Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Guest
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:29 pm
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
Guest
Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:29 pm
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:
Quote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow. You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
Joel Koltner
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:24 am
Quote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
Hmm... since it's no longer listed on their products page
(http://www.powerbasic.com/products/), is it on sale because they're
discontinuing it?
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:44 am
On Mar 1, 6:24 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
Hmm... since it's no longer listed on their products page
(http://www.powerbasic.com/products/), is it on sale because they're
discontinuing it?
Something like that. They're switching the Win compiler from version
8 to version 9, so version 8's on sale.
Version 8's plenty good enough for me--heck I'm still using MS
QuickBasic, and like it. But this'll let me use graphics under WinXX
with the confidence my programs won't crash other people's computers.
I'm totally /not/ into all that Monkeysoft gooey stuff -- they change
it too often, and I can't be bothered keeping up with their hamster
wheel. By providing its own interface PB might fix that. (I'll learn
an interface, if it's worth it.)
Anyway, this PB Win 8.0 is just for my personal engineering
hacks...I've written a couple circuit simulators, mechanical design
gizmos, data processing stuff, and what-nots.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:00 am
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:00:42 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 1, 5:27 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
Sounds like the Console version is more my style--it also supports
graphics, which I hadn't noticed--but it isn't the one that was on
sale!
So, I'll try this one and see how it goes. I haven't been writing all
that much.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Nice display, and sure, I'd love some of your handiwork. You won't
mind if I lowercase it, will you?
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
My weekend program was a lark, a feasibility-thing--it did a rough-cut
design of an improved rollernut configuration that came to me. The
program takes the design parameters, roughs the component dimensions,
then draws the assembled parts & overlaps, to scale, so you can check
for interferences.
I was really tempted to do a 3-D wireframe animation and computer-
generate all the machining info--it wouldn't take that long--but
that's way overkill. If / when it comes to it I'll probably just
pencil it up and cut a proto on the lathe. Right now I'm just
evaluating design options, blah blah blah, and wanted to see if this
idea would work. It does. Animation sure would be fun though.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow.
QB does true compilation if you ask it to, can output a .ASM source
file, and even lets you cobble in assembly code (in 8086!). I did
that for faster graphics and FFTs, back in the day.
The compiled code isn't great--lots of subroutine calls and stacked
parameters to do even the simplest things, like add two integers--but
it's more convenient than programming in Intel assembly (which I've
done more than my share of).
You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
That's good stuff. I hope the Win version lets me do that basic hard
work without a bunch of gooey clutter.
I'll email you the source of the heads-up thing, and whatever else
looks useful.
I didn't much like the PB-Win thing because it was too much work to do
simple user interfaces. I did use PB-Forms, which is a Visual-Basic
sort of thing... you drag-drop design a Windows screen with all the
buttons and boxes and gadgets, and it generates the PB-Win source code
for the skeleton application. Then you have to get at all the
variables and do the real application. I thought the resulting code
was clumsy and ugly. The old LOCATE...INPUT...PRINT...COLOR paradigm,
in PBCC, suits me better for hacking engineering apps.
Pbcc:
#COMPILE EXE
FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG
CLS
LOCATE 12, 35
PRINT "Hello, world!"
SLEEP 2000
END FUNCTION
John
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:00 am
On Mar 1, 5:27 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
Sounds like the Console version is more my style--it also supports
graphics, which I hadn't noticed--but it isn't the one that was on
sale!
So, I'll try this one and see how it goes. I haven't been writing all
that much.
Quote:
Nice display, and sure, I'd love some of your handiwork. You won't
mind if I lowercase it, will you?
Quote:
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
My weekend program was a lark, a feasibility-thing--it did a rough-cut
design of an improved rollernut configuration that came to me. The
program takes the design parameters, roughs the component dimensions,
then draws the assembled parts & overlaps, to scale, so you can check
for interferences.
I was really tempted to do a 3-D wireframe animation and computer-
generate all the machining info--it wouldn't take that long--but
that's way overkill. If / when it comes to it I'll probably just
pencil it up and cut a proto on the lathe. Right now I'm just
evaluating design options, blah blah blah, and wanted to see if this
idea would work. It does. Animation sure would be fun though.
Quote:
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow.
QB does true compilation if you ask it to, can output a .ASM source
file, and even lets you cobble in assembly code (in 8086!). I did
that for faster graphics and FFTs, back in the day.
