visual basic, Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic

Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic

Author	Message
Paul O. BARTLET #1 / 5	Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic I have had QuickBasic 4.5 for years. It suits my needs generally, as I do not do a whole lot of heavy programming for myself. Recently I have been working my way through Ethan Winer's book on MS Basics (mainly QB and PDS). He reveals a lot of internals that I was not aware of. I have downloaded the evaluation copy of FirstBasic from powerbasic, Inc. At first glance, apart from having built-in array sorting, it looks much the same as QB4.5. Does anyone have any information on how it compares with QB4.5 with respect to code optimization, efficiency of the compiled modules, benchmarks, and the like? (An open-ended question, I admit.) Thanks. -- Paul Bartlett bartlett at smart.net PGP key info in message headers
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:01:15 GMT

http://www.guymacon.com #2 / 5	Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic Quote: > I have had QuickBasic 4.5 for years. It suits my needs generally, >as I do not do a whole lot of heavy programming for myself. Recently >I have been working my way through Ethan Winer's book on MS Basics >(mainly QB and PDS). He reveals a lot of internals that I was not >aware of. > I have downloaded the evaluation copy of FirstBasic from >PowerBASIC, Inc. At first glance, apart from having built-in array >sorting, it looks much the same as QB4.5. Does anyone have any >information on how it compares with QB4.5 with respect to code >optimization, efficiency of the compiled modules, benchmarks, and >the like? (An open-ended question, I admit.) Thanks. If you don't get a good answer here, ask in these two newsgroups: alt.lang.powerbasic,comp.lang.basic.powerbasic -- My email address is valid and RFC 2822 compliant - no changes needed. <html><head><title>Guy Macon Electrical Engineer</title></head><body> <a href="http://www.guymacon.com/" >Electrical Engineer</a> for hire: Buena Park, CA USA Phone: 714-670-1687 Web: http://www.guymacon.com
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:17:18 GMT

B Jone #3 / 5	Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic I've had a little experience with PB/Dos 3.5. It's VERY fast, code is tight and .exe's are small. There are quite a few features that make it a pleasure to use. Recently however, I (and apparently others - read the pb newsgroups) have had REALLY bad experiences with the staff/owner of Power Basic. I suggested to Bob Zale (the owner) that it might benefit him to provide an upgrade path between his dos and windows versions and he more than bit my head off. I already have VB6 (and now VB.Net) and was teetering on the brink of which compiler I wanted to migrate to ... PB/Win or VB(6/Net). I read Powerbasic's web pages trying to discern the features that PB has/doesn't have vs VB(6/.net), and learned almost nothing. Bob was of no help when I asked him either. Here's what I think the major differences are: PB - (win) has direct tcp/udp routines making internet programming fairly easy. VB(6/.Net) has controls you nead to load/learn. VB - includes gui forms, database access, office connectivity. PB has 'Add-On's' for additional $$$. PB - generates small .exe's, VB is bloated. You can still distribute a compiled PB program on a floppy, while VB will probably require a CD. VB - LOTS of help available via newsgroups/books/websites. PB - Two or three books, one (ok - two) newsgroup and a few websites. VB - Realworld companies hire VB programmers. Consultants sometimes use PB. PB - $199. VB $??? - you can find it on Ebay for considerably less than $199 (I spent $75 on my copy of VB.Net). Oh, and don't forget the 'add-on's' you'll need for PB to get the same functionality as VB. So, I guess it's all about what your specific needs are. If you're looking for small .exe's that run in Dos you should probably get PB/Dos. If you're looking for a windows programming platform I'd go with VB(6/.Net). Realize that if you migrate to VB you'll probably have 'programmer-shock' ... at least I did :) VB is an entirely different beast, and you'll have to reset your thinking a little. The world has changed from QBasic/CBasic/MBasic/...! Oh ... one nice feature of PB/Dos ... you can embed .asm instructions in your code. Makes it very nice when you need something 'super-optimized'. Brett
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:45:49 GMT

Paul O. BARTLET #4 / 5	Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic Quote: > I've had a little experience with PB/Dos 3.5. It's VERY fast, code is tight > and .exe's are small. There are quite a few features that make it a > pleasure to use. > [cut] Thanks for the response. However, I was asking specifically about FirstBasic, not PowerBASIC/DOS. FirstBasic as you can download it is (apparently somewhat crippled) shareware, with a USD25 plus shipping and handling registration for all the rest of it (such as a user's guide). My needs are modest, and for most of the programming do, a GUI is superfluous. (Yes, I have programmed in Visual Basic 6, so I have some experience with GUIs.) I do know already that not all QBasic/QB programs can be compiled without change in FB. (For example, FB apparently does not allow use of DIM to declare a non-array variable, and I tend to use that a lot for internal source code documentation, if nothing else.) -- Paul Bartlett bartlett at smart.net PGP key info in message headers
Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:12:28 GMT

Michael Mattia #5 / 5	Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic Quote: > I have had QuickBasic 4.5 for years. It suits my needs generally, > as I do not do a whole lot of heavy programming for myself. .... > I have downloaded the evaluation copy of FirstBasic from > PowerBASIC, Inc. At first glance, apart from having built-in array > sorting, it looks much the same as QB4.5. Does anyone have any > information on how it compares with QB4.5 with respect to code > optimization, efficiency of the compiled modules, benchmarks, and > the like? My experience totally visceral, non-empirical: PB/DOS 2.1 (FirstBASIC) is equal to Microsoft QuickBASIC 4.5 for the items you mention above. Later versions of PB/DOS are much superior. primarily because of language extensions added which allow "Factory Optimization" using native-langauge commands and functions instead of having to do your own little "tricks." Practical Suggestion: PowerBASIC Inc markets FirstBASIC as shareware specifically so you can try it and make your own judgement prior to making a purchase decision. Take advantage of it. But I don't even think I'd bother with FirstBASIC, because... 1. Support, even on the PB Peer Support Forums, will be very weak because very few users are PB 2.1 versus PB/DOS 3.5; PB/DOS 3.5 was released more than five years ago in late 1997. 2. PB has cut the price of current DOS compiler to, I think, $69.00 and for the extra $44 over FB, there are so many new features for the DOS programmer. MCM
Fri, 28 Oct 2005 06:50:00 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 5 post ]