Qbasicnews.com

General => General/Misc => Topic started by: barok on February 13, 2005, 03:02:20 PM



Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: barok on February 13, 2005, 03:02:20 PM
Quote
I cannot imagine someone's hobby project being even a shadow of the nigh perfection we've come to depend on in the offerings from PowerBASIC. With PB, everything works exactly like you expect it to... even in the subtle details. Want to increment the FOR/NEXT variable in the middle of the loop? Go ahead! They've designed for it.

If you build a product around a compiler like this, or any of the other freeware toolkits I've seen, you'll always be wondering if it really is working right, reliably, every time. It's worth the price to buy PowerBASIC for the system manual alone, let alone the compiler, and the community of people who "go the distance" to help each other.


Quote
It may compile fine...

Some of us write software that drives medical equipment. Others program sophisticated accounting programs and financial forcasting software that flexes the compiler's feature set to the max... we can't be worried about stuff like that.



Some people bash something they haven't even tried out. :D  Some of these people are as bad as some C users.  :)  Take a look for laughs.

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Forum12/HTML/001557.html


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 13, 2005, 03:16:28 PM
PowerBASIC stinks at a mile of distance.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 13, 2005, 03:32:19 PM
I like it how he takes the thing about old QB 4.5/7.1 source-code (It may compile fine) and somehow manages to completely change it's meaning.

Not to mention, that, if you read on, you realize that he writes medical programs.
But not only that, but he distributes the source, and then the hospital has to compile it themselves, each time they need the program.


Why else would he make that comment? :lol:


And not to diss or anything but:
"Others program sophisticated accounting programs and financial forcasting software that flexes the compiler's feature set to the max"

How would that be different from any other program? There's only a set number of commands, if every command works.. then uhm.. any properly coded program will work.. it's as simple as that.



"we can't be worried about stuff like that."
Nah, why bother writing flawless code when the compiler just hides the error and your faulty program runs anyways.


*Wanders off aimlessly.. crashes into wall.. recompiles with PB, wall goes away* WOHO! :D


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: subxero on February 13, 2005, 03:35:20 PM
People are dumb. :-P
v1c's a genius, and FreeBASIC will completely blow away PowerBASIC any day of the week.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 13, 2005, 06:44:33 PM
Once it comes out from the Beta stages... I think that Powerbasic will lose all their MSDOS and CC market.

It's like:

"We have product A and product B which are designed for the same thing.

Product A is worse and costs $100.

Product B is like 10 times better and costs nothing.

PLEASE BUY PRODUCT A!!"

:lol:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: BastetFurry on February 13, 2005, 06:52:33 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Once it comes out from the Beta stages... I think that Powerbasic will lose all their MSDOS and CC market.

It's like:

"We have product A and product B which are designed for the same thing.

Product A is worse and costs $100.

Product B is like 10 times better and costs nothing.

PLEASE BUY PRODUCT A!!"

:lol:


The problem is, most managers think exactly that way.
If its cost is zero then its worthless, litteraly :-(


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: barok on February 13, 2005, 07:01:21 PM
they don't even seem to realize the fact that freebasic is only a few months old. Or at least, it SEEMS like they don't realize it... ;)

Quote
It's worth the price to buy PowerBASIC for the system manual alone, let alone the compiler, and the community of people who "go the distance" to help each other.


Freebasic is free... it has some documentation... and i believe that our community outclasses their by a country mile from what i've seen. :)

someone with powerbasic should run some benchmark tests, to see if Powerbasic is truly as "1337" as they claim. :)  It could be a new topic:  Freebasic vs Powerbasic!  Watch as Freebasic blows away it's competitor!  Next week: Freebasic vs Libertybasic!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: red_Marvin on February 13, 2005, 07:01:58 PM
There seems to be quite some arrogance at that forum...

Quote

Quote
I cannot imagine someone's hobby project being even a shadow of the nigh perfection

O Ye of Little Faith!

I believe hobbyists often produce the best quality items, since their love is for their work itself rather than the money it might generate.

MCM


True.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Nathan1993 on February 13, 2005, 08:20:40 PM
You can get a trial of PowerBasic... run some tests!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 13, 2005, 08:43:10 PM
Or you can just get it for free on emule. :D Why pay actual money for an inferior compiler? :???:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: mipooh on February 13, 2005, 10:14:07 PM
But seriously, adosorken,

why take something that's not given? That's a fine difference between all these "products" and a free software developed by a community. This one is even developed public... and it's a question of the community's quality, what it will be in the end and when it will leave beta-state. (thx to the main developers, a great start)
Then will be the right time to compare, not now.
And it looks like that could give a hard time to "power"-freaks and all the other half-hearted "communities"....
Free as in freedom, neither like in speech nor in beer...more than all of that half-cooked stuff..
Mipooh


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Moneo on February 13, 2005, 11:21:29 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
PowerBASIC stinks at a mile of distance.

