BASICA on a Pentium (MS-DOS 6.2)
Author |
Message |
Eran Meuha #1 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Daniel Garla #2 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Ed Par #3 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Stanley Helt #4 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Eran Meuha #5 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Eran Meuha #6 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Jesse Dorlan #7 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Jesse Dorlan #8 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Steel #9 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
John McTagga #10 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Mark K. Ki #11 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Jesse Dorlan #12 / 19
|
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 |
|
|
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 19 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|