🚀 go-pugleaf

BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a 
FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++ 
(with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real 
language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route). 
The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are 
great.

Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do 
you wanna go?"

In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net> charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com>
writes: 
>
>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
>and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a 
>FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++ 
>(with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real 
>language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route). 
>The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are 
>great.
>
>Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do 
>you wanna go?"
>

Also remember, C++ makes good programers great, but makes poor
programmers hell spawn. Don't think object orientation cant be misused.

Michael Judge wrote:
> 
> In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net> charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com>
> writes:
> >
> >BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"
> >and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a
> >FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++
> >(with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real
> >language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route).
> >The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are
> >great.
> >
> >Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do
> >you wanna go?"
> >
> 
> Also remember, C++ makes good programers great, but makes poor
> programmers hell spawn. Don't think object orientation cant be misused.

I think Bjarne Stroustrup once said something like (comparing C an dC++):
"C++ makes it more difficult to shoot your selfe in the foot, but when you
 do, it takes your whole leg off."


---Terje

On 26 Jan 1996, charles stoyer wrote:

> BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
> and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a 
> FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++ 
> (with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real 
> language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route). 
> The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   This scares me even more than what BASIC stands for.

> great.
> 
> Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do 
> you wanna go?"
> 
> 
> 

In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net>, charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> writes:
>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
>and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a 

And the answer is....
 Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpretive Code.

FWIW

rk

charles stoyer wrote:
> BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"

Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code
-- 
Ron Whittle            Ron.Whittle@sid.net

charles stoyer wrote:

Sorry, I took the bait!  VB is a real language also.  I would invite you to spend a little time with the 
IDE and see just how powerful this "non-real" language is!  Add Desaware SpyWorks control and I am happily 
doing many things you will do with C++.  VB is not the BASIC that you are thinking.  And VB ain't in 
Kansas anymore.  It has grown to be a very useful and productive language for a variety of different 
applications.

> 
> BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"
> and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a
> FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++
> (with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real
> language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route).
> The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are
> great.
> 
> Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do
> you wanna go?"

Yes speed costs and I will have my app done a heck of a lot quicker than you will with C++.  So I guess 
speed will cost your clients!

-- 
+==================================================================+
Paul R. Morrison              Internet: Paul_Morrison@entertain.com
		              Compuserve: 71055,2377
Programmer / Geologist
+==================================================================+

charles stoyer wrote:
> BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"
> and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a
> FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++
> (with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real
> language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route).
> The Wizard does most of the coding for you.

  Very funny.
  Where can I get such a Wizard. My C++ development environment 
  (VC++ 4.0) has got some Wizards, but none of them does most of
  the coding for me...

-=Mike=-
(jouni.tiainen@ttgroup.fi)

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, bw wrote:

> There seems to be a lot of overhead using VB.  I'm not far along in my 
> programming efforts, but I know some fundamentals.  I know I want portability, 
> speed and low overhead.

	I recently wrote a large application in the new "improved" VB4.  
What I ended up with was a fat, bloated, SLOW application, that paled in 
comparison to it's VB3 version.
	I called M$ Tech support, only to have them tell me that my 
suspicion was indeed correct, VB4 is actually SLOWER than VB3.  When I 
asked the tech why they called it an UPgrade, he told me all about the 
great OLE features that VB4 now contained.  When I told him that I wasn't 
using any of the "great" OLE features, he told me that I needed to 
include the OLE .DLLs anyway, because VB4 itself needs them to run.  At 
this point I suggested a new name for VB4-- The VB4 DOWNgrade -- and 
suggested a new slogan: "If you want to write bloated, slow applications, 
use Vb4!".
	I am so pissed that M$ did what they did with VB4.  I have now 
switched wholeheartedly over to Delphi and am loving life.
	I too invested lots of time and money into VB.  My suggestion to 
you is that if you have to use VB, use version 3.0.  Otherwise, switch to 
Delphi.  Sure, the learning curve is a little more steep, but it is well 
worth the effort.  By all means, avoid VB4 like the plague.  It is a 
complete and utter piece of shit.

						Pete

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter C. de Tagyos   |  pdetagyo@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We don't make mistakes, we just have happy little accidents."
				     - the Late Great Bob Ross

"Terje A. Bergesen" <terje@mail.inett.no> wrote:



>I think Bjarne Stroustrup once said something like (comparing C an dC++):
>"C++ makes it more difficult to shoot your selfe in the foot, but when you
> do, it takes your whole leg off."

I always liked "C lets you shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ lets you
reuse the bullet."

Earl

In article <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net>,
   charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> wrote:
>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
>and that scares the living hell out of me.

And rightly, but that's not Visual Basic.  BASIC is that garbage they tried 
to teach me in high school twenty years ago; Visual Basic bears very little 
relationship to it.  It still won't do what I need to do, you understand.  
But rejecting it based on your old "Advanced BASIC" book just isn't 
justified.

-Erin Lazzaro

rknapp@mcimail.com  (Rich Knapp) wrote:

>In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net>, charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> writes:
>>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
>>and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a 

>And the answer is....
> Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpretive Code.