Nathan, I don't understand. In another thread of mine, you recommended PowerBasic to me today. What does your above comment actually mean?
*****


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Moneo on February 13, 2005, 11:23:23 PM
Quote from: "Nathan1993"
You can get a trial of PowerBasic... run some tests!

I browsed the PB site a few minutes ago. I couldn't find any trial version. Where did you see it?
*****


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 14, 2005, 04:50:55 AM
Quote from: "Moneo"
Quote from: "na_th_an"
PowerBASIC stinks at a mile of distance.

Nathan, I don't understand. In another thread of mine, you recommended PowerBasic to me today. What does your above comment actually mean?
*****


I.e. compared to freeBASIC. Sorry, my post was out of context :D

I meant that fB is a modern program that runs on Win32, MSDOS32 and Linux  platforms, and PB is a 16 bits compiler that is good but belongs to the time of 386 computers.

It was a lame and rude comment that should have been posted on the PB forums :P Note that the original post in this thread was about people dissing fB without having even tried it, the kind of people who think that if it's free, it's bad. The "PB stinks" is the only intelligent reply to their intelligent attitude.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 14, 2005, 11:32:47 AM
For what I have seen PB users are a little angry with PB Inc for the lack of developement in the past years....

Perhaps we will soon have a version of FB with PB syntax...


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 14, 2005, 12:25:56 PM
I've used PB (coded a couple of games in it), and the sintax is QB + {added stuff}. Then only keyword not supported by PB was PCOPY.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: KiZ on February 14, 2005, 12:29:31 PM
if it doesnt support pcopy, how do you flip pages?


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 14, 2005, 12:50:50 PM
When i last used PB (it was PB3.5 for DOS and it was four years ago, it may have changed)
-It could not enter graphics mode 13h so everything had to be done using poke or assembler.
-Constant did not exist, it had only a strange  %eqv  for (hex?) integer constants.
-DIM SHARED had to be changed to SHARED DIM or something like this...

And other niceties the horrible IDE (more or less the IDE of QB 4.0) did'nt made easy.

The good side was OPTION EXPLICIT, pointers, bit rotation instructions, and the amazing speed.

Then you had TWO windows products ,PBCC for console programs, and a DLL making version. Weird...


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 14, 2005, 01:38:39 PM
Nah man...even QB 4.0's IDE blew away PB 3.5's IDE. PB 3.5's IDE was more like Turbo C 2.0's IDE. And wait...nothing's changed, since PB 3.5 is still what they sell! :roll:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 14, 2005, 02:06:46 PM
I remember they had a demo called FirstBasic, it was their older PB 3.2,  more or less compatible with QB, QB programs were easy to port to FirstB. Only being a demo FirstB was unable to reload the saved programs. So afer you bought their PB3.5 you did find a lot of syntax incompatibilities with FirstB.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: DanKirby on February 14, 2005, 06:13:40 PM
I tried FirstBasic for a while, then tossed it after finding that there was no built-in support for SCREEN 13 or TYPEs (to my knowledge).

It was pretty much a full program, though. You could save programs and compile them. It just had a nag screen, and fewer features (being an older version of PB). Paying for it removed the nag, and gave you a few extras like the complete help system and a command-line compiler.
The complete PowerBasic was a completely separate buy, but paying for FirstB gave you a little discount.

That's what I remember, anyway.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: v3cz0r on February 14, 2005, 07:08:02 PM
Heh, they used to say the same about Linux too.. "what?? a hobby OS project? I won't ever use that on my servers!".

Only time helps and even when FB get stable enough some will prefer to pay for an alternative as "free" doesn't seem to mix well with "professional" applications -- in their close-minded little heads.

If i had paid ~$400 bucks for a GUI/console/DOS compiler(s) plus $100 for a form designer plus $40 for the manual i would find everything else crappy too.. "what? for free?? it must suck ass, i won't ever try!", heh


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 14, 2005, 08:01:01 PM
Don't worry v1c, I've already got plans to make FBXL a commercial product that will cost money for businesses who want to use it. :D When FB is stable and FBXL is stable as well, companies won't have much difficulty handing over a couple hundred rather than a couple thousand for a similar (yet inferior) Microsoft product or this crap PB that hasn't been updated since I lost my last pet dinosaur.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 14, 2005, 08:03:27 PM
With the release of FB we've all become money hungry coders  :P


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 14, 2005, 08:05:57 PM
To be fair I did some (P2P) research about PB 7.02 for windows: it's far away from the  PB 3.5  for DOS I once tested, It seems to be a handy and non-bloated developement system for "serious apps".

Features:
-Does not mention any compatibility with QB
-Inline assembler, regular expressions, matrix operations as in PB for DOS
-It includes an IDE with debugger, complete help, resource compiler and an optional visual form creator.
-It  has'nt a single built-in graphics/sound keyword, or whatever a demo or game developer would need. Well, you have a BEEP, but the drawing must be made by using windows API.
-Int64,  GUID and variant data types
-structured errors
-It has built in keywords to create and manage forms, dialogs, menus
-Built-in keywords for serial comms, tcp-ip, udp, com objects
-It comes with the windows api headers, and headers to interact using COM  with MS Office apps
-Not a single keyword for console output. For this you need the console compiler version, or use the API

A curious metacommand #BLOAT allows to bloat the disk image of the executable without bloating the memory image, to make it similar to the concurrent products.   :o

It deserves a look for those interested in developing easily non-bloated business apps,  (for bloated apps you have VB), but it's not remotely as good tool as FB for game or demo developers.

