Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
heheheheh..... powerbasic forum cracks me up
#11
But seriously, adosorken,

why take something that's not given? That's a fine difference between all these "products" and a free software developed by a community. This one is even developed public... and it's a question of the community's quality, what it will be in the end and when it will leave beta-state. (thx to the main developers, a great start)
Then will be the right time to compare, not now.
And it looks like that could give a hard time to "power"-freaks and all the other half-hearted "communities"....
Free as in freedom, neither like in speech nor in beer...more than all of that half-cooked stuff..
Mipooh
Reply
#12
Quote:PowerBASIC stinks at a mile of distance.
Nathan, I don't understand. In another thread of mine, you recommended PowerBasic to me today. What does your above comment actually mean?
*****
Reply
#13
Quote:You can get a trial of PowerBasic... run some tests!
I browsed the PB site a few minutes ago. I couldn't find any trial version. Where did you see it?
*****
Reply
#14
Quote:
na_th_an Wrote:PowerBASIC stinks at a mile of distance.
Nathan, I don't understand. In another thread of mine, you recommended PowerBasic to me today. What does your above comment actually mean?
*****

I.e. compared to freeBASIC. Sorry, my post was out of context Big Grin

I meant that fB is a modern program that runs on Win32, MSDOS32 and Linux platforms, and PB is a 16 bits compiler that is good but belongs to the time of 386 computers.

It was a lame and rude comment that should have been posted on the PB forums Tongue Note that the original post in this thread was about people dissing fB without having even tried it, the kind of people who think that if it's free, it's bad. The "PB stinks" is the only intelligent reply to their intelligent attitude.
SCUMM (the band) on Myspace!
ComputerEmuzone Games Studio
underBASIC, homegrown musicians
[img]http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/almacen/yoghourtslover.png[/i
Reply
#15
For what I have seen PB users are a little angry with PB Inc for the lack of developement in the past years....

Perhaps we will soon have a version of FB with PB syntax...
Antoni
Reply
#16
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.
SCUMM (the band) on Myspace!
ComputerEmuzone Games Studio
underBASIC, homegrown musicians
[img]http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/almacen/yoghourtslover.png[/i
Reply
#17
if it doesnt support pcopy, how do you flip pages?
Reply
#18
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...
Antoni
Reply
#19
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:
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Reply
#20
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.
Antoni
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)