Hmm, I always thought it was Beginners All-purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code...  Of course, some version of BASIC are _still_
interpretive (such as VB)..

..Al

>FWIW

>rk

charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> decided to share with us
the infinite reservoars of wisdom:

>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 

Actually it's "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".
But VB does not deserve the name BASIC. I can't understand why
the stupid masses still think of VB as BASIC.

Jens
--
Everything I said are the opinions of someone else.
I just cut-and-pasted.

Jens Balchen jr.       http://www.sn.no/~balchen
balchen@sn.no          http://www.sn.no/~balchen/vb/visual.htm

In <4ebko9$8tn@hasle.sn.no>,  (balchen@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.))
wrote:
>charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> decided to share with us
>the infinite reservoars of wisdom:

>>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 

>Actually it's "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".
>But VB does not deserve the name BASIC. I can't understand why
>the stupid masses still think of VB as BASIC.

Hmmm. Ya got me. Suppose it be because the V in VB stands for Visual?

In article <3108EBD0.A7A@entertain.com>,
Paul Morrison <rxhead@entertain.com> wrote:
>Sorry, I took the bait!  VB is a real language also.  I would invite you to spend a little time with the 
>IDE and see just how powerful this "non-real" language is!  Add Desaware SpyWorks control and I am happily 
>doing many things you will do with C++.  VB is not the BASIC that you are thinking.  And VB ain't in 
>Kansas anymore.  It has grown to be a very useful and productive language for a variety of different 
>applications.

I haven't seen SpyWorks, but Delphi 1.0 does this right out of the box.

IMO, it has a better IDE than VB4, while offering a powerful language that
indeed can be compared to C++. Of course, SpyWorks probably enhances this,
but whatever it does, I'm sure can be built for Delphi too. The difference
is that any enhancements can be done with Delphi and doesn't require a second
development language.

VB is BASIC with a few added keywords and the possibility to use VBXs and
DLLs. Performancewise it's still the BASIC we've all learned to love/hate.
(insert rumours of the old QuickBasic being a true compiler here)

>Yes speed costs and I will have my app done a heck of a lot quicker than you will with C++.  So I guess 
>speed will cost your clients!

And I will have an even faster application implemented in less hours.
;-)

-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.960126125658.2477C-100000@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu> Bob Ross <pdetagyo@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu> writes:
> he told me all about the 
>great OLE features that VB4 now contained.  When I told him that I wasn't 
>using any of the "great" OLE features, he told me that I needed to 
>include the OLE .DLLs anyway, because VB4 itself needs them to run.


Here is the real downfall of VB's current design, and as Microsoft continues 
to add features to Windows it only gets worse.  The interpreter is strictly 
monolithic -- one gigantic piece of software that can, and necessarily must, 
do anything any VB application in the universe might potentially want to do.

Clearly, in my view, the VB interpreter needs to be split into organized units 
and be able to recover from the possibility that a particular required unit 
might not be present.  Presumably some kind of compiler-option would be needed 
so that programmers could declare what language-features their programs used 
(or the language might do this itself), so that the interpreter would not 
attempt to run a program that could not be run in the present environment.  
The interpreter would verify the existence of the required DLLs but would not 
load them into memory until they are required.

Second, and equally clearly in my view, the time has come -- has long since 
passed -- for VB to ship with an honest-to-God native code compiler, much as 
QuickBasic had in 1988.  (So don't tell me they are not easily capable of 
doing it.)  Right now, some programmers feel obligated to switch away from VB 
to "something else" (witness the cross-post of the original message I'm 
replying to) just because VB does not offer true compilation.  That's really 
not a good thing.  

Programmers have invested millions of dollars in their VB applications, and 
they ought not be stuck with the "second son" or placed in a non-competitive 
position because of their original choices.  "Rewriting" such applications is, 
in the real world, generally not an acceptable alternative -- and please, I 
*know* there are products out there that more-or-less claim to do it.  I 
program daily in all three of these languages and feel that I know whereof I 
speak on this...  :-/

Microsoft has stated that VB will include a compiler.  I hope for their sake 
they make it soon.

/mr/

Rich Knapp wrote:
> 
> In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net>, charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com> writes:
> >BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"
> >and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a
> 
> And the answer is....
>  Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpretive Code.
> 
> FWIW
> 
> rk


BASIC stand for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic INSTRUCTION Code.

In article <ZKkCx0JfF6xG089yn@oslonett.no>
           mobergru@oslonett.no "Rune Moberg" writes:
...
> VB is BASIC with a few added keywords and the possibility to use VBXs and
> DLLs. Performancewise it's still the BASIC we've all learned to love/hate.
> (insert rumours of the old QuickBasic being a true compiler here)
...

I don't know about Quick Basic - but Microsoft's Professional Basic
wasn't bad - if they could make a VB compiler up to that kind of
standard they might have something. 