It seems a good example to follow if we want FB become a general use tool. (Is this what we want?)


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 14, 2005, 08:25:31 PM
Quote from: "Antoni Gual"
...for bloated apps you have VB...

I should smack you around a few times for that unbased comment. :evil:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 14, 2005, 08:35:12 PM
Let me P2P VB to check...Let's see... ARGH!!! a 600Mb CD image!!!!   :rotfl:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: v3cz0r on February 14, 2005, 08:46:10 PM
Personally i would never use a procedural language for developing "serious" applications when it comes to business, much less when you can use completely free dev tools like Java + Eclipse or even dotNet.

You can't have multiple modules with PB (unless i'm completely wrong), i can't imagine writing say 50k lines of code in a single source file or having loads of include files bloated with code, making them a nightmare to debug -- btw, i planned to write FB first in PB, but when i saw i would have to make a spaghetti putting everything into a single file, i gave up.

PB is filled with syntax sugars like "CREATE THREAD abc TO handle", what is wrong with the plain and old functions? Nm.. Having Variants, GUID's and COM intrinsic makes the language locked to Windows, no wonder no other OSes are supported.

But yeah, no doubt PB is 10 times more stable than FB, a decade old product compared to a premature baby like FB, there are loads to be done ;)


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: barok on February 14, 2005, 10:15:20 PM
Freebasic has gone a long, long way from where it started, b/c it's open source and free... (lots of beta testers, people can do what they want with the code)

Plus we already have a DOS and Linux release.  Hey, You must be doing something right Vic.  All we need to see is a Mac release. ;)  

Freebasic has huge potential IMHO.  Call me an idiot or something, but I honestly hope it doesn't catch on big.  I personally like our community as it is.  It's one of the few Shangri-La's (heaven, valhalla) of the net, and i wouldn't want it to change. :)


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Brad on February 15, 2005, 04:09:44 AM
hey All,

I've been using PowerBASIC compiler's for many years...

but, I also am impressed with anyone who can write a compiler..

so I would never criticize FB, plus FB is open source right?

all the better!!

imo, there are diferent tools for different tasks... if I wanted to learn.. I would probably rather pick an open source product...

I like PB because of it's inline Assembly... and because I am so familar with it.. and it is Damn Good!!  but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily better than anything else !!  :)

look, usually when you visit other programming forums there will be many members who worship their product.. but honestly that is usually only because that is the only product they know...

I like MASM32 also...

but I hate C++  hehehe... but that is just me...

hey, every product has it's good and it's bad sides...

personally I like this open source offering here... I when I get a chance I'll check it out...

oh.. and also..  PB has dos versions,  a windows ver PBWin7, and a console ver PBCC3...

Have fun!!!

Brad


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Brad on February 15, 2005, 04:14:40 AM
here's a little toy you all might like:

see:   BitMask Viewer

http://sweetheartgames.com/PBTools/PBTools.html


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 15, 2005, 04:34:16 AM
Stop flaming poor PB? If its better than FB then it will survive...


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Brad on February 15, 2005, 04:53:19 AM
If anyone is interested

here's a PB functions comparison chart:

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/technote/features.asp


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: BastetFurry on February 15, 2005, 06:05:52 AM
Quote from: "adosorken"
Quote from: "Antoni Gual"
...for bloated apps you have VB...

I should smack you around a few times for that unbased comment. :evil:


Ok, i can have a based comment here.
Executable disblaying a Form with a Label and a Button will create a ~500 kb binary. But thats not enough, you need to ship fscking vbrun wich is in its modernest incarnation ~500 kb in size.
And the best: VisualBASIC does not call normal GDI routines for making up the forms and handling the buttons, it uses its own slow routines that need to be shipped inside vbrun. Besides that, only the enterprise edition "tryes" to create assembler, all the others just create dumb bytecode that still is interpreted.
Now tell me why VB shouldnt be bloated?  :evil:

So Long, The Werelion!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 15, 2005, 06:17:30 AM
Tested, a window with a button is 27 Kb in VB6.

The built in functions are slow, yeah. But nothing stops you from using raw API calls. At least VB has built-in functions, unlike PBWin.

And the runtime... Well, that sucks, but note that you just need it once.

VB is the way to go for GUI coding.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 15, 2005, 06:44:31 AM
Quote from: "na_th_an"

And the runtime... Well, that sucks, but note that you just need it once.

Yes, one runtime for every VB version. If you get programs from diferent sources you end up with a runtime for VB3, two  for  VB 4, one for VB 5, one for VB6, then net framework 1.0 then another  net framework 1.1 and net framework 1.2 is coming ...  Well, it's all hidden in system32 folder, normal user does'nt  dare to look there....