The compiled code isn't great--lots of subroutine calls and stacked
parameters to do even the simplest things, like add two integers--but
it's more convenient than programming in Intel assembly (which I've
done more than my share of).
Quote:
You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
That's good stuff. I hope the Win version lets me do that basic hard
work without a bunch of gooey clutter.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:51 am
On Mar 1, 9:00 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:00:42 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:27 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
Sounds like the Console version is more my style--it also supports
graphics, which I hadn't noticed--but it isn't the one that was on
sale!
So, I'll try this one and see how it goes. I haven't been writing all
that much.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Nice display, and sure, I'd love some of your handiwork. You won't
mind if I lowercase it, will you?
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
My weekend program was a lark, a feasibility-thing--it did a rough-cut
design of an improved rollernut configuration that came to me. The
program takes the design parameters, roughs the component dimensions,
then draws the assembled parts & overlaps, to scale, so you can check
for interferences.
I was really tempted to do a 3-D wireframe animation and computer-
generate all the machining info--it wouldn't take that long--but
that's way overkill. If / when it comes to it I'll probably just
pencil it up and cut a proto on the lathe. Right now I'm just
evaluating design options, blah blah blah, and wanted to see if this
idea would work. It does. Animation sure would be fun though.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow.
QB does true compilation if you ask it to, can output a .ASM source
file, and even lets you cobble in assembly code (in 8086!). I did
that for faster graphics and FFTs, back in the day.
The compiled code isn't great--lots of subroutine calls and stacked
parameters to do even the simplest things, like add two integers--but
it's more convenient than programming in Intel assembly (which I've
done more than my share of).
You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
That's good stuff. I hope the Win version lets me do that basic hard
work without a bunch of gooey clutter.
I'll email you the source of the heads-up thing, and whatever else
looks useful.
I didn't much like the PB-Win thing because it was too much work to do
simple user interfaces.
Hmm, possible "yuck." I bought several versions of Visual Basic, but
I never used them--too messy.
I'm more willing to try with PB. It compiles better object code, is
generally tighter, and more worth the trouble. But I won't be
programming lots of WinGUI cr$p -- not unless absolutely necessary.
If the GUI stuff gets in the way, I'll use something else.
Quote:
I did use PB-Forms, which is a Visual-Basic
sort of thing... you drag-drop design a Windows screen with all the
buttons and boxes and gadgets, and it generates the PB-Win source code
for the skeleton application. Then you have to get at all the
variables and do the real application. I thought the resulting code
was clumsy and ugly. The old LOCATE...INPUT...PRINT...COLOR paradigm,
in PBCC, suits me better for hacking engineering apps.
Me too. I want results, not menus.
Quote:
Pbcc:
#COMPILE EXE
FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG
CLS
LOCATE 12, 35
PRINT "Hello, world!"
SLEEP 2000
END FUNCTION
Perfectly reasonable. Hopefully the Win version's reasonable too.
James
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:54 am
On Mar 1, 9:00 pm, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:27 pm, John Larkin wrote:
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Nice display, and sure, I'd love some of your handiwork. You won't
mind if I lowercase it, will you?
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
<snip>
Quote:
I'll email you the source of the heads-up thing, and whatever else
looks useful.
Thanks--always good to have a starting point.
--James
George Herold
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:20 am
On Mar 1, 4:29 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Thanks James, I'll try it.
George H.
Robert Baer
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:38 pm
John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow. You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
I have PDS and it will compile to binary code (if you do not compile,
it runs p-code).
If you want either p-code or compiled code to run faster, use
integers as much as possible.
A bunch of code fiddling inside a integer FOR..Next loop will compile
to ASM code that cannot be hand optimised any better - as long as that
fiddling is not TOO complicated.
Even array access is ASM tight.
Now it ain't too hot in making a loop inside a loop efficient, but
slight tweaking of the ASM can fix that.
John Larkin
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:08 pm
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:38:18 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow. You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
I have PDS and it will compile to binary code (if you do not compile,
it runs p-code).
I thought it compiled to p-code. May be wrong about that. Maybe that
was Qbasic. But the DOS version of PowerBasic was 3x to 10x faster
than PDS, running on the same machine.
John
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:53 pm
On Mar 2, 6:38 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:29:22 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
A convert!
I'm not a fan of the PB-Win thing, because I don't like Windows
programming... the user interface crud dominates the application code.
The Console Compiler is a lot easier to drive. It does all sorts of
cool stuff like TCP/IP.