- Chris

-- 
Christopher J Fynn <cfynn@sahaja.demon.co.uk>

If you've worked with both languages for a decednt amount of time, you'll 
probably realize that Delphi is not only more powerfulk, flexible, more 
quick, but its actually easier to use and program in.  It is truly
object oriented which means many of its clases and components are descendents
of more abstract classes.  This is why when you understand some basic things 
about certain common methods or properties, you can leverage that knowledge 
when using other objects/compnents in the dELPHI vcl.  bECAUSE IT IS
TRULY OBJECT ORIENTED, the components work the same way.  It is SO MUCH MORE 
consistent than VB, and saves you from a hell of a lot of headaches thinking 
about all the inconsistencies in the way the VB objects and components work.

: VB is BASIC with a few added keywords and the possibility to use VBXs and
: DLLs. Performancewise it's still the BASIC we've all learned to love/hate.
: (insert rumours of the old QuickBasic being a true compiler here)

I agree, but the poor performance is one of the lesser evils of VB.
I mean VB4 is now a f*cked up, mish mash, of poorly bolted on extensions
to an orignally crappy language.  I mean you can get some things done with it,
but if you've ever used Delphi, you'd realize what a disadvantage it is to use
VB when you've got a kick-ass tool like Delphi.  VB is poorly designed for
quick, easily-maintained, high performance apps, esp when comapred to DElphi.
If you used Delphi, you'd realize that VB's object-based character is a damn
joke and is severly limited but also damn frustrating to use. Maybe if you
already know VB4 well, then its not so frustrating, but it is so clumsy when
compared to Delphi.

I think the fools in the companies that look specifically for VB programmers,
esp on new projects, don't understand development deeply, are probably just
managers that simply read marketing material from MS.

I'm sorry, I learned Delphi first.  THen tried VB because there's more jobs
for it.  But VB is such a piece of crap and pales in comparison to Delphi,
that I'll just stick to Delphi, and live with the lower chance of finding a
job.  At least if I find one, I'll be much more happy than dealing with the
frustrations of a constraining and clumsy VB environment.  Development of
software is about enabling new possibilities, and VB is just too damn 
limiting.  As a developer with a conscience, I can't possibly take a VB
job and live with myself.  Somewhat facetious but also true to heart.  

: Microsoft has stated that VB will include a compiler.  I hope for their sake 
: they make it soon.

So what?  VB will still be a messed up mutated language with severe limits
and incredibly frustrating to use, especially when compared with the other
development tools out there like Delphi.  If you've used VB and Delphi both,
you'd realize that VB has much deeper problems than what including a new
VB-compiler will be able to resolve. 

Rune Moberg wrote:

Why are the Delphi holy rollers all over the place trying to convert us VBers?  I currently own 
Delphi and I plan on purchasing the upgrade to 32bits in March.  I personally feel that I am 
producing one hell of an app with VB4-32.  The key word here is 32bits.  Delphi, at the moment, 
does not offer this capability on the open market.  Maybe I am banking to much on VB's continued 
success, but if we get improved form speed and perhaps a compiler I will be ahead of you and 
Delphites.  I think Delphi is a fine product, but my future is with VB and Microsoft.

> 
> I haven't seen SpyWorks, but Delphi 1.0 does this right out of the box.
> 
> IMO, it has a better IDE than VB4, while offering a powerful language that
> indeed can be compared to C++. Of course, SpyWorks probably enhances this,
> but whatever it does, I'm sure can be built for Delphi too. The difference
> is that any enhancements can be done with Delphi and doesn't require a second
> development language.
> 
> VB is BASIC with a few added keywords and the possibility to use VBXs and
> DLLs. Performancewise it's still the BASIC we've all learned to love/hate.
> (insert rumours of the old QuickBasic being a true compiler here)
> 

Well I like my 3rd party OCX's like Spyworks.  It makes things simple, fast, and EASY.  I have a 
strong feeling that Spyworks allows me to do things much faster and quicker than Delphi, but I 
could be wrong!

> 
> And I will have an even faster application implemented in less hours.
> ;-)
> 

But will it be a true 32bit app for 95 or NT??????????


-- 
+==================================================================+
Paul R. Morrison                      Internet: rxhead@entertain.com
				      Compuserve: 71055,2377
Programmer / Geologist
+==================================================================+

>Actually it's "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".
>But VB does not deserve the name BASIC. I can't understand why
>the stupid masses still think of VB as BASIC.

They must be thinking of qbasic(?) ;-)

bw

balchen@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.) wrote:
>Actually it's "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".
>But VB does not deserve the name BASIC. I can't understand why
>the stupid masses still think of VB as BASIC.

Uhh, because it _is_ BASIC??  Just as Visual C++ is C++!

 ..Al
__      _________________________________________________
  \    /  Albert Yarusso, ay@warpsoft.com
   \/\/arpSoft, Framingham, MA  508-875-6867
_________________________________________________________

Bob Ross wrote:
> 
>
>         I called M$ Tech support, only to have them tell me that my
> suspicion was indeed correct, VB4 is actually SLOWER than VB3. 

