Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #1125 > unrolled thread

Why I preffer Basic!!!

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer

Contents

  Why I preffer Basic!!! MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:59 -0800
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2013-12-07 19:21 +0100
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Paul Bartlett <bartlett@panix.com> - 2013-12-07 16:54 -0500
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2013-12-07 22:41 +0000
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2013-12-08 01:17 +0100
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-07 19:55 -0500
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2013-12-08 02:16 +0100
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-07 19:58 -0500
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 17:01 -0800
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-08 00:26 -0500
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2013-12-08 01:52 +0000
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-08 00:19 -0500
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-10 09:20 -0800
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Paul Bartlett <bartlett@panix.com> - 2013-12-10 14:23 -0500
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-10 11:27 -0800
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com> - 2013-12-10 11:39 -0800
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2013-12-11 02:44 -0800
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com> - 2013-12-11 03:10 -0800
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2013-12-11 03:44 -0800
        Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-11 07:41 -0800
    Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 23:42 -0800
      Re: Why I preffer Basic!!! Paul Bartlett <bartlett@panix.com> - 2014-01-01 14:10 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1125 — Why I preffer Basic!!!

Hi!!!

I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You don't have to declare strings, in Basic can you put a string there you want to have it. But in example C or C++, you have to declare strings. For numeric (int), and for text (char). And in C or C++, you have to use header files included.

In Basic can you put example (A$) there you want it in your Basic program, and you can add so many strings you need in Basic example (B$ or C$). And it's easy to use FOR NEXT in Basic, Basic is in totaly much esier you use.

I have programmed in Basic, C,C++, Pascal, java and perl. But I have done a idea in C, but it don't work as I want. But in Basic it will work out much esier, so I will do some C programs but more in Basic.

I usually test a Basic program in Basic or BASICA or GWBasic, and if they work fine I save them. And after that do I write same program into Quick Basic 4.5, and compile it to an *.exe file. Thats it...

Regards

Mikael Lj

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1126

On 07.12.2013 17:59, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:

> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You don't have to declare strings, 

Did you ever program in assembler? Maybe you will love it,
especially if you still can execute 16 bit code (no 64 bit
Windows).

Here a small example.

The binary:

echo Bj@jzh`0X-`/PPPPPPa(DE(DM(DO(Dh(Ls(Lu(LX(LeZRR]EEEUYRX2Dx=>2006.com
echo 0DxFP,0Xx.t0P,=XtGsB4o@$?PIyU WwX0GwUY Wv;ovBX2Gv0ExGIuht6>>2006.com
echo ?RwAgOLRN_?GHg`E}\ACDuLEEum[t~?[BwEGOL?KNUBFxF_ap=?C~p?rjr>>2006.com
echo {nwFM_yR?_xKQ_z?D_L?~o_NO_GK1wO?D?}?Mmp?C?}x~zdr{l1E]?y=Fk>>2006.com
echo ~?~b=x~nH?FbclgRnN?_w@A~cDGOWh?sx@?`H@~_m@MzN?_A@qn}LG}b?_>>2006.com
echo oIxHcUxLkVtISV{hJ1dL~VxqqT`lWT__r@cm`T___?__@@o`GT_xoDvdMT>>2006.com
echo dX_S_q`Doq_??uo?0x>>2006.com
2006.com
del 2006.com


The source:

        @=$100

        move.w  #$0013,r0     ; 320X200X256
        trap    #$10

        move.w  #$a000,-(sp)
        move.w  (sp)+,s2

        move.w  #tbuf,-(sp)
_50:    move.w  (sp)+,r4

        lea.w   5.b(r4.w),r5
        tst.b   #$ff,0.b(r4.w){s6}
        bne.b   _51
        move.w   #$0003,r0     ; 80x25 text mode
        trap     #$10
        rts.w

_51:    move.w  r5,-(sp)

        move.w  s2,-(sp)
        move.w  (sp)+,s1
        move.w  #320*200/2,r2
        eor.w   r0,r0
        eor.w   r6,r6
        bclr.w  #10,sr
        rep_r2  move.w  r0,(r6.w)+-{s1}

        move.w  s6,-(sp)
        move.w  (sp)+,s1
        move.w  #$1300,r0       ; Fkt. Nr. Text ausgeben
_x1:    move.w  #$0c12,r1       ; Zeile 12 Spalte 20
        move.w  #5,r2           ; 1 Zeichen
        move.w  #$003f,r3       ; Farbe
        trap    #$10

