PowerBASIC vs. C++ 
Author Message
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Has anyone had experience with both powerbasic and C++? If so, please
read on...

I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things
about PowerBASIC.  Last night I talked to someone who makes some very
nice programs, and he uses PowerBASIC. I've learned a tiny bit with
Borland C++ and from what I've seen it seems more proficient in the
variable declarations and probably other things as well, but it's more
complicated. PowerBASIC sells for $150, and Borland C++ sells for $150
under the academic price.
I'm not sure whether to spend some more big bucks on learning C++ or
stick with PowerBASIC. So what I'm asking is for someone who's had
experience with both to give their opinion. I'm just interested in DOS
programming for now. For some sample ratings, how about:

speed of execution
power (what the sucker can DO)
long-term outlook
memory proficiency
anything else

Thanks to anyone who's willing to take the time to give their
experienced opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
SaltySoft BBS Utilities -
http://www.*-*-*.com/



Sun, 04 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:

>Has anyone had experience with both PowerBASIC and C++? If so, please
>read on...

 NO!

Quote:
>I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
>most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things

 Define POWER please.

Quote:
>about PowerBASIC.  Last night I talked to someone who makes some very
>nice programs, and he uses PowerBASIC. I've learned a tiny bit with
>Borland C++ and from what I've seen it seems more proficient in the
>variable declarations and probably other things as well, but it's more
>complicated. PowerBASIC sells for $150, and Borland C++ sells for $150
>under the academic price.

 PB, not easy to use with OOP.
 C++, very easy to use OOP with, and very easy to use both philosophies
      of OOP in. Once you learn C++, you can also use the DJGPP package
      with G++/GCC and write 32bit P-mode apps under DOS, or get EMX for
      windows apps and use RHIDE which is similar to borland TurboVision
      based IDE.

Quote:
>I'm not sure whether to spend some more big bucks on learning C++ or
>stick with PowerBASIC. So what I'm asking is for someone who's had

 You can get TC++ for less than $100. The only real difference between
 TC++ and BC++ is patfroms targets. TC will oly do windows or only DOS
 depending on which version, BC++ will do Windows, DOS, OS/2, DOS32,
 Win95, adn NT.

 You can also get the DJGPP package for free from the internet which
 has C, C++, and Pascal availble to use and its a 32bit compiler with a
 Dos Extender which means no more 640KB memory problems.

 DJGPP w/ GCC/G++ and WATCOM C++ are the fastest on the market adn the
 most up to date in compiler technology, Watcom has a horrid IDE, and
 wasm [its in-line asm leaves a litle to be desired]. DJGPP uses
 AT&T asm syntax whixh leaves much to be desired by those of us who
 already know intel x86 asm. but its free, and you can learn AT&T syntax
 in time.



Mon, 05 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:

>Has anyone had experience with both PowerBASIC and C++? If so, please
>read on...
>I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
>most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things
>about PowerBASIC.  Last night I talked to someone who makes some very
>nice programs, and he uses PowerBASIC. I've learned a tiny bit with
>Borland C++ and from what I've seen it seems more proficient in the
>variable declarations and probably other things as well, but it's more
>complicated. PowerBASIC sells for $150, and Borland C++ sells for $150
>under the academic price.
>I'm not sure whether to spend some more big bucks on learning C++ or
>stick with PowerBASIC. So what I'm asking is for someone who's had
>experience with both to give their opinion. I'm just interested in DOS
>programming for now. For some sample ratings, how about:
>speed of execution
>power (what the sucker can DO)
>long-term outlook
>memory proficiency
>anything else
>Thanks to anyone who's willing to take the time to give their
>experienced opinion.
>-----------------------------------------------------
>SaltySoft BBS Utilities -
>http://www.calbbs.com/personal/p_00005/salty.htm

  I just purchased BC+++ 5.01 (for reasons I won't go into) but the 16 bit
compiler has 400+ compiler options. Just a bit intimidating!

 James



Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

I can tell you I was told by one of the writers of C++ for Borland that he
learned alot from the author of PB. I will also say some things in C++ came
from PB and vice versa. Only the syntax may be different.
--
   --- Barry
   http://www.epix.net/~berick/



Quote:
> Has anyone had experience with both PowerBASIC and C++? If so, please
> read on...

> I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
> most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things
> about PowerBASIC.  Last night I talked to someone who makes some very
> nice programs, and he uses PowerBASIC. I've learned a tiny bit with
> Borland C++ and from what I've seen it seems more proficient in the
> variable declarations and probably other things as well, but it's more
> complicated. PowerBASIC sells for $150, and Borland C++ sells for $150
> under the academic price.
> I'm not sure whether to spend some more big bucks on learning C++ or
> stick with PowerBASIC. So what I'm asking is for someone who's had
> experience with both to give their opinion. I'm just interested in DOS
> programming for now. For some sample ratings, how about:

> speed of execution
> power (what the sucker can DO)
> long-term outlook
> memory proficiency
> anything else

> Thanks to anyone who's willing to take the time to give their
> experienced opinion.