I agree that vb4 is disappointing in many ways.  See http://www.apexsc.com/vb/vb34bnch.html
for some performance benchmarks.  

The project I'm on at work uses VB to populate excel reports and uses mainframe DB2 tables.  VB4 
offers many performance improvements and bug fixes over vb3.



> When I
> asked the tech why they called it an UPgrade, he told me all about the
> great OLE features that VB4 now contained.  When I told him that I wasn't
> using any of the "great" OLE features, he told me that I needed to
> include the OLE .DLLs anyway, because VB4 itself needs them to run.  

Instead of every VB4 app having to carry this baggage around, I think MS should have made 
available an "operating system update" that is a prerequisite to installing vb4/vba apps.  It is 
dumb to have every setup program, and every vb4 app sitting on a server somewhere containing the 
same DLLs.


>         I am so pissed that M$ did what they did with VB4.  I have now
> switched wholeheartedly over to Delphi and am loving life.

I bought Delphi too.  Even though I know Pascal, I thought it'd take too much time getting up to 
speed.

>    -- 
 _  __            _____
| |/ /___ _ __   |  ___|__  ___  ___
| ' // _ \ '_ \  | |_ / _ \/ __|/ _ \ Rochester NY
| . \  __/ | | | |  _| (_) \__ \  __/ Home: kenfose@netacc.net
|_|\_\___|_| |_| |_|  \___/|___/\___| Work: ken_fose@mc.xerox.com

Just a little correction here:

(B)eginners (A)ll-purpose (S)ymbolic (I)nstruction (C)ode


Terje A. Bergesen (terje@mail.inett.no) wrote:
: Michael Judge wrote:
: > 
: > In <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net> charles stoyer <cstoyer@interpex.com>
: > writes:
: > >
: > >BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code"
: > >and that scares the living hell out of me. I have been a
: > >FORTRAN programmer for about 25 years, and have had Visual C++
: > >(with Fortran Power Station) for 2 weeks. C++ is a real
: > >language. I would go that route (well, I am going that route).
: > >The Wizard does most of the coding for you. Debug tools are
: > >great.
: > >
: > >Depends on what you want to do: "speed costs, son, how fast do
: > >you wanna go?"
: > >
: > 
: > Also remember, C++ makes good programers great, but makes poor
: > programmers hell spawn. Don't think object orientation cant be misused.

: I think Bjarne Stroustrup once said something like (comparing C an dC++):
: "C++ makes it more difficult to shoot your selfe in the foot, but when you
:  do, it takes your whole leg off."


: ---Terje

In article <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net>, charles stoyer
<cstoyer@interpex.com> writes
>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 
S stands for Symbolic - at least it did when BASIC emerged from
Dartmouth.
Pat
-- 
Pat White
email: pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk
Phone; 44+(0)1925 266113

ay@warpsoft.com (Albert Yarusso) decided to share with us the
infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>Uhh, because it _is_ BASIC??  Just as Visual C++ is C++!

You missed my point - Visual Basic isn't BASIC. It is based on
the Basic language, but no more. It's like saying Delphi is
Pascal, which is not true.

Jens
--
Everything I said are the opinions of someone else.
I just cut-and-pasted.

Jens Balchen jr.       http://www.sn.no/~balchen
balchen@sn.no          http://www.sn.no/~balchen/vb/visual.htm

Jens Balchen Jr. wrote:
> 
> ay@warpsoft.com (Albert Yarusso) decided to share with us the
> infinite reservoirs of wisdom:
> 
> >Uhh, because it _is_ BASIC??  Just as Visual C++ is C++!
> 
> You missed my point - Visual Basic isn't BASIC. It is based on
> the Basic language, but no more. It's like saying Delphi is
> Pascal, which is not true.

Oh yes, VB is still BASIC. It has evolved some (or A LOT in fact),
but it is still BASIC. It has funtctions and stuff but it is still
basic. It is not even the best BASIC out there.

And why on earth they STILL have it interpreted is beyond me...
It is not that easy to create a multithreaded program in an interpreted
language. Well, OK, not *that* difficult maybe, but still probably
*way* beyond the capabilities of MS.



---Terje

Chung Hong wrote:
> I think the fools in the companies that look specifically for VB programmers,
> esp on new projects, don't understand development deeply, are probably just
> managers that simply read marketing material from MS.
> 
> I'm sorry, I learned Delphi first.  THen tried VB because there's more jobs
> for it.  But VB is such a piece of crap and pales in comparison to Delphi,
> that I'll just stick to Delphi, and live with the lower chance of finding a
> job.

One suggestion would be to reply to an ad for a VB programmer, and demonstrate
how much better off they'd be using Delphi.



Dave

opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer.

Dr McCoys tombstone: "He's dead, Jim"

Dave Nottage <DNottage@SCOMHBR3.telecom.com.au> decided to share
with us the infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>One suggestion would be to reply to an ad for a VB programmer, and demonstrate
>how much better off they'd be using Delphi.

Another suggestion would be to take this discussion away from
clbv.misc

Jens
--
Everything I said are the opinions of someone else.
I just cut-and-pasted.

