Comparing QB4.5 and FirstBasic 
Author Message
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 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  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. VB 4.0 Compared to QB4.5

2. QB4.0 -> QB4.5

3. Difference between QB4.5 & QB4.0

4. Compare or not Compare !

5. FirstBasic?

6. FirstBASIC BCD problem

7. FirstBasic?????

8. PCOPY in FirstBasic

9. firstbasic, powerbasic question

10. FirstBasic to Qbasic = bad idea

11. joystick problems in FirstBasic

12. Compatibility Quickbasic and FirstBasic

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software