If you want a starting point for some PB-Console Compiler graphics
stuff, I can furnish the source code for this:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GR8.jpg
Its functionality is obscure (it simulates a vector heads-up display
for a C130) but it does most of the tricky graphics stuff.
I really liked QB and the PDS ("professional") version. Great stuff in
its day. But it wasn't a true compiler so was slow. You can do useful
FOR loops at 30 MHz in PowerBasic. One of my guys coded a 64 M point
signal averaging thing in C, and I was surprised how slow it ran,
almost a second. I whipped up the dumbest possible PBCC version,
klutzy FOR loop with subscripts, and it ran in under 0.25 seconds. He
want back and played with his code and compiler settings and
eventually got close.
John
I have PDS and it will compile to binary code (if you do not compile,
it runs p-code).
If you want either p-code or compiled code to run faster, use
integers as much as possible.
A bunch of code fiddling inside a integer FOR..Next loop will compile
to ASM code that cannot be hand optimised any better - as long as that
fiddling is not TOO complicated.
Even array access is ASM tight.
Now it ain't too hot in making a loop inside a loop efficient, but
slight tweaking of the ASM can fix that.
QB's pretty fast, especially for the programmer. It's really a joy.
It gives instant feedback in interactive mode, interpreting P-code,
yet will compile down to machine code if you want.
And, an old compiler flies on a more modern machine. That's my secret
sauce. The QB compiler I use from 1987--made to run on an 4.77MHz
8088 with two 360k floppies--absolutely screams on the '486-66 I run
it on. An LED modulation experiment managed 30KHz pwm loops to the
parallel port in P-code.
....was going to compile it for speed, but never had to.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:56 pm
On Mar 1, 10:20 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 1, 4:29 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Thanks James, I'll try it.
George H.
You bet. As John indicates, this is their "VisualBasic". The Console
version's probably my fave option--that's more my style--but for $49
I'm more than willing to take a chance on this version.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jon Kirwan
Guest
Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:53 pm
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:08:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
snip
I thought it compiled to p-code. May be wrong about that. Maybe that
was Qbasic. But the DOS version of PowerBasic was 3x to 10x faster
than PDS, running on the same machine.
I still own and use several different incarnations of
GW-BASIC and QB, including QB v4.0, v4.5 (this last one is
roughly what QBASIC is, without the ability to compile) and
PDS 6.0, 7.0 and 7.1, and finally VBDOS 1.0.
I also have snarfed a copy of the complete source code in asm
for QB v4.5, laying about somewhere.
Most of these do compile and generate what amounts to
assembly code. Their assembly listing capability had a lot
to be desired, though.
I don't have any doubt that PB is faster than PDS, but I'd be
interested in comparing some code generation just for the fun
of it. If you (or someone) is interested in trying that.
There is a nifty feature in VBDOS, which is the ability to
create DOS programs which support text-based Windows, with
file drop down boxes, text boxes, and a host of other
familiar Windows widgets -- with event call-backs and very
very easy to use coding for them. The advantage here is that
VBDOS programs work on DOS-only systems, such as the PC/104
units often are set up to run with ancient CGA, EGA, and VGA
operating mode boards in them. The output does not require
32-bit or protected-mode drivers to run.
I still have use for the boxed sets of DOS I keep on the
shelf, full retail distributions, picked up for $5 each some
time ago. And PDS both compiles fine on such systems as well
as generating code that also runs fine on them.
Jon
P.S. For QBASIC, which does not compile, I also wrote (and
if you want it, I've no problem passing it on) some short
QBASIC programs that allow you to write assembly code to
interface with it -- they will invoke the assembler, generate
object code, generate DATA statements automatically, and set
up routines that will load the data and execute it as a
subroutine. So even when compilation isn't available, it was
possible to still link with your own assembly code.
Martin Riddle
Guest
Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:51 am
<dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a401655d-497e-42c4-8216-bc023f6e99a6_at_k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
I was writing a mechanical simulation with graphics this weekend &
flailed a bit getting around WinXP's support of VGA graphics under
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 (circa 1987, I think). (*Great* product)
Anyway, John Larkin's raved about PowerBasic--it does all that
graphics / menu / GUI jazz--under Windows 95-through-Win7, makes tight
code, it's anti-bloatware, and the old version (Classic PowerBasic 8.0
for Windows) is on sale for $49 (for the next few days).
I snagged a copy.
http://www.powerbasic.com/
http://www.powerbasic.com/products/clwn/
You should too.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
I going to give it a try. But it sounds almost as laborious as windows
forms (which isn't all that difficult).
Cheers
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