Jens Balchen jr.       http://www.sn.no/~balchen
balchen@sn.no          http://www.sn.no/~balchen/vb/visual.htm

In article <4e9g08$3dp@maureen.teleport.com>, bw <bw@teleport.com>
writes
>I've been messing around with VB for a couple version releases now, and have 
>VB Pro 4.0 (32bit) now.
>
>Now, I realize that I need to pack the VB40032.DLL (if I want to give it to 
>those that do not already have the driver), but why all the other drivers?
>
Well, I haven't used 4.0 (and don't really want to), so I'm not sure
this applies, but... Does your project include "ocx" or "vbx" things
by default, that aren't actually needed?  In the default VB 3.0 app,
all the freebee VBXs are in the makefile from the default installation.
You should chop them all out, and add them to your individual projects
as you need them.  I find VB 3.0 makes reasonable sized distribution
packages (<100k excl vb*.dll).

>I'm really in need of some insight at this point.  Again, this stuff doesn't 
>come cheap (as you know), and I'd really like to learn programming plus have a 
>great package to program with.

I'm happy with what can be done in VB.  We have Visual C++, and 
would use it to do projects where VB is of no use.  (We haven't had 
the need to do that yet, other than for creating VBXs.)
We use Windows API calls regularly in our VB programs (message
handling, winsock accesses, etc) which are straightforward, and
simple to code.  These obviate the need for a lot of vbx's.

If you want "hard" programs that can't be done in VB then you have
to use some other language, and Visual C++ or Delphi would be best.
(Somehow I think Delphi would be best as it is "third generation".
We've already gone through both Borland and MS/Visual C++, so we
won't move to it.  Starting over, we might go Delphi.)

The Windows API in general leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.
There are many ways of doing the same thing, various hook functions, 
the class methods and Windows API calls.  Memory leaks can be common,
you have to worry about locking structures in memory and loading
and dereferencing handles.  Then you should of course take care to
put exception handling traps around any statements which result
in GDI objects or memory of any sort being reserved (just about
any object declaration.)

Stick with VB for small, quick jobs.  You can't make simple
programs more cheaply than that.
-- 
Ken Tough

Turnpike evaluation. For information, email: info@turnpike.com

>"C++ makes it more difficult to shoot your selfe in the foot, but when you
> do, it takes your whole leg off."

"In C it is possible to shoot yourself in
the foot. With C++ you blow your whole leg off"
_
Welcome to Pennsylvania. Road construction next 400 miles.

+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chad Z. Hower  -  phoenix@pobox.com                         |
|Phoenix Business Enterprises - pbe@pobox.com                |
|            http://pobox.com/~pbe                           |
|Physically in Church Hill, TN - Logically Not Sure          |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
>>SQUID - The ultimate database reader, and NO limits. #$737961
**Special Compile: 1.033B (Beta)

>BASIC stands for "Beginners All-purpose ? Interpretive Code" 

     I = Instruction S = Symbolic

_
Pennsylvania: Communistwealth of Pennsylvania

+------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chad Z. Hower  -  phoenix@pobox.com                         |
|Phoenix Business Enterprises - pbe@pobox.com                |
|            http://pobox.com/~pbe                           |
|Physically in Church Hill, TN - Logically Not Sure          |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
>>SQUID - The ultimate database reader, and NO limits. #$737961
**Special Compile: 1.033B (Beta)

In article <310B9CC1.52BD@entertain.com>,
Paul Morrison <rxhead@entertain.com> wrote:
>> And I will have an even faster application implemented in less hours.
>> ;-)
>> 
>
>But will it be a true 32bit app for 95 or NT??????????

Given that Delphi 2.0 supports multithreading, I think I can wait another
month or two! :-)

(oh, don't worry, VB6 or 7 might support multithreading too, and perhaps
include nice little datacontrols that can match Delphi 1.0's. Good Luck!)

--
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/

In <4eiogb$cas@hasle.sn.no>,  (balchen@sn.no (Jens Balchen Jr.))
wrote:

>ay@warpsoft.com (Albert Yarusso) decided to share with us the
>infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>>Uhh, because it _is_ BASIC??  Just as Visual C++ is C++!

>You missed my point - Visual Basic isn't BASIC. It is based on
>the Basic language, but no more. It's like saying Delphi is
>Pascal, which is not true.

*THE* Basic language?  No such thing! 

There are a gazillion different BASIC languages, each with their own
little extensions to make the language more useful, but also serve to
make it virtually impossible to move anything but the most rudimentary
of programs from one platform to another.

I agree with you that Visual Basic is not BASIC, because Visual Basic
is a TOOL and BASIC is a language - but the language Visual Basic uses
is BASIC - just as Delphi is a tool that uses the Pascal language.

No, Visual BASIC is not the same interactive language that was
developed to run on the terminals at Dartmouth. And the Object Pascal
language that Delphi uses is not the same language Wirth used as a
teaching language. Thank God! The language Wirth invented didn't even
have file I/O.

