is better.  You didn't mention
the lack of inherent mode 13h support or page flipping.  I fail to see
how that makes my life easier.  

-Jesse

--
====================================
Very funny Scotty!
Now beam down my clothes!
====================================



Thu, 08 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:


>  >> PowerBASIC is far more superior than ASIC, ASIC is like ASM, you
>  >> can do only ONE command in one statement, and this is BAD.
>  g> Well, you're right about that but ASIC is quite useful if you need to
>  g> make a small utility or something... It's a matter of preferences

That's what I use ASIC for. It creates extremely small .com's if I only
need text for
that small program
Quote:
>  g> really, you can't call one the better. Personally, I like QuickBasic

> Right.

>  g> 4.5 better than PB or ASIC, but when something calls for it I'll use
>  g> either...

> QuickBASIC is NOT better than PowerBASIC, QB's compiler is far
> from being perfect, PowerBASIC's compiler is MUCH better, besides,

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree
Quote:
> PB has a more commands to make your life much easier.

> One thing bad about PB - its IDE sux.

        Well, I do have QB 4.5 and have had problems with it. For example
compiling to and .exe isn't always a definite possibility since many
restrictions come along with it such as the 64k program size limit.
        On the other hand, I have heard nothing but good about PowerBasic in
terms of speed. I also heard that it's pretty much compatible with
QBasic. The one drawback that I have heard is a huge one-> you can't use
PCOPY. What do you do when you want flip between video pages. DIMming a
page and then PUTing it is a way to get a like outcome, but it is
slllllooooowwwwwwww.

--
================================================================                  
Send e-mail to:

Visit the QBasic Games web
page:                                                        
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2503/                                    
================================================================



Thu, 08 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:

>Wait a minute, hypocrite! :-)  Above you agree with the notion that
>compiler "greatness" is a matter of opinion, and you can't call one
>better than another.  But in the next sentence, you ramble on about how
>PB is better than QB!  What's the deal here?  
>In YOUR OPINION, the PowerBasic compiler is better.  You didn't mention
>the lack of inherent mode 13h support or page flipping.  I fail to see
>how that makes my life easier.  
>-Jesse

Jesse, do you own any version of PowerBASIC?

JE McTaggart



Fri, 09 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)



[snip]

Quote:
>    On the other hand, I have heard nothing but good about PowerBasic in
> terms of speed. I also heard that it's pretty much compatible with
> QBasic. The one drawback that I have heard is a huge one-> you can't use
> PCOPY. What do you do when you want flip between video pages. DIMming a
> page and then PUTing it is a way to get a like outcome, but it is
> slllllooooowwwwwwww.

If you want to flip pages, you do exactly that -- FLIP pages... not copy
them... Copying is slower than flipping. I assume PowerBASIC supports at
least page flipping.

-Mark

--
Mark K. Kim

http://members.aol.com/markkkim/
"If I want to be added to your mailing list, I'll *tell* you"



Fri, 09 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

Quote:


> >Wait a minute, hypocrite! :-)  Above you agree with the notion that
> >compiler "greatness" is a matter of opinion, and you can't call one
> >better than another.  But in the next sentence, you ramble on about how
> >PB is better than QB!  What's the deal here?

> >In YOUR OPINION, the PowerBasic compiler is better.  You didn't mention
> >the lack of inherent mode 13h support or page flipping.  I fail to see
> >how that makes my life easier.

> >-Jesse

> Jesse, do you own any version of PowerBASIC?

No.  I am waiting for PB 4.0, which promises some improvements.  However,
I have made extensive use of FirstBasic, and used TRYPB32 briefly.  I
still do not know what this has to do with anything.  I like QuickBASIC,
others like PowerBasic.  The subject of my reply was the contradictory
statements made by Mr. Meuhas.  If you can kindly tell me how the
compilers I own affects this thread, I would be much obliged.

-Jesse

Quote:
> JE McTaggart


--
====================================
Very funny Scotty!
Now beam down my clothes!
====================================


Fri, 09 Apr 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 19 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)

2. ******Need OLD BASIC (BASICA?) for current DOS (6.2)

3. Creating a Dos 6.2 Boot Disk Under Win '95

4. Creating a Dos 6.2 Boot Disk Under Win '95

5. basica - from XT-age to Pentium-age

6. Problems linking Extra!6.2 and VB4

7. Need advice about Codebase 6.2 and VB 5.0

8. problems linking Extra!6.2 and VB4

9. IMS/ LU 6.2

10. Visual Basic 5.0 and Extra 6.2 Attachmate Object for 95/NT

11. Advice needed about Codebase 6.2 and Vu\isual Basic 5

12. OT : DOS 6.20 QBasic, GW-Basic - syntax semantics query

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software