> -----------------------------------------------------
> SaltySoft BBS Utilities -
> http://www.calbbs.com/personal/p_00005/salty.htm



Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++



Quote:
>>I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
>>most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things

> Define POWER please.

Oh jeez Daniel, do you have to keep asking for definitions of Power?

Cheers,
--
Peter Cooper



Thu, 08 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
 pow-er (pou'er), n, 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or
accomplishing something.
 4. Great or marked ability to do or act; strength;might;force.
 5. the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy

 PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
possessed.
--
   --- Barry
   http://www.epix.net/~berick/



Quote:


> >>I'm currently using PowerBASIC. I've heard all over that C++ is the
> >>most powerful out there but lately I've also been hearing great things

> > Define POWER please.

> Oh jeez Daniel, do you have to keep asking for definitions of Power?

> Cheers,
> --
> Peter Cooper



Thu, 08 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:

>From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
> pow-er (pou'er), n, 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or
>accomplishing something.
> 4. Great or marked ability to do or act; strength;might;force.
> 5. the possession of control or command over others; authority;

ascendancy

Quote:
> PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
>possessed.

 Not for 1 and 4. The ability to act is the users power, the software
 does not act. As to 5:

 C++ has the most possession of control over the processor, authority,
 and ascendancy.

 Well that sounds like a semi-accurate assessment, although not an
 impressive one and a false one at that. ASM would be more powerful
 using that definition. However, is that what he meant, Barry?
 Are you sure?

 Possessed? I think not, I don't believe in demons and devils in the
 first place, and I'm certainly not controlled by one. What you refer
 to, Barry, is called logic and its really simple to understand after
 you do through puberty, according to Piaget. One can not possibly
 answer a question that is not clearly stated. However, perhaps you
 would like to try:

 You all are hailin, no?

The only word that is not well defined is hailin, and no, its not in
the dictionary, then again, neither is power as used in software and
we all know that.



Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:

>From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
> pow-er (pou'er), n, 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or
>accomplishing something.
> 4. Great or marked ability to do or act; strength;might;force.
> 5. the possession of control or command over others; authority;

ascendancy

Quote:
> PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
>possessed.

 Not for 1 and 4. The ability to act is the users power, the software
 does not act. As to 5:

 C++ has the most possession of control over the processor, authority,
 and ascendancy.

 Well that sounds like a semi-accurate assessment, although not an
 impressive one and a false one at that. ASM would be more powerful
 using that definition. However, is that what he meant, Barry?
 Are you sure?

 Possessed? I think not, I don't believe in demons and devils in the
 first place, and I'm certainly not controlled by one. What you refer
 to, Barry, is called logic and its really simple to understand after
 you do through puberty, according to Piaget. One can not possibly
 answer a question that is not clearly stated. However, perhaps you
 would like to try:

 You all are hailin, no?

The only word that is not well defined is hailin, and no, its not in
the dictionary, then again, neither is power as used in software and
we all know that.



Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:


> >From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
> > pow-er (pou'er), n, 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or
> >accomplishing something.
> > 4. Great or marked ability to do or act; strength;might;force.
> > 5. the possession of control or command over others; authority;
> ascendancy

> > PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
> >possessed.

>  Not for 1 and 4. The ability to act is the users power, the software
>  does not act. As to 5:

>  C++ has the most possession of control over the processor, authority,
>  and ascendancy.

>  Well that sounds like a semi-accurate assessment, although not an
>  impressive one and a false one at that. ASM would be more powerful
>  using that definition. However, is that what he meant, Barry?
>  Are you sure?

>  Possessed? I think not, I don't believe in demons and devils in the
>  first place, and I'm certainly not controlled by one. What you refer
>  to, Barry, is called logic and its really simple to understand after
>  you do through puberty, according to Piaget. One can not possibly
>  answer a question that is not clearly stated. However, perhaps you
>  would like to try:

>  You all are hailin, no?

> The only word that is not well defined is hailin, and no, its not in
> the dictionary, then again, neither is power as used in software and
> we all know that.

  Ok, since noone actually is talking about PB vs. c++, let me be the
first...

  As someone who has over 2 years experience in PB and over a year
experience in c++ (I'm a professional programmer, I do it for a living,
but I was a demo and loader programmer for the past 10 years or so), I
have some very definite opinions.