ANNOUNCING Visual Basic Dumping Service

What do you do with TOXIC CODE ?  Yes, I mean Visual Basic versions 1 to 
4 and standard to professional. You can't simply keep this stuff in your 
office.  The EPA ( Extremists Programmers Association ) won't let you 
simply slip the stuff into the trash.

I will safely dispose of this TOXIC CODE for you.  The fees are 
affordable, only $0.20 per megabyte - same as storing it on a hard drive.

Just pack up the code, disks, manuals, and miscellaneous paperwork and 
ship to :

NB Research
1927 Harbor Blvd, Suite 305
Costa Mesa CA 92627
(714) 645-9178

and include the payment according to the product for 
disposal.

chungh@Hawaii.Edu (Chung Hong) wrote:
>: VB is BASIC with a few added keywords and the possibility to use VBXs and
>: DLLs. Performancewise it's still the BASIC we've all learned to love/hate.
>: (insert rumours of the old QuickBasic being a true compiler here)
>
>I agree, but the poor performance is one of the lesser evils of VB.
>I mean VB4 is now a f*cked up, mish mash, of poorly bolted on extensions
>to an orignally crappy language.  I mean you can get some things done with it,
>but if you've ever used Delphi, you'd realize what a disadvantage it is to use
>VB when you've got a kick-ass tool like Delphi.  VB is poorly designed for
>for it.  But VB is such a piece of crap and pales in comparison to Delphi,
>that I'll just stick to Delphi, and live with the lower chance of finding a
>job.  At least if I find one, I'll be much more happy than dealing with the
>frustrations of a constraining and clumsy VB environment.  Development of
>software is about enabling new possibilities, and VB is just too damn 
>limiting.  As a developer with a conscience, I can't possibly take a VB
>job and live with myself.  Somewhat facetious but also true to heart.  





-- 
James D Buch		"I don't study anything.  Well, 
NB Research		 I study porosity and surely, there
Costa Mesa, CA		 is nothing to that!  Is there?"
714.645.9178

Chung Hong (chungh@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
: So what?  VB will still be a messed up mutated language with severe limits
: and incredibly frustrating to use, especially when compared with the other
: development tools out there like Delphi.  If you've used VB and Delphi both,
: you'd realize that VB has much deeper problems than what including a new
: VB-compiler will be able to resolve. 

  No compiler can compensate for a weak, cumbersome, limited language like
(Viusal) Basic.  Delphi has an excellent environment, but nothing on heaven
or Earth can make me go back to coding Pascal.  Smart money is on Latte,
Borland's upcoming Java based programming environment, based on the Delphi
front end.

"Terje A. Bergesen" <terje@mail.inett.no> wrote:

>Oh yes, VB is still BASIC. It has evolved some (or A LOT in fact),
>but it is still BASIC. It has funtctions and stuff but it is still
>basic. It is not even the best BASIC out there.

>And why on earth they STILL have it interpreted is beyond me...
>It is not that easy to create a multithreaded program in an interpreted
>language. Well, OK, not *that* difficult maybe, but still probably
>*way* beyond the capabilities of MS.

Forgive me, but your attitude is absolutely moronic.  VB is comparable
to Pascal in every way, except for I/O, which VB handles *MUCH*
better.  It is interpreted because it makes the executables miniscule
in size.  Why compile all that window-manipulation code in each
program when they all do the same thing?  Doesn't this part of the
project sound like the part that should be written in C and called,
just like Microsoft implemented it?

Multithreading, eh?  You really think you are ready to write a
multhreaded application?  Given that you don't appear to know the
basics of project management, I sincerely doubt it.

And as for Microsoft, from my perspective, they are a company that
puts products out there that help me do my job.  What the heck have
you done to help anyone lately, pal?

In <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net>, gcopelan@cyberramp.net (George Copeland) writes:
>"Terje A. Bergesen" <terje@mail.inett.no> wrote:
>
>>Oh yes, VB is still BASIC. It has evolved some (or A LOT in fact),
>>but it is still BASIC. It has funtctions and stuff but it is still
>>basic. It is not even the best BASIC out there.
>
>>And why on earth they STILL have it interpreted is beyond me...
>>It is not that easy to create a multithreaded program in an interpreted
>>language. Well, OK, not *that* difficult maybe, but still probably
>>*way* beyond the capabilities of MS.
>
>Forgive me, but your attitude is absolutely moronic.  VB is comparable
>to Pascal in every way, except for I/O, which VB handles *MUCH*
>better.  It is interpreted because it makes the executables miniscule
>in size.  Why compile all that window-manipulation code in each
>program when they all do the same thing?  Doesn't this part of the
>project sound like the part that should be written in C and called,
>just like Microsoft implemented it?

Boy, I could almost hear your mind snap shut when someone criticized VB.
While VB is a very useful tool, it falls short of being a first class 
language (IMNSHO).  Also, the fact that it is interpreted IS a big 
disadvantage in speed, and compiled languages don't HAVE to take up much
more memory than interpreted ones anyway.  