Yesterday I received a very simple VB comms monitor program. Just a dialog with many boxes and the comms routine. Using the API It would have required 70 Kb of code, Delphi 5 would make a 350K standalone executable. This is what the installation cab file contained....
Code:

08/03/1999  00:00              147.728 ASYCFILT.DLL
01/06/1998  00:00               22.288 COMCAT.DLL
19/07/2002  08:34              557.328 dao360.dll
15/02/2005  10:41                    0 dir.txt
06/07/2004  12:40              454.656 EntrenadorIII.exe
19/07/2002  08:34              380.688 expsrv.dll
01/06/1999  00:00              924.432 MFC40.DLL
16/12/1999  00:00               44.032 mfc40loc.dll
28/07/1998  00:00               14.336 MSCOMES.DLL
24/06/1998  00:00              103.744 MSCOMM32.OCX
19/07/2002  08:34            1.503.504 msjet40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34              180.496 msjint40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34               53.520 msjter40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34              241.936 msjtes40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34              422.160 msrd2x40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34              315.664 msrd3x40.dll
19/07/2002  08:34              553.232 msrepl40.dll
21/08/2000  00:00            1.388.544 msvbvm60.dll
01/06/1999  00:00              326.656 MSVCRT40.DLL
19/07/2002  08:34              831.760 mswdat10.dll
06/12/2000  00:00              109.248 MSWINSCK.OCX
19/07/2002  08:34              614.672 mswstr10.dll
12/04/2000  00:00              598.288 OLEAUT32.DLL
08/03/1999  00:00              164.112 OLEPRO32.DLL
06/07/2004  11:28                    5 opcionesEntrenador.txt
15/07/2000  00:00              253.952 SETUP1.EXE
15/07/2000  00:00               74.240 ST6UNST.EXE
03/06/1999  00:00               17.920 STDOLE2.TLB
07/08/1998  14:48              205.848 threed32.ocx
18/06/1998  00:00               89.360 VB5DB.DLL
02/10/2000  00:00              119.568 VB6ES.DLL
15/07/2000  00:00              101.888 VB6STKIT.DLL
19/07/2002  08:34               30.992 vbajet32.dll
28/07/1998  00:00               15.360 WINSKES.DLL
              34 archivos     10.862.157 bytes
               2 dirs  58.815.692.800 bytes libres


And you say VB is not bloated...
The full installation of PB , dialog creator, help, debugger, ide, headers and examples is smaller....


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: BastetFurry on February 15, 2005, 06:44:51 AM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Tested, a window with a button is 27 Kb in VB6.

The built in functions are slow, yeah. But nothing stops you from using raw API calls. At least VB has built-in functions, unlike PBWin.

And the runtime... Well, that sucks, but note that you just need it once.

VB is the way to go for GUI coding.


Ok, i had VB5 standart for testing and that created such huge thingys.
The other thing i dont like is the three class society that MICROS~1 i is making there. Standard, Profesional and Enterprise.

> But nothing stops you from using raw API calls.

Yeah, but that destroys the idea behind the FormCreator.
Why cant the Formcreator just create code that makes direct calls to gdi32?

>VB is the way to go for GUI coding.

Seriously not, when it comes to GUI ill stick with BCX unless FreeBASIC get some EZ-GUI Commands(Wich are just wrappers to GDI Api and not some obscure libary).

Typical BCX Programm:
Code:

GUI "Test",PIXELS

DIM Form1 AS CONTROL
DIM Btn1 AS CONTROL
CONST ID_Btn1 = 101

SUB FormLoad
  Form1 = BCX_FORM("Hallo Welt!!!",0,0,640,480)
  Btn1 = BCX_BUTTON("KLICK MICH!",Form1,ID_Btn1,10,10,80,30)

  Center(Form1)
  Show(Form1)
END SUB

BEGIN EVENTS
  SELECT CASE cbmsg
      CASE WM_CLOSE
        PostQuitMessage(0)
      CASE WM_COMMAND
        IF cbctl = ID_Btn1 THEN MsgBox "Ueberraschung!!!"
  END SELECT
END EVENTS


And you cant tell me that a Formeditor can not create something like this...
BTW:
This is, for example BCX_Form:
Code:

HWND BCX_Form
(char *Caption,
 int X,
 int Y,
 int W,
 int H,
 int Style,
 int Exstyle)
{
   HWND  A;
   if(!Style)
     {
        Style= WS_MINIMIZEBOX  |
        WS_SIZEBOX      |
        WS_CAPTION      |
        WS_MAXIMIZEBOX  |
        WS_POPUP        |
        WS_SYSMENU;
     }
   A = CreateWindowEx(Exstyle,BCX_ClassName,Caption,
   Style,
   X*BCX_ScaleX,
   Y*BCX_ScaleY,
   (4+W)*BCX_ScaleX,
   (12+H)*BCX_ScaleY,
   NULL,(HMENU)NULL,BCX_hInstance,NULL);
   SendMessage(A,(UINT)WM_SETFONT,(WPARAM)GetStockObject
   (DEFAULT_GUI_FONT),(LPARAM)MAKELPARAM(FALSE,0));
   return A;
}


As i said, just a wrap to the normal GDI routine.

