🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.150840.3438@sctc.com> 
bright@sctc.com (David A. Bright) writes:
>I would like opinions (informed, please) on the relative merits of
>Visual Basic (especially V2.0) and Quick C/Case:W (or any other
>similar environment) for writing Windows programs.  I am not
>interested in debates on the relative merits of the language itself
>(BASIC or C), but rather in the ability to quickly and easily develop
> [applications...]

I can speak to VB 1.0. I have VB 2.0 on my desk as I write but have
not had a chance to use it yet.

>
>	1)	Relatively small programs; several thousand lines
>		would probably be largest.

At 20,000 lines, my application was starting to show distinct signs of
strain, but nothing fatal. (Watch out for use of "system resources" if you
have more than a few Forms). VB is clearly capable of getting out of the
"toy" or "demo" range; it can be used for serious development of midsized
applications.

>	2)	Ability to use arbitrary DLLs required.

Yes, for the most part. There can be some glitches with argument types. 
VB has built-in glue to mitigate things like differences in opinion as
to how a "string" should be structured. On CompuServe, for example, there
was a discussion of how to couple VB to the commercially available DLL
called the "Paradox Engine." It turned out that for ALMOST all of the
(several hundred) routines there were no problems, but two or three were
difficult; I think someone posted another DLL that had the necessary glue
to handle those.  The short answer is, "Yes, you can use arbitrary DLL's
from VB."

>	3)	Ability to create DLLs desired.

Nope. VB can't.

>	4)	Ease of development is high priority, especially
>		with regard to user interface code.  My time is
>		precious and in short supply.

(Gee, I thought everyone had the same amount -- about twenty-four
hours per day, as I recall).  

I can't speak to any other environment, but I think VB's "ease
of development" claims are justified. I've had enough experience
with Smalltalk and C++ and straight C to know that I would NOT have
come CLOSE to completing the project without VB.

>	5)	Cost of the package is important; the lower the
>		better.

(Wait, that contradicts point 4. If your time is precious, higher
costs to save your time are justified).  On the basis of the manuals
in my hand and the press releases, etc. I think it's a no-brainer 
that IF you go with VB, what you want is VB 2.0, Professional
Edition. I got it as a $99 upgrade from VB 1.0; originally paid
$130 or so for VB 1.0, then $99 for the "Professional Toolkit."

>	6)	Royalty-free distribution required.

Uh-oh ... there was an EXPLICIT statement in the VB1.0 manual that said
you needed to distribute VBRUN100.DLL with your finished app and that you
had a royalty-free license to do so.  I can't find the corresponding
statement in the 2.0 manuals... I'm sure the answer is "yes" but I can't
prove it, you'll need to do a reality check with Microsoft on this. 

They want you to use CIS. A "FastTips" faxback and prerecorded voice
message service is available at 206 646-5107. "For setup and installation
help with VB call" 206 646-5105.  For "real" questions they suggest a
$2/minute 900-896-9876 or $20/hour-have-your-credit-card-handy 
206 646-5106.  Probably one of the "free" number could answer the 
distribution question.

>	7)	Execution speed is relatively low priority, as long
>		as it isn't so bad that I can't stand to use the
>		resulting applications.  (This is subjective, I know)

I'd say VB's speed is EXACTLY as you describe.  Let's put it this way.
I do very dumb bubble-sorts on string arrays of 100 to 200 items as
part of opening a window, because it only takes a fraction of a second 
and is "almost" instantaneous.  Ditto for linear searches of a 
thousand items in an array. I'd describe the execution speed is very
good, MUCH faster and MUCH more capable of writing real code in the usual
way than HyperCard or Toolbook (both of which I've used). Execution speed
is much more "compiled-like" than "interpreted-like."

>	8)	Ability to create Windows .HLP files is strongly
>		desired.

Well, the best answer I can give to that is: they give you the Help compiler
and some documentation (in the professional edition). You pretty much need
Word for Windows to go with it. I STARTED to do a Help file, and got past
the initial barriers -- had a toy help file with text in several styles,
bitmap pictures, linked into my VB application and working.  But the EFFORT
of writing and developing a substantial hypertext document were too much;
I never really got it done. If I really NEEDED to do help file development
I'd be checking out the third-party tools and aids, because I sure see
why they're needed.  It CAN be done -- they give you the tools in the Pro
edition -- but it's a LOT of work.

I think VB is productive and delightful, and VB 2.0 looks like a truly
well-thought-out upgrade.

















-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com