How much RAM do you have, that your worried about the size of the program?
You must have a P166 with 8MB if you think that size is important and 
speed is not.  You'd get the same performance on a 486-33 with 16MB if VB
was compiled.


>
>Multithreading, eh?  You really think you are ready to write a
>multhreaded application?  Given that you don't appear to know the
>basics of project management, I sincerely doubt it.

So because he doesn't think that BASIC is god's gift to the programming
world, you think he doesn't know how to program.  Astounding logic! I
have the same criticisms about VB, so I should probably throw away all
those gigantic multithreaded apps I've completed over the past few years
because I apparently don't know what I'm doing.  I mean, I don't like 
VB so what the hell do I know?
I wonder how may programmers working on big multithreaded projects are 
using VB.  Probably all of them, because it's just SOOO much more 
powerful than silly languages like C++ and Smalltalk -- just ask anyone. 
(dripping with sarcasm, in case you can't tell)

>
>And as for Microsoft, from my perspective, they are a company that
>puts products out there that help me do my job.  What the heck have
>you done to help anyone lately, pal?
>
For one thing, he has honestly pointed out the limitations in a product.
Apparently, you're not interested in VB's limitations though, so don't 
bother listening to any criticism of it.

My take on VB?  It's great for small programs, or bigger ones where speed
isn't an issue and user interface is important.  Beyond that, it's a toy 
language, and I would steer clear of it - Especially if you want cross-
platform portability.

Lovingly yours...

Daniel Bullok
UIUC Department of Astronomy
(woodhead@astro.uiuc.edu)

hraiser@cloud9.net wrote:

>Chung Hong (chungh@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>: So what?  VB will still be a messed up mutated language with severe limits
>: and incredibly frustrating to use, especially when compared with the other
>: development tools out there like Delphi.  If you've used VB and Delphi both,
>: you'd realize that VB has much deeper problems than what including a new
>: VB-compiler will be able to resolve. 

>  No compiler can compensate for a weak, cumbersome, limited language like
>(Viusal) Basic.  Delphi has an excellent environment, but nothing on heaven
>or Earth can make me go back to coding Pascal.  Smart money is on Latte,
>Borland's upcoming Java based programming environment, based on the Delphi
>front end.


Isn't Java an interpreted language?
         ||||||||
         | ~  ~ |
        (| @  @ |)
----oOOo---(__)---oOOo-------
Andy Williams Birmingham, UK
-----------------------------

Jim Buch <jbuch@earthlink.net> decided to share with us the
infinite reservoirs of wisdom:

>ANNOUNCING Visual Basic Dumping Service

I don't know wether to cry or laugh - wether to salud you or hate
you.

Jens
--
Everything I said are the opinions of someone else.
I just cut-and-pasted.

Jens Balchen jr.       http://www.sn.no/~balchen
balchen@sn.no          ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/balchen/

Andrew J. Williams (andrew@williaj.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Isn't Java an interpreted language?

  Yes.  Java runs in a "virtual Java machine" which interprets byte codes of
"compiled" classes.  Compiled, in this case is not the same as a C/C++ or
Pascal compile.

woodhead@astro.uiuc.edu (Daniel Bullok) wrote:

....

>In <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net>, gcopelan@cyberramp.net (George Copeland) writes:
>Boy, I could almost hear your mind snap shut when someone criticized VB.
>While VB is a very useful tool, it falls short of being a first class 
>language (IMNSHO).  Also, the fact that it is interpreted IS a big 
>disadvantage in speed, and compiled languages don't HAVE to take up much
>more memory than interpreted ones anyway.  

....

The impact of overall system performance using a compiled language
versus a interpretative language depends on the nature of the
application.  If the application is database centric, the difference
is not that large is the situations that we have encountered.  The
performance of the database engine and report generator is
significantly more import.  None of our custom applications are
ever self-contained (regardless of the language used) due
to the reliance on Windows for so many basic functions. However, if
your application is only counting in a loop, Delphi will blow VB
away.  We don't get too many of those type of jobs, though :(.

Steven R. Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.

Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what 
Java is.. I have heard the following:

- Java is an interpreter for the JavaScript scripting language.

- Java produces p-code (or someting similar) for Internet Java browser to 
interpret.

- Java is a full compiler that produces .EXE files using a language that is 
C++-like in syntax but with less indeterminacies and a single-inheritance 
object hierarchy.

- Java is all of these

All revelations gratefully received ....

>Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what 
>Java is.. I have heard the following:


Don't dump VB.  Most of what you listed is true of Java except 
for creating EXE's.  It doesn't now, and probably never will.

Java is for internet programming - completely hardware 
independent.  All you need on the client side is a Java virtual 
machine (expect to see most internet browsers to include this 
support in the future).

Microsoft is responding to this with VB Script.  An internet 
programming subset of VB.

Problems with both Java and VB Script: limited functionality of 
all types including limited database and file access; security 
concerns (i.e. executable code downloaded directly into memory 
and executed - virus check that!), performance over the net, etc, 
etc.