So Long, The Werelion!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 15, 2005, 09:07:47 AM
In VB is just simpler than all that. No message loops, no nothing.

And I was not talking about calls to user32 to do the UI, but calls to GDI32 to draw lines instead of using Picture1.LINE, for example.

You don't like VB6, but it doesn't mean that it is bad. At all.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: relsoft on February 15, 2005, 09:27:02 AM
Brad: Inline ASM?

FB supports it w/o side effects. :*)

http://rel.betterwebber.com/junk.php?id=29

I have made a few PB progs, Mostly GFX demos.  I kinda like how BASIC's in particular are slowly progressing.  I some of us can also code in ASM, C++/C, Pascal, BASIC and Java. :*)

So this forum is not just a basic(pardon the pun) forum.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Brad on February 15, 2005, 10:18:49 AM
Genso,

looked at your site!!  pretty good stuff!!  I really liked your 3dTest!!

hmmm,  also, what do you mean by side affects?...

are you saying that FB is a pure assembler?....

Brad


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: dilettante on February 15, 2005, 11:18:37 AM
The remarks against VB are hilarious, as always.  I don't think I know anyone who ever said it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but at least it isn't as hobbled as QB - which definately has its niche for some classes of problems too.

It is amazing though that the anti-VB crowd always sounds just like the anti-MS crowd.  Maybe it's just part of the human condition to demonize.

That said, I'm not a .Net fan myself.  If you think VB6 is "bloated," etc. you need to spend some time dealing with .Net application deployment.  This will give you a whole new appreciation for VB6.

Last time I looked we were 5 years into the 21st century.  1985 called, and it wants its idea of "bloated" back.  :wink:

BTW, AFAIK hardly anybody writes or maintains VB4 anymore.  It was good in its day, but it had too many crudenesses.  VB5 fixed many of these, and VB6 dealt with many other deficiencies.  VB5 is basically extinct too except for those using VB5CCE (free) or needing better multithreading support (some of which VB6 "broke" - apparently on purpose).

Think of VB5 (VB97) as a major "service pack" to VB4 (VB96), and VB6 (VB98) as the next big service pack.  Nobody should be using VB4/VB5 anymore (with the exceptions noted above).


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: aetherfox on February 15, 2005, 12:26:02 PM
Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid.  While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?

Secondly, the idea behind VB is it's SIMPLICITY.  Someone with a little English and a little BASIC knowledge can create win32 programs easily without messing about with message loops and handles.  But, for the advanced user, that stuff is right there.  That's the beauty of VB.

I think the absolute power and functionality that VB demonstrates is worth 25kb for a basic win/button program.  I don't think many languages could ouput a smaller file.

And the 3 threads of VB is a good way for cheap/poor people to get a reach on professional software.

And the VB runtime DLL with people have always bitched about has been shipped with every single computer that I've ever used in my life after 1999 (thats about 250 since I've used pretty much every single school computer).  Thats a stupid excuse to knock VB, and to be honest Antoni, I thought you would be able to see past that.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: BastetFurry on February 15, 2005, 12:59:21 PM
Quote from: "aetherfox"
Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid.  While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?


No, i can compile you a programm, written in Basic and one in c, that does not need these pesky dlls. It needs stock win32 dlls, nothing more.
You could even go and make your programms in ASM without any special dlls ;)

Quote from: "aetherfox"
Secondly, the idea behind VB is it's SIMPLICITY.  Someone with a little English and a little BASIC knowledge can create win32 programs easily without messing about with message loops and handles.  But, for the advanced user, that stuff is right there.  That's the beauty of VB.


Ok, point, but i like to do it myself and dont do "Click and Code" (ajar to Click and Play)

Quote from: "aetherfox"

I think the absolute power and functionality that VB demonstrates is worth 25kb for a basic win/button program.  I don't think many languages could ouput a smaller file.


Hmm... BCX, Dev-Cpp, FB, ....

Quote from: "aetherfox"

And the 3 threads of VB is a good way for cheap/poor people to get a reach on professional software.


Why didnt they just sell the programm without any support at 50 Euro and for those who realy need support... they pay extra.

Quote from: "aetherfox"
And the VB runtime DLL with people have always bitched about has been shipped with every single computer that I've ever used in my life after 1999 (thats about 250 since I've used pretty much every single school computer).  Thats a stupid excuse to knock VB, and to be honest Antoni, I thought you would be able to see past that.


I had a programm that uses VBRUN3*, a map viewer for fate - gates of dawn, and it was not in system32 of windows xp.
If this dll where not needed, then nobody would complain on the user side, but it is needed and it is anoying that you have to keep track of them.

So Long, The Werelion!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: VonGodric on February 15, 2005, 02:31:17 PM
I think some of us overreact...