  First of all, my main question is: are you doing DOS or windows
coding?  If it's DOS, I'd go with PB any time (except those instances
were you need maximum speed, in which case I revert to assembly, but I
try and avoid that!).  If it's windows, c++ is the choice if you want
maximum performance.

  c++ and PB are two different programming paradigms: Object Orientation
vs. procedural.  PB is in no way OO, while c++ is (or claims to be).
That translates to a totally different programming style for the most
part.

  As for sheer speed, they are about equal, as long as the programmer is
skilled enough.  As for ease of coding, PB is the clear winner.  C isn't
really that hard of a language when you get the hang of it, but Basic,
any dialect! wins hands down.
  As for POWER (I can hear the grunting!!), they are really about
equal.  I have done things in PB that I was told I could not do even in
assembly.  Also, I have done things in c++ that are rather amazing.  You
can't loose either way, but if you want to program TODAY, go with PB, it
is easier.



Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++


Quote:
>> PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
>>possessed.
> Not for 1 and 4. The ability to act is the users power, the software
> does not act. As to 5:

 My apolagies, our nntp server is on the fritz.


Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Quote:

>   First of all, my main question is: are you doing DOS or windows
> coding?  If it's DOS, I'd go with PB any time (except those instances
> were you need maximum speed, in which case I revert to assembly, but I
> try and avoid that!).  If it's windows, c++ is the choice if you want
> maximum performance.

>   c++ and PB are two different programming paradigms: Object Orientation
> vs. procedural.  PB is in no way OO, while c++ is (or claims to be).
> That translates to a totally different programming style for the most
> part.

Well said--- two tools in the tool box. As one attempting teach myself
programming, I have gone through a period I call Compileritis. I've
collected a few old C compilers (Turbo C, MS 6.0, 7.0, Quick C 2.5) and
recently Borland C++ 4.5. EGADS! These are powerful and complex programs
and a lot to chew on. I found Basic in general and PowerBasic
specifically, to be much easier to manage and learn the *craft* of
programming--- planning, designing, and writing good code.

Even now I can see that these languages have differing ends. I can see
where a programmer who is expert in C/C++ will find the most job
oppotunities. C++ is portable, OOP, etc, etc, but all the working
programmers I have met use a mix of languages and VB, BASIC, C, C++ and
ASM all have uses.

I have been a photographer for years and have used many different kinds
of film formats and cameras, all with their own strengths. You use the
tools that get the job done.



Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

What's Power in BASIC?
  What's Quick in BASIC?
   What's Kleenex in tissue?

 They are all registered names owned by their owners.
--
   --- Barry
   http://www.epix.net/~berick/



Quote:

> >> PowerBASIC definitely fits in there.  As for #5, it sure has Daniel
> >>possessed.

> > Not for 1 and 4. The ability to act is the users power, the software
> > does not act. As to 5:

>  My apolagies, our nntp server is on the fritz.



Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 PowerBASIC vs. C++

Dale,
 Well said. Thanks.
--
   --- Barry
   http://www.epix.net/~berick/



Quote:

> >   First of all, my main question is: are you doing DOS or windows
> > coding?  If it's DOS, I'd go with PB any time (except those instances
> > were you need maximum speed, in which case I revert to assembly, but I
> > try and avoid that!).  If it's windows, c++ is the choice if you want
> > maximum performance.

> >   c++ and PB are two different programming paradigms: Object
Orientation
> > vs. procedural.  PB is in no way OO, while c++ is (or claims to be).
> > That translates to a totally different programming style for the most
> > part.

> Well said--- two tools in the tool box. As one attempting teach myself
> programming, I have gone through a period I call Compileritis. I've
> collected a few old C compilers (Turbo C, MS 6.0, 7.0, Quick C 2.5) and
> recently Borland C++ 4.5. EGADS! These are powerful and complex programs
> and a lot to chew on. I found Basic in general and PowerBasic
> specifically, to be much easier to manage and learn the *craft* of
> programming--- planning, designing, and writing good code.

> Even now I can see that these languages have differing ends. I can see
> where a programmer who is expert in C/C++ will find the most job
> oppotunities. C++ is portable, OOP, etc, etc, but all the working
> programmers I have met use a mix of languages and VB, BASIC, C, C++ and
> ASM all have uses.

> I have been a photographer for years and have used many different kinds
> of film formats and cameras, all with their own strengths. You use the
> tools that get the job done.



Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 13 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Visual C++ vs Borland C++ advice

2. VB vs C# vs C++

3. PowerBASIC precompiler and C++ cross compiler...

4. PowerBasic VS QuickBasic

5. PowerBasic vs LibertyBasic/QBasic etc.

6. PowerBasic Vs Qbasic 7

7. QuickBasic VS PowerBASIC

8. TP/Win vs PowerBasic

9. PDS Vs PowerBasic

10. PDS Vs PowerBasic

11. PDS Vs PowerBasic

12. PowerBasic vs QuickBA

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software