home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!crash!filebank!richard.vannoy
- From: richard.vannoy@filebank.cts.com (Richard Vannoy)
- Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
- Subject: Power BASIC
- Message-ID: <38.339.uupcb@filebank.cts.com>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 21:46:00 GMT
- Distribution: world
- Organization: The File Bank BBS - Fallbrook, CA 619-728-4318
- Reply-To: richard.vannoy@filebank.cts.com (Richard Vannoy)
- Lines: 39
-
- JH> Any users of Power BASIC out there?
-
- I had version 2.? and gave it up when I found out how much
- more support and info was available for QB products.
-
- JH> How does it compare to, say, Turbo Pascal? How big are the generated
- JH> EXE files (i.e. is there lots of overhead for the runtime library,
- JH> etc.)?
-
- No speakee Pascal, but I noticed PB to make a little tighter
- and faster code for what I was doing. Also with just a few
- minutes per program, I was taking PB code, loading it into QB
- and having it up and running.
-
- JH> And for a more technical question: Does PB always generate machine
- JH> code when you run a program (from within the environment) or does it
- JH> do some sort of interpretation like QB?
-
- QB uses something called threaded p-code (whatever that is?).
- I'm not sure about PB.
-
- JH> Any comments would be appreciated. PB 3.0 looks very nice indeed,
- JH> especially the in-line assembler.
-
- Drat! Just when I've figured out how to do an interrupt call
- in QB!
-
- The way it looks like Microsoft is dumping DOS programmers, it
- might be a good move to go with PB. Around here, users are
- predicting that DOS is dead meat and that Microsoft,
- especially, is pushing it off the cliff.
-
- I'm an old fashioned DOS programmer who HATES windows, so I
- guess if we are going to windows only, I'll be dragged there
- screaming and kicking my feet!
-
- Does PB 3.0 do Windows? <grin>
- --- MegaMail 2.10 #0
-
-