I tried PP console compiler, while I'm most definately sure I won't use it, to be true, there isn't nothing bad I could say about it.

PP (window, console) have it's place. And if someone is willing to pay for it -it's his/her choice.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 15, 2005, 02:49:07 PM
Quote from: "BastetFurry"
I had a programm that uses VBRUN3*, a map viewer for fate - gates of dawn, and it was not in system32 of windows xp.
If this dll where not needed, then nobody would complain on the user side, but it is needed and it is anoying that you have to keep track of them.


That's the runtime needed for Visual Basic 3 programs. VB3 was for Windows 3.1, so it's normal that you don't have the dll in your system.

As explained, the dlls are in there 'cause they contain everything that's done for you. It was just an option M$ took: whether they link the runtime parts needed to each program you compile, or they stuff all of them together in a single file. That saves space, in the same way that having the BRUN45.EXE file instead of statically linking the needed runtime functions did in QB45. You just need the file to be present once, and all your exes are way smaller.

As I said before, something is not bad 'cause you don't like it. For example, I don't like BCX, as it is just a translator and the language is very C-ish. To code in C, I code in C. But that doesn't mean that BCX is bad.

Also, most people needs to develop fast. They need GUI applications fast. Not everyone (including me) has the will to go and code a message loop. VB is for us. If it is already done, I prefer using VB rather than having to do a nice session of CTRL+C/CTRL+V. Plus all the nice things such as working directly with access databases, having ODBC support or great interface with Winsock.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 15, 2005, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: "aetherfox"
Firstly, those dll's are something you could never avoid.  While I am not too knowledgeable in raw win32 programming, even a c program would have to include those dlls that antoni showed, right?


Not at all, those dll are required by vb just to run. You can download from MS site a terminal program programmed in C that compiles in a single 60K exe and runs in every freshly installed (no hidden dll coming from elsewhere) version of Windows from 95 to XP. It uses only what comes in the windows setup.
The problem with that is you must code everything using windows API, a daunting task.

To avoid this some systems as VB or PB or Delphi use intermediate librairies to wrap the windows API.  That librairies make the ease of use of those compilers.
Only Delphi and PB compilers make a standalone programs by picking only the
library routines the program uses. This makes a 350-400K single file executable.  (the only problem is Delphi is Pascal, but that's another story :D)

The problem with VB is the compiler is unable to pick only the routines the executable will use, you must carry the complete library with you.

I wonder, in the case of the listing of my previous post why the heck a program consisting in a comms routine and a dialog needs the jet database dll...Perhaps a bad use or a poor design of the setup wizard...

When people designs an office app, they target  the acoountant's computer, a clean machine with only Windows and Office installed, where carryying around some megs of runtimes is not a problem.

But I work for a company installing Building Management Systems (BMS), with the mission of making devices from differnt origins communicate with our SCADA PC. I must work in PC's set temporally over the top of a cable roll, carrying around programs from different suppliers in USB Drives.  
Each supplier (including Trend Controls from UK) has developed their programs in different times. I can't afford to carry around 5mb of cab files for each differnt program. VB is not a serious tool in this case, but everyone uses it because it's easy...

You VB programmers think you will be asked for an update of your programs every time Bill Gates issues a new version, but you're wrong:The program will be used until a new computer can't run it. So people has to mangle with VB3, VB4, VB5, VB6 and NET framework every day.

VB has just charmed IT managers because it allows my grandmother to program "Winhello" and it has controls for every Windows and Office area, it saves millions of dollars in developement.

But it's stupidly BLOATED.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 15, 2005, 08:48:25 PM
You use the tool for the job, Antoni. No one is going to use VB6 (or anything Microsoft-based after Visual Studio 98) for portable programs that need to be able to run on the fly like that. In fact, if you don't do a static compile in VC++ 6, you're still going to need a runtime module (msvcrt.dll).

BastetFurry: you're just plain full of shit. No VB program, even in the crap that is vb.net, is going to produce a 500KB executable for a window and a button. VB6 is so exceptionally granular that it's a surprise that it even WAS 27KB in size. Part of that size, though, is the resources that are compiled into every VB program. VB apps also have more initialization code, they have to start up OLEAUT, etc. so they're going to be slightly larger than something coded in raw API calls. But when you compare that VB window-and-button example to a VC++ program that does the exact same thing, you could be looking at a 100 to 200KB difference...often times more.

The issue with runtime modules is so exceptionally weak in this day and age that I am surprised anyone had the lack of brainpower to even bring it up. Everyone and their grandmother with a halfway modern computer already has the runtimes installed, so it's not even a real issue anymore. And for those who don't, well...there are ways of dealing with that too that aren't exactly rocket science. None of this is hard to understand. People just like to complain about things they only half understand.

The reason I dislike VB6 (although I use it, and often) is its execution speed. This of course is due to the "middleman". However, the size of the executables compared to equivalent C++-based applications plus the ability to make the application far less error-prone makes VB6 exceptionally attractive. Sure, any dumbass can start it up, drop a few controls, hit Compile, and say they've made a program. But it takes a true expert to actually code in VB6.

