List of few basic questions

cryptid · Post by **cryptid** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:34 pm

what is the diffrence between QB v4.5, P.D.S v7.1 and FB
how do they differ?
can QB codes be compiled using FB?
y use FB?
are the file generated by FB smaller than file generated by QB (the .exe file)?
are the files generated by QB 7.1 smaller than the files generated by QB 4.5? are the files generated by FB run faster than files generated by QB?
can icons be added to the files generated by FB?

i will add few more questions in futur (i had many questions in mind but suddenly forgot)

MystikShadows · Post by **MystikShadows** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:41 pm

what is the diffrence between QB v4.5, P.D.S v7.1 and FB

QuickBasic 4.5 is the most popular QB compiler made by M$

P.D.S. 7.X is a professional version of QB 4.5 but the name changed. It allows overlays and database access that QB 4.5 doesn't have along with a few useful functions like DIR$ not found in QB 4.5

FB is freebasic http://www.freebasic.net and is an opensource project started by v1ctor that aimes to be the evolution of QB it is multi platform and can compile for DOS, Windows and Linux.

can QB codes be compiled using FB?

While a serious attempt at QB compatibility is made in FreeBasic, any 16 bit code (like DEF SEG for example) is undeeded since FreeBasic is 32 bits even on DOS. PCOPY in text mode (screen 0) is currently not suported either although I'm trying to kick the right butts to get it done, to no avail but there's always hope lol

y use FB?

Even for DOS programs, FreeBasic is 32 bits so no more memory limits known to the QB world, to me just that is good enough reason to use it (PCOPY would be another one..hint hint lol).

are the file generated by FB smaller than file generated by QB (the .exe file)?

Roughly the same size

are the files generated by QB 7.1 smaller than the files generated by QB 4.5?

Roughly the same size

are the files generated by FB run faster than files generated by QB?

Yes, because of the 32 bit architecture of FreeBasic....

can icons be added to the files generated by FB?

Yes

Nodtveidt · Post by **Nodtveidt** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:53 pm

MystikShadows wrote:are the files generated by FB run faster than files generated by QB?

Yes, because of the 32 bit architecture of FreeBasic....

Not only that...the compiler itself is more strict. Microsoft's old compilers tended to be very lax but their runtime libraries were often slower than competitor's...of course, with their far superior IDEs, I guess it didn't matter than their compilers tended to output somewhat slower executables...

cryptid · Post by **cryptid** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:56 am

So far what i feel is that FB is more superior ro QB so i have another Question,Should i learn FB or VB6?which 1 u think is a better option?

MystikShadows · Post by **MystikShadows** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:22 am

It depends on what you want to do with your language. For one thing, if you want your programs to work on DOS, Windows and Linux, you better choose to learn FreeBasic. If you want to create programs and utilities for windows only. VB will let you create those faster. But if you want to create games, FreeBasic will be the better choice unless your game is entirely made of Windows basic controls.

So it really depends on what you want to learn programming for.

Nodtveidt · Post by **Nodtveidt** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:45 am

FB is definately far superior for games that are not GUI-based. VB6 is definately far superior for games that are GUI-based. But if you don't make games, then it comes down to applications: VB6 excels in GUI development, and FB excels in raw number crunching. So pick your poison based on your needs.

moneo · Post by **moneo** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:22 pm

cryptid wrote:So far what i feel is that FB is more superior ro QB so i have another Question,Should i learn FB or VB6?which 1 u think is a better option?

Another consideration is what language is going to look good on your resume. Visual Basic experience is definitely going to be more desireable, whereas Freebasic today is not exactly a household word.
*****

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:52 pm

moneo wrote:
cryptid wrote:So far what i feel is that FB is more superior ro QB so i have another Question,Should i learn FB or VB6?which 1 u think is a better option?
Another consideration is what language is going to look good on your resume. Visual Basic experience is definitely going to be more desireable, whereas Freebasic today is not exactly a household word.
*****

Well then i will start Learning VB coz i want to learn programing for developing applications and not games and yes VB would look good on a resume

Seb McClouth · Post by **Seb McClouth** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:17 am

I think you've misunderstand sumfin. FB is not only for games. Just like Qb you can use it to develop applications. It should be even possible to build a windows-shell for DOS in the process.