        move.w  s2,-(sp)
        move.w  (sp)+,s0
        move.w  s6,r0
        add.w   #$1000,r0
        move.w  r0,s1
        move.w  #4,r5
        eor.w   r6,r6
        move.w  #320*200/2-2,r2
        rep_r2  move.w  (r5.w)+-,(r6.w)+-{s1}
        move.w  s0,-(sp)
        move.w  s1,-(sp)
        move.w  (sp)+,s0
        move.w  (sp)+,s1

        bset.w  #10,sr
        move.w  #255,r1
_30:    move.w  #320*200-1,r6
        move.w  #199,r4
_20:    move.w  r4,r0
        sub.w   #100,r0
        muls.w  r1,r0,r0
        asr.w   #8,r0
        add.w   #100,r0
        muls.w  #320,r0,r3
        move.w  #319,r2

_10:    move.w  r2,r5
        sub.w   #160,r5
        muls.w  r1,r5,r5
        asr.w   #8,r5
        lea.w   160(r3.w,r5.w),r5
        move.b  (r5.w)+-,(r6.w)+-{s1}
        dec.w   r2
        bpl.b   _10

        dec.w   r4
        bpl.b   _20
        dec.w   r1
        bne.b   _30
        br.w    _50
;                123451234512345123451234512345123451234512345
tbuf:   dc.b    "MerryXmas  and   A  Happy New Year  2006",0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> On 07.12.2013 17:59, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
>
>> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You don't have to declare strings,
>
> Did you ever program in assembler? Maybe you will love it,
> especially if you still can execute 16 bit code (no 64 bit
> Windows).
>
> Here a small example.
>
> [trim for brevity]

The problem with this example is that it uses a non-standard
idiosyncratic assembler to which many people do not have access, in an
assembly language which they may not understand precisely because it is
idiosyncratic and not standard.  If you want to offer examples in
assembly language, please use common assembly language, not some
variety which is familiar to yourself but not to anyone else. 
Otherwise you are wasting your and our time.  Thank you.

-- 
Paul Bartlett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130

Paul Bartlett wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> 
>> On 07.12.2013 17:59, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
>>
>>> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You 
don't have to declare strings,
>>
>> Did you ever program in assembler? Maybe you will love it,
>> especially if you still can execute 16 bit code (no 64 bit
>> Windows).
>>
>> Here a small example.
>>
>> [trim for brevity]
>
> The problem with this example is that it uses a non-standard
> idiosyncratic assembler to which many people do not have access, in an
> assembly language which they may not understand precisely because it is
> idiosyncratic and not standard.  If you want to offer examples in
> assembly language, please use common assembly language, not some
> variety which is familiar to yourself but not to anyone else.
> Otherwise you are wasting your and our time.  Thank you.

Herbert insists on using IIRC Motorola-style assembly on x86 machines. It 
works for him, so... shrug.

-- 
When one of us prospers, the pride prospers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131

On 07.12.2013 22:54, Paul Bartlett wrote:


> The problem with this example is that it uses a non-standard
> idiosyncratic assembler to which many people do not have access, in an
> assembly language which they may not understand precisely because it is
> idiosyncratic and not standard.  If you want to offer examples in
> assembly language, please use common assembly language, not some
> variety which is familiar to yourself but not to anyone else. 
> Otherwise you are wasting your and our time.  Thank you.

You can even replace any non space character in the source
code by a 'x' and the information of the example is the
same. The purpose of this example is, to show that a few
assembly instructions are sufficient to do some nice graphics.
An assembly programmer doesn't read the assembly code written
by others, he reads the processor manual and writes his own
instruction sequence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1133

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:21:47 -0500, Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de>  
wrote:
> On 07.12.2013 17:59, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:

>> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs.
>> You don't have to declare strings,
>
> Did you ever program in assembler? Maybe you will love it,
> especially if you still can execute 16 bit code (no 64 bit
> Windows).
>
> Here a small example.
>
> [Windela asm]
>

Herbert I haven't seen a post from you in quite some time.
Are you still on alt.os.development or alt.lang.asm or
comp.lang.asm.x86?  Wolfgang is still posting...

P.S. Didn't I say something similar to Paul to you a
few years back about your 68000 syntax for x86?  :-)
How is Windela and the mistress?


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1136

On 08.12.2013 01:55, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Herbert I haven't seen a post from you in quite some time.
> Are you still on alt.os.development or alt.lang.asm or
> comp.lang.asm.x86?  Wolfgang is still posting...

I'm still reading, but there is nothing to which I can
say anything. Assembly programming and usenet are both
dead.