Arguing over languages, especially ones to which you know little about, is quite stupid.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 15, 2005, 09:09:03 PM
Nek, it is well known that VB requires additional runtime files to function.

Not everyone has those files, I run into missing VBRUN files about once a month.

Everyone who blindly accepts any random file download request, and doesent care whats on his system has all files, correct.

I don't like having VBRUN30 lying around on my computer wasting space (Yes, it's small, so? Many small files become pretty large)


If you take into account the runtime files needed by VB EXEs then you easily get 500kb.



And gee... Whats up with all this: I'm so cool I can code in [insert random crap here]


Get over it already...


Now, everyone get your asses over to the debate forum, and flame for a while... Infidels... FB will kick you in the nuts!


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 15, 2005, 09:38:45 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
Nek, it is well known that VB requires additional runtime files to function.

(http://www.nodtveidt.net/captobvious.gif)
Quote from: "Z!re"
Not everyone has those files, I run into missing VBRUN files about once a month.

Then update your computer and stop deleting the runtimes.
Quote from: "Z!re"
Everyone who blindly accepts any random file download request, and doesent care whats on his system has all files, correct.

Bad software exists everywhere. In fact, you're running some right now.
Quote from: "Z!re"
I don't like having VBRUN30 lying around on my computer wasting space (Yes, it's small, so? Many small files become pretty large)

You likely also have dxdiagn.dll, MSHTML.DLL, Jungle.dll, MSXML.DLL, SHDOC401.DLL, and a bunch of other large DLLs lying around your computer "wasting space" as well. You're a fool if you delete a file because it "wastes space" and then bitch and moan later because a program can't run without it. And some small files can become large...yeah sure, if you're using an antique filesystem like FAT16 or even FAT32 on very large partitions.
Quote from: "Z!re"
If you take into account the runtime files needed by VB EXEs then you easily get 500kb.

Incorrect. If you look at the argument, he said that the binary itself was 500KB, which is utter bullshit.
Quote from: "Z!re"
And gee... Whats up with all this: I'm so cool I can code in [insert random crap here]

Coder's pride, I guess. :roll:
Quote from: "Z!re"
Get over it already...

I agree.
Quote from: "Z!re"
Now, everyone get your asses over to the debate forum, and flame for a while... Infidels... FB will kick you in the nuts!

FB owns all. :D


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Nathan1993 on February 15, 2005, 09:40:57 PM
About the trial, sorry, I got that confused with LibertyBASIC. About you dinosour  :cry:  I am very sorry, Z!re!!!
 :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:
I got some mourners for you!


Title: hey i hope you're not bashin ALL c programmers :( *
Post by: neuro on February 15, 2005, 10:11:01 PM
nt


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 15, 2005, 11:21:22 PM
Well, if you start coding in FB we MIGHT forgive you...

*glares* :D


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 15, 2005, 11:32:04 PM
Quote from: "BastetFurry"
Why cant the Formcreator just create code that makes direct calls to gdi32?

Probably because most controls do not call gdi32, they call user32. :P


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: relsoft on February 16, 2005, 05:14:04 AM
Okay, it was..

PB vs FB

now..

VB vs Everything. :*)

Nah, MSVC++ 6 in MSVS needs like 5 times size to install as compared to VB.  Trust me on this, even w/o MFC, it stiil needs like 3x size. Sio VB aint bloatware.  Nor is it slow.

I'd go with VB for GUI and FB for games and Demos.

A carpenter has a lot of tools because no one tool could do the job.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 16, 2005, 07:51:21 AM
Quote from: "adosorken"
You use the tool for the job, Antoni. No one is going to use VB6 (or anything Microsoft-based after Visual Studio 98) for portable programs that need to be able to run on the fly like that. In fact, if you don't do a static compile in VC++ 6, you're still going to need a runtime module (msvcrt.dll).
.


Tou are too optimistic, Nek. People uses VB for these uses  because it's too much effort in moving to a suitable tool, then you have the built-in comm port support...
 
I'm starting to think in my case the best tool would be PowerBasic...


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 16, 2005, 08:06:16 AM
What most of you fail to realize is that the runtime DLL is needed just once. Imagine that VB could statically link the needed modules from the runtime to your EXE. If you have 100 VB programs, the space required would be much bigger than the needed to store 100 VB programs without runtime modules and just one DLL. It's like common libraries such as Allegro, FMod, SDL... They are most used in DLL form 'cause if the final user has 10 games installed that uses FMod or Allegro, those DLLs are copied just once to their Windows/System  folder.

Most people have the DLLs already installed, so when it comes to download a program from some webpage they can be given the opportunity of downloading a shorter, smaller version without runtimes.

Plus the fact that you are not comparing things fairly. Pure C programs with raw API calls don't need a rontime. BASIC programs do need one, as they are at a higher level. '$DYNAMIC / DIM a AS STRING needs runtime functions. So the comparison is anything but fair.