VB is okay but I personally think it is cheating because you don't need to build the windows yourselfs anymore... But that's my opinion.

grtz
Seb

lurah- · Post by **lurah-** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:31 am

Well, wich ever language you choose to start learning, its not so "far" from other after all.
By learning VB or FB, is good base to learn other too later.

The Awakened · Post by **The Awakened** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:07 pm

Seb McClouth wrote:I think you've misunderstand sumfin. FB is not only for games. Just like Qb you can use it to develop applications. It should be even possible to build a windows-shell for DOS in the process.

VB is okay but I personally think it is cheating because you don't need to build the windows yourselfs anymore... But that's my opinion.

grtz
Seb

But it speeds up development time. Example: I'd like to write a more functional map/data editor for my game, with a nice user interface and whatnot. I don't want to piss around debugging API code for a utility that the end user will never see.

But it is slower, apparently. And I'm sure Windows API coding can be fun, and I am learning it for FB.

Nodtveidt · Post by **Nodtveidt** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:58 pm

VB's only real problem is the existence of a required external dependency. If its EXEs were able to run with the runtime library embedded into the EXE, not only would VB be much more "transparent" to the user (runs out-of-the-box as opposed to having to install a seperate runtime), but it might be a little faster...

The .net madness takes this external dependency to the maximum of idiocy. A 23MB runtime package just to run applications? fork you. And it doesn't matter if it's VB, VC, or any other .net languages...if you don't have the .net framework, you can't run the app. That's bullshit wrapped in gauze and fried for three hours in canola oil. And the funniest part is that many of the morons who code in .net are among the same bozos who used to whine about VB6's 1.5MB external runtime...

moneo · Post by **moneo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:22 pm

Nek, that's really funny about the runtime packages. The sad part is that it's true. Everybody wants to package you up and convert you to become part of a captive audience. I'm glad that knowledgeable guys like you are still around to resist this marketing trend.
*****

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:32 pm

Thanks for the quote

The Awakened · Post by **The Awakened** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:07 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the .NET framework supposed to be like a bastardized version of the Java VM? Which in itself is stupid, since the Java VM is supposed to be platform independent... I don't see MS writing the .NET framework for other platforms like Linux and Macintosh.

Oh right, our motto around here is "fork Macintosh. "

Anyway, I don't have any programs that require the .NET framework, so what's all the hype about it? I've heard stuff like stability, memory management, etc...

MystikShadows · Post by **MystikShadows** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:11 pm

stability? Did I hear M$ and Stability in the same sentence??? LOL...

but yeah...today..finally...after a decade and a half we can say that in the same sentence...but not always

....lol

yeah I'm not pro .NET either....I never was....for the same reason I'm not really for java either....There's not point trying to do what these are trying to do...those are not a step in the right direction...not by a long shot.

{Nathan} · Post by **{Nathan}** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:42 pm

Nekrophidius wrote:VB's only real problem is the existence of a required external dependency.

And the fact that its just too damn easy and un-flexible... I mean really, having to create a whole new controll just to make a new look? Is it just me or is that bull...

And I was never for .net since the moment it started. why? because .net is a DOMAIN!

Nodtveidt · Post by **Nodtveidt** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:02 pm

Nathan1993 wrote:And the fact that its just too damn easy and un-flexible... I mean really, having to create a whole new controll just to make a new look? Is it just me or is that bull...

I don't quite get what you mean by this...?

MystikShadows · Post by **MystikShadows** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:10 pm

Yeah me neither...you don't have to do that at all...atleast I don't need to

....I made an app that looked and worked 100% like a laptop pad (buttons ont he side, main viewing screen with LCD like screen black and white...worked nothing like Windows...without a single user control.

{Nathan} · Post by **{Nathan}** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:32 pm

I mean that if you want to have a new function (like the Text box, frames, ect) you have to create a new control (for most people that arn't hard-core programmers like us, anyway).