heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up

[Brad]

here's a little toy you all might like:

see:   BitMask Viewer

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

[TheBigBasicQ]

Stop flaming poor PB? If its better than FB then it will survive...

[Brad]

If anyone is interested

here's a PB functions comparison chart:

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

[BastetFurry]

...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!

[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.

[Antoni Gual]

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....

[BastetFurry]

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!

[na_th_an]

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.

[relsoft]

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.

[Brad]

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

[dilettante]

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).

[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?

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.

[BastetFurry]

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

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)

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, ....

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.

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!

[VonGodric]

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.

[na_th_an]

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.