Again, every language has its use. Language fights are stupid.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: adosorken on February 16, 2005, 09:06:26 AM
Rarely do I hear people complain that they need sdl.dll or the Allegro dll for their downloaded programs, yet they'll throw a fit ten ways till Sunday about needing msvbvm60.dll. Hypocrites.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 16, 2005, 09:23:38 AM
Well, even QB give you the possibility of making a compact executable or use the external runtime. Who uses the external runtime?

Allegro, SDL etc are third party add-in products, not a built -in part of the language.

Nathan: Any C++ compiler does variable length strings on the heap without a dll.

I would be not so angry against VB if newer versions of the dll's supported older executables. I once had  a problem with two VB4 exes needing differnt sets of dlls because they were compiled with different builds of VB4


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: na_th_an on February 16, 2005, 09:42:43 AM
The runtime library in QB was 20 Kb. Pasting it to an EXE (which is what LINK does when prompted for a static build) doesn't make any harm, your exe goes from 100 to 120Kb maybe. But now go and paste the 1.6 megs runtime to the end of each EXE...

The QB runtime was used in the old days. You had a 180 Kb diskette with several QB programs, so you only had to stuff the runtime once. Same applies now to VB.

I don't know where you all find the bloatness. 1.6 Mb is a perfect price to pay, having in account the huge amount of functionality VB provides. 1.6 Mb installed once in your 120 gigs HDD won't do any harm.

I prefer it this way. In the same way I don't do static links of FMOD or Allegro, I prefer having small EXEs and a separate DLL with the runtime. 'Cause I just need it once. I don't have 200 FMOD.DLL around the hard disk, I have it once, in the Windows/System dir.

PB doesn't need a huge DLL... but it doesn't give even the 1% of functionality. Does PB have picture boxes, image lists? No. You have to code them using USER32. Imagine you code a graphical app in PB with all those widgets. You end with a huge 2Mb EXE. In VB, you have a 100 Kb EXE and a 1.6 Mb runtime. What's the difference?

I'll tell you: hype and 1337-ism ;) Many people think that they are more 1337 'cause they prefer to spend 2 hours coding in PB something that takes 2 minutes in VB.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 16, 2005, 09:55:28 AM
Not everyone has 120gig HDs nathan :P


And I don't care if I have to find the runtimes again, if I'm missing them I need to get them if I want to run the program.

No need to bitch and whine about it.


Also, MSVCRT.DLL

Visual C runtime library, comes with Windows... so almost any program today have dependencies, unless you write it in ASM, and make everything yourself.. but that wouldnt work on too many computers.


VB is for GUI applications, PB is for non-gfx applications, FB, is for Games/GFX intense stuff


an we all just move along now?, arguing over languages is kind of boring... someone start a flamewar instead... more fun... :D


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Antoni Gual on February 16, 2005, 09:58:32 AM
Code:

System halted: Please insert the diskette with QB runtime in drive B:

:rotfl:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 16, 2005, 10:01:35 AM
What!?

You dont have it in your system dir!?


Silly j000!!11


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: dilettante on February 16, 2005, 06:58:53 PM
Quote
VB is for GUI applications, PB is for non-gfx applications, FB, is for Games/GFX intense stuff

I use VB for lots of non-GUI development: command-line utilities, DLLs, NT services, mid-tier logic (applications with a GUI VB6 front end and a middle-tier running under a Telnet/SSH server), CGI programs.  Why the heck would I go use something like PB in the first place?

FB I can see some reason for, but 90% of my reasons there are hopes of portability that VB will never offer.  But I freely admit I have no current interest in gaming and graphics (not much interest out there in graphical front-end MUDs/MOOs anymore, everything's twitch today), so I won't comment on that topic.

But VB gives me quick results, and besides that a rich library of components as as well raw source out there in the world (free and $$) I can reuse.  I also don't have to worry that nobody else can maintain the stuff I leave behind.


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 16, 2005, 07:53:54 PM
Ofcourse you can use VB for anything you want... just like you can use any languag for anything you want.. :D


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: dilettante on February 16, 2005, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
Ofcourse you can use VB for anything you want... just like you can use any languag for anything you want.. :D

Well almost... it isn't much of a companion on a Saturday night.  :wink:


Title: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Z!re on February 16, 2005, 08:21:55 PM
:lol:

Well, ok...


That reminds me.. my dad once said after seeing a modded computer case... "But can it make coffe?"
He deems everything worthless unless it's somehow involved in making coffe :P


Title: Re: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: alanjay18 on May 06, 2009, 03:08:53 AM
We think for tthe price to buy PowerBASIC for the system manual alone, let alone the compiler,is not bad?

_________________
Ultrasound Repair (http://www.axessultrasound.com)


Title: Re: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: Ninkazu on May 06, 2009, 11:14:03 AM
A wild necromancer has appeared!


Title: Re: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
Post by: bush2 on May 31, 2009, 07:36:38 AM
You don't like VB6, but it doesn't mean that it is bad. At all.