If you need to do internet programming, wait for VB script and 
leverage your VB knowledge there.  Java is just like C++ so 
expect a steeper learning curve.

If you aren't doing internet programming, stick with VB!

Malcolm Coulter (mac@zeus.hsrc.ac.za) wrote:
: Since I can never get into Sun's Java site, perhaps someone could clarify what 
: Java is.. I have heard the following:
<snip>

  Java is an object oriented language much like C++, simpler, yet more
robust from an object oriented standpoint.  It "compiles" input files
(containing, for the most part, individual classes) into Java Virtual
Machine Language, which in turn is interpreted at run time by a Java
interpreter, such as Sun's Hot Java or Netscape 2.0.  Java does not create
P-Code in the Visual Basic sense, the Virtual Java Machine Code the Java
compiler produces can be run on any system capable running the virtual
machine, thus Java obtains cross-platform portability with zero effort.  You
can think of the Java run time interpreter as more of an emulator than an
interpreter.  Java Script is Java's little brother.  Java Script is a light
weight version of Java primarily used to enhance Web Pages.  Java Script is
interpreted directly in source form, it is never compiled into byte codes.

In article <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
   gcopelan@cyberramp.net (George Copeland) wrote:

>Forgive me, but your attitude is absolutely moronic. 

>VB is comparable to Pascal in every way, except for I/O, 
>which VB handles *MUCH* better. 

Could you be more specific please? I am under the impression 
that VB does not even have instructions to do port I/O... 
Going through a VXB or (worse) an OCX to poll a port does 
not seem to me to be the best solution...
Have you ever programmed anything serious in Object Pascal 
in Delphi?  You assert that "VB is comparable to Pascal in 
every way"; Are we talking about pointers here? Inheritance? 
Object-oriented components?

>It is interpreted because it makes the executables 
>miniscule in size.
  
Persuasive argument. Have you taken into account the size of 
VBRUNxxx? And the time it takes to load? And the 1.4MB+ of 
files you have to distribute with (in VB4.0)? And the 
VBXs? And the OCXs? That surely makes the executables 
"miniscule" (sic) in size!

>Why compile all that window-manipulation code in each
>program when they all do the same thing?  Doesn't this part 
>of the project sound like the part that should be written 
>in C and called, just like Microsoft implemented it?

Brilliant idea. Powerfully reasoned. All programs should use 
VBRUNxxx. They all do the same thing, of course! You should 
go to Microsoft and tell them: "You guys are morons! Don't 
you see that you can write Excel, PowerPoint, and Word in 
Visual Basic? And, heck, why not VC4.0 in Visual Basic?"

>Multithreading, eh?  You really think you are ready to 
>write a multhreaded application?  Given that you don't 
>appear to know the basics of project management, I 
>sincerely doubt it.

Enlightening point of view. Then, why Microsoft is marketing 
Win95 and WinNT to developers as operating systems capable 
or running multithreaded programs? Why is their next 
generation of apps multithreaded? They must be utterly 
ignorant of the basics of project management, no doubt.

>And as for Microsoft, from my perspective, they are a 
>company that puts products out there that help me do my 
>job.

I agree wholeheartedly. All other companies are part of a 
gigantic worlwide conspiration to mess up with your job. 
Thank you Microsoft for saving my life, too. Thank you for 
giving me a reason to dish out mega-bucks to get a faster 
processor and twice as much memory...

>What the heck have you done to help anyone lately, pal?

I don't know. Not much. Same with you, perhaps?




Quoc Thang NGUYEN
Laboratory of Cellular and
Molecular Neurobiology
Dept. of Psychobiology
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA92717 USA
Ph: (714) 824-4730
Fx: (714) 824-3522

In article <4f3hi7$390e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, stevez1@ibm.net wrote:
<snip>
>to the reliance on Windows for so many basic functions. However, if
>your application is only counting in a loop, Delphi will blow VB
>away.  We don't get too many of those type of jobs, though :(.
>
>Steven R. Zuch
>Cogent Management Inc.

Steve: 
In some benchmarks I have done, VB and Delph are roughly equivalent in speed 
for counting in a loop.

R. Neal
rneal@ibm.net

George Copeland wrote:
> Forgive me, but your attitude is absolutely moronic.  VB is comparable
> to Pascal in every way, except for I/O, which VB handles *MUCH*
> better.  It is interpreted because it makes the executables miniscule
> in size.  Why compile all that window-manipulation code in each
> program when they all do the same thing?  Doesn't this part of the
> project sound like the part that should be written in C and called,
> just like Microsoft implemented it?

A comparison I did between VB and Delphi showed that Delphi's I/O is
several times faster than VB in terms of standard file processing.

Interpreted executables may be miniscule, however they run far slower
than native code.

Whether the window handling routines are written in Pascal or C is irrelevant,
because both are compiled to native code. There are no secondary 'DLL calling' overheads
with Delphi. VB calls VBRUNxxx.DLL functions which call USER.EXE etc functions.

Dave

opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer.

"Well, alllllrighty then!!!!" - Ace Ventura.