> How is Windela 

Since 64 bit Windows, DOS code doesn't work anymore and
Windows assembly programming isn't fun.

> and the mistress?

After 16 years of non stop work (1994-2010) the 486DX
with Linux 1.1 was sent to retirement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1134

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:59:47 -0500, MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> I [prefer] Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You  
> don't have to declare strings, in Basic can you put a string there you  
> want to have it. But in example C or C++, you have to declare strings.  
> For numeric (int), and for text (char). And in C or C++, you have to use  
> header files included.

Yes, it sounds like you're talking about the interpreted BASICs of
yesteryear.  BTDT.  I loved BASIC, until I found C.  I've programmed
in a wide variety of languages.  There is only one as powerful as
C: PL/1.  Of course, C++ includes C...  So, it's best to just forget
about all those other languages, IMO.  Most are "dead" languages now.

> I have programmed in Basic, C,C++, Pascal, java and perl. But I have  
> done a idea in C, but it don't work as I want. But in Basic it will work  
> out much esier, so I will do some C programs but more in Basic.

About the only thing really convenient in BASIC are MID$, LEFT$, RIGHT$,
and string concatenation '+'.  It's done slightly differently in C, but
C is far more powerful and flexible.  The big problem with BASIC is
unstructured code.  You can jump into and out of loops, etc.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1135

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:58:20 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...
> The big problem with BASIC is
> unstructured code.  You can jump into and out of loops, etc.

In C you have break and goto to jump into and out of loops as well. Oh, and longjmp(). :)

Alex

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1139

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:01:16 -0500, Alexei A. Frounze  
<alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:58:20 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> The big problem with BASIC is unstructured code.  You can jump
>> into and out of loops, etc.
>
> In C you have break and goto to jump into and out of loops as
> well. Oh, and longjmp(). :)

Yes.

I wasn't wanting to go into a full discussion on that
since there is more than that in C.  Generally though,
most C programmers are going to use the structured
coding features provided for them.  In BASIC, it's
entirely up to the programmer to code using structured
concepts or not.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1137

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:59:47 -0500, MIkael Ljungberg <mljmacqb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I [prefer] Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You
>> don't have to declare strings, in Basic can you put a string there you
>> want to have it. But in example C or C++, you have to declare strings.
>> For numeric (int), and for text (char). And in C or C++, you have to use
>> header files included.
>
> Yes, it sounds like you're talking about the interpreted BASICs of
> yesteryear.  BTDT.  I loved BASIC, until I found C.  I've programmed
> in a wide variety of languages.  There is only one as powerful as
> C: PL/1.  Of course, C++ includes C...  So, it's best to just forget
> about all those other languages, IMO.  Most are "dead" languages now.

C is a good general-purpose language, but there are lots of languages which 
are mored suitable to specific tasks. What language you use depends a lot on 
what you're trying to accomplish.

My preferred general-purpose language is BASIC, but I don't hesitate to 
switch languages if I feel that another is more suited to my goals.

>> I have programmed in Basic, C,C++, Pascal, java and perl. But I have
>> done a idea in C, but it don't work as I want. But in Basic it will work
>> out much esier, so I will do some C programs but more in Basic.
>
> About the only thing really convenient in BASIC are MID$, LEFT$, RIGHT$,
> and string concatenation '+'.

How about the fact that in most BASICs, you don't need to worry about the 
length of a string? That's worth a lot to me.

> It's done slightly differently in C, but
> C is far more powerful and flexible.  The big problem with BASIC is
> unstructured code.  You can jump into and out of loops, etc.

Modern BASICs tend to be just as powerful and flexible as C, and 
unstructured code is a problem with the *programmer*, not the language.

-- 
An intellectual is a highly educated man who can't do
arithmetic with his shoes on, and is proud of his lack.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1138

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:52:48 -0500, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>  
wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>

> C is a good general-purpose language, but there are lots of languages
> which are mored suitable to specific tasks. What language you use
> depends a lot on what you're trying to accomplish.

I don't believe in that concept.  I've never needed a domain specific
language to do what I need or want to in C.  My experiences prove to
me that most other languages are far less functional than C, except
PL/1 which is just as powerful, and perhaps C++ which encompasses C.

>>> I have programmed in Basic, C,C++, Pascal, java and perl. But I have
>>> done a idea in C, but it don't work as I want. But in Basic it will
>>> work out much esier, so I will do some C programs but more in Basic.
>>
>> About the only thing really convenient in BASIC are MID$, LEFT$, RIGHT$,
>> and string concatenation '+'.
>
> How about the fact that in most BASICs, you don't need to worry
> about the length of a string? That's worth a lot to me.

