Qbasicnews.com
June 22, 2018, 11:31:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up  (Read 52199 times)
na_th_an
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 8244



WWW
« Reply #15 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.
Logged

SCUMM (the band) on Myspace!
ComputerEmuzone Games Studio
underBASIC, homegrown musicians
[img]http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/almacen/yoghourtslover.png[/i
KiZ
__/--\__
*****
Posts: 2879


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2005, 12:29:31 PM »

if it doesnt support pcopy, how do you flip pages?
Logged
Antoni Gual
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1434



WWW
« Reply #17 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...
Logged

Antoni
adosorken
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3655



WWW
« Reply #18 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:
Logged

I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Antoni Gual
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1434



WWW
« Reply #19 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.
Logged

Antoni
DanKirby
New Member

Posts: 11


« Reply #20 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.
Logged
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #21 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
Logged

adosorken
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3655



WWW
« Reply #22 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. Cheesy 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.
Logged

I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Z!re
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 4599


« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2005, 08:03:27 PM »

With the release of FB we've all become money hungry coders  Tongue
Logged
Antoni Gual
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1434



WWW
« Reply #24 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.   Shocked

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?)
Logged

Antoni
adosorken
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3655



WWW
« Reply #25 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:
Logged

I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Antoni Gual
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1434



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2005, 08:35:12 PM »

Let me P2P VB to check...Let's see... ARGH!!! a 600Mb CD image!!!!   :rotfl:
Logged

Antoni
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #27 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 ;)
Logged

barok
Na_th_an
*****
Posts: 1727


How about a tasty lead sandwich?


« Reply #28 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. Wink  

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. Smiley
Logged

Jumping Jahoolipers!
Brad
New Member

Posts: 12


« Reply #29 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 !!  Smiley

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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!