I don't worry about the length of a string in C.  I hardly ever use
strlen().  If you're not copying a string, concatenating a string,
storing a string from runtime input, or formatting a string in memory,
then you generally don't need to worry.  Even in those instances,
with care, you can allocate the exact amount for the string or
pre-allocate more space than is needed for a string if doing some
manipulations.  I said "generally".  If you're doing other string
manipulations, you can run into problems, but it's usually just a
matter of pre-allocating enough extra space to fix the issue.

>> It's done slightly differently in C, but C is far more powerful
>> and flexible.  The big problem with BASIC is unstructured code.
>> You can jump into and out of loops, etc.
>
> Modern BASICs tend to be just as powerful and flexible as C,

Interesting.

I reviewed one of the early BASICs I used a few years ago.  I had
planned on implementing a new version on the assumption it would
be easy to implement.  However, in general, I felt the language
didn't scale well to modern machines.  Many of the features of
the language seemed designed for memory and size constrained
architectures.  The only useful concepts I thought it still
had as compared to C was the string functions which are simpler
than C and most other languages.  I'm not saying it's a useless
language.  I saw it work very well in a factory setting.

> and unstructured code is a problem with the *programmer*,
> not the language.
>

I would agree that it's a problem with the programmer, but
I disagree that it's not a problem with the language too. I've
seen other programmers firsthand who can't follow structured
coding concepts in BASIC.  That's why it was known for
"spaghetti code".  C has a few non-structured elements for
programmatic code generation, but it's mostly structured.  Even
so, I've seen C programmers intentionally go out of their way
to use and even abuse the few non-structured elements in C.
They always have some rationalization as to why they shouldn't
use structured coding: speed, no support for nested returns,
error handling, etc.  Of course, none of that is true.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You don't have to declare strings, in Basic can you put a string there you want to have it. But in example C or C++, you have to declare strings. For numeric (int), and for text (char). And in C or C++, you have to use header files included.
> 
> In Basic can you put example (A$) there you want it in your Basic program, and you can add so many strings you need in Basic example (B$ or C$). And it's easy to use FOR NEXT in Basic, Basic is in totaly much esier you use.
> 
> I usually test a Basic program in Basic or BASICA or GWBasic, and if they work fine I save them. And after that do I write same program into Quick Basic 4.5, and compile it to an *.exe file. Thats it...
> 

I like BASIC.  It is a very simple language.  As of now, I use VBDOS Pro 1.0 for much of my DOS programming.  However, I prefer C, as it is more versatile than BASIC.  There seems to be far more support in C than in BASIC: BASIC can only do so much.  I highlight the following differences between C and BASIC:

*   BASIC is a high-level language, and C mid-level.  In other words, BASIC is closer to human thinking, and C slightly closer to the machine level.
*   C is generally faster and more efficient than BASIC: C's declaration structure is more direct, C uses less processing of code than BASIC, C has less error-handling than BASIC, etc.
*   Both can be expanded, but C expands functionality more directly than BASIC.  It's not that BASIC *can't*; it's just that they *don't*: old 8-bit Commodore computers had expandable BASICs, even though they were poor and certainly slow.  At one time, I've been playing with the idea of creating an expandable BASIC for DOS.  It would be mainly for games but include functionality for other things as well, i.e. a skinnable UI.

BTW, even though modern 64-bit computers are *very* fast, there might be a reason for assembler for 64-bit computers: if you are doing heavy graphics and sound, a little assembler in strategic spots may help in speed a little.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1147

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Harry Potter wrote (trimmed for brevity):

> On Saturday, December 7, 2013 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
>> I preffer Basic, and that because it so simple to make programs. You don't have to declare strings,
>> [etc.]

> I like BASIC.  It is a very simple language. [etc.]

It all depends on what your needs are, really. For simple, one-off,
quick tasks, Basic may be superior to some other languages, such as C
(although I admit that I am not proficient in C to be able to judge
completely).

Occasionally I still use MS QBasic in Windows(32-bit) XP Pro SP3. Not
long ago, I needed to process a 27000 line (pure) text file to extract
and format individual fields from records into another file. As long as
I did it right the first time, I only had to do it once. On a 2GHz
computer, QBasic with its built-in string handling functions was
completely adequate. In fact, it took longer to write the program than
it did to execute it in the interpreter just the one time. However, I
suspect that even if I were good at C, it would have taken longer to
write the program.

Again, it all depends on what you needs are.

-- 
Paul Bartlett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1148

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:23:26 PM UTC-5, Paul Bartlett wrote:
> Again, it all depends on what you needs are. -- Paul Bartlett

I agree.  That's why there are often many solutions available for the same problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149

Hi!!!

The only easy "Hello, World!!!" program...

In Basic.
10 print "Hello, World!!!"

In C++
#include <stdio.h>

int main()

{
printf("Hello, World!!!\n");
}

In Assembler
.MODEL  small
.STACK  100h
.DATA
HelloMessage DB 'Hello, World',13,10.'$'
.CODE
mov      ax,@data
mov      ds,ax
mov      ah,9
mov      dx,OFFSET HelloMessage
int      21h
mov      ah,4ch
int      21h
END

Can anyone understand why I like Basic!!!
With little code in Basic can you do very much, and some things are not able in C++ but in Basic.

In C++ can't you declare strings on same line, but that can you do in Basic.

In Basic.
10 print "Answer be "; A$, B$, C$

In C++.
printf("Answer be %d", tal1);

So Basic is what you shall use, I have used Basic since 1982. And I got some knowledge about other langues, but Basic is what I shall use.

Regads

Mikael Lj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1151

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
> Hi!!!
> 
> The only easy "Hello, World!!!" program...
> 
> In Basic.
> 
> 10 print "Hello, World!!!"
> 
> 
> In C++
>
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main()
> {
> printf("Hello, World!!!\n");
> }

That's C.

> In Assembler
> 
> .MODEL  small
> .STACK  100h
> .DATA
> HelloMessage DB 'Hello, World',13,10.'$'
> .CODE
> mov      ax,@data
> mov      ds,ax
> mov      ah,9
> mov      dx,OFFSET HelloMessage
> int      21h
> mov      ah,4ch
> int      21h
> END
> 
> Can anyone understand why I like Basic!!!
> 
> With little code in Basic can you do very much, and some things are not able in C++ but in Basic.
> 
> In C++ can't you declare strings on same line, but that can you do in Basic.

You can. Learn the language. C and C++ don't enforce any specific source code formatting.

> In Basic.
> 
> 10 print "Answer be "; A$, B$, C$
> 
> 
> In C++.
> 
> printf("Answer be %d", tal1);

Again, that's C, and not yet C++.

> So Basic is what you shall use, I have used Basic since 1982. And I got some knowledge about other langues, but Basic is what I shall use.
> 

Good luck writing a real OS or a real compiler in Basic. :)

Alex

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1153

Hi!!!

I got compilers for all my Basic software, or can I compile my programs in the Basic program I code in. I have found out how to compile an GWBasic program, and I am not intended to write a whole Operating System. I just write programs for fun, I code then I feel for it. I'm not intended to write complicated programs. And in Basic can you do more than just jump around or make loops, you can do graphical things in Basic. I also got Visual Basic 3.0, and that in my DOS/Windows 3.11 computer. And I like then I write programs i C, not use that cout or cin. But best is it when I can write programs i Basic.

Regards

Mikiael Lj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1154

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:10:25 AM UTC-8, MIkael Ljungberg wrote:
> Hi!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I got compilers for all my Basic software, or can I compile my programs in the Basic program I code in. I have found out how to compile an GWBasic program, and I am not intended to write a whole Operating System. I just write programs for fun, I code then I feel for it. I'm not intended to write complicated programs. And in Basic can you do more than just jump around or make loops, you can do graphical things in Basic. I also got Visual Basic 3.0, and that in my DOS/Windows 3.11 computer. And I like then I write programs i C, not use that cout or cin. But best is it when I can write programs i Basic.
> 

Accept that there's no universal tool that's best for everything and everyone. If you're doing simple stuff for which Basic is sufficient and a good fit, then do it in Basic. Don't blame C(++), assembler and other tools for not being suitable for what you want or how you want it. They are probably better for something else and not for what you're currently doing. If it's just a matter of personal opinion or preference, so be it. It's rather pointless to debate tastes.

Alex

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1158

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:44:25 AM UTC-5, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> Accept that there's no universal tool that's best for everything and everyone. If you're doing simple stuff for which Basic is sufficient and a good fit, then do it in Basic. Don't blame C(++), assembler and other tools for not being suitable for what you want or how you want it. They are probably better for something else and not for what you're currently doing. If it's just a matter of personal opinion or preference, so be it. It's rather pointless to debate tastes.
> 
I agree: different methods of doing the same thing generally have different benefits and drawbacks, and it's your job to use the proper tool for the job.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.msdos.programmer

csiph-web