Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:43 pm
FB programs will run faster on modern computers than QB programs on modern computers, and in most cases will run faster on older computers as well. One of the most obvious reasons is that QB targets the 8086 processor, whereas FB was designed from the ground up to be run on modern CPUs. FB is ALWAYS going to be faster than QBasic in terms of execution speed on modern computers for the simple fact that QBasic is an interpreter (and a rather slow one at that) and FB compiles to a native executable. From what I understand, QB doesn't even compile to a proper executable but more of a bytecode stub that runs in BRUN.
Obviously, FB programs aren't going to run on a 286 or lesser CPU, whereas QB programs generally will. But who's using such obsolete systems these days? If you're looking to develop performant applications on modern systems, you're not going to look at QBasic or even QB. You can only push the limits of QBasic so much; you're not writing a realtime hi-resolution 3D engine in QBasic anytime soon...not until they invent 9GHz processors that run in 8086 mode. It simply doesn't have the calculation speed, nor can it take full advantage of modern video hardware. In FB, this isn't difficult to do, and has already been done dozens of times. Windows GUI applications, linear framebuffer SVGA modes, applications that run natively in Linux...all things QBasic could never do that are completely brainless in FB. About the only straw someone could grasp for is that QB 7.1 can develop applications that run in OS/2...but that's a major straw.
Lazy, stupid programmers learn to code in C# and buy 3GHz computers to make programs that are less functional and efficient (yet more flashy!) than similar programs written in C twenty years prior on 386-based machines running Windows 3.1. But thinking that "just code it better!" is the solution to the slowness problems of QBasic is silly when it's been shown countless times over the years that it is slow, inefficient, and above all else, limited in what it can pull off by itself. QB removes some of those limitations but even QB has limits that cannot be overcome. It's a harsh reality that a select few people are having a very difficult time coming to terms with.
The beauty of QBasic is in its simplicity. The beauty of FB is in its raw power. The beauty of this post is in its truth.
Obviously, FB programs aren't going to run on a 286 or lesser CPU, whereas QB programs generally will. But who's using such obsolete systems these days? If you're looking to develop performant applications on modern systems, you're not going to look at QBasic or even QB. You can only push the limits of QBasic so much; you're not writing a realtime hi-resolution 3D engine in QBasic anytime soon...not until they invent 9GHz processors that run in 8086 mode. It simply doesn't have the calculation speed, nor can it take full advantage of modern video hardware. In FB, this isn't difficult to do, and has already been done dozens of times. Windows GUI applications, linear framebuffer SVGA modes, applications that run natively in Linux...all things QBasic could never do that are completely brainless in FB. About the only straw someone could grasp for is that QB 7.1 can develop applications that run in OS/2...but that's a major straw.
Lazy, stupid programmers learn to code in C# and buy 3GHz computers to make programs that are less functional and efficient (yet more flashy!) than similar programs written in C twenty years prior on 386-based machines running Windows 3.1. But thinking that "just code it better!" is the solution to the slowness problems of QBasic is silly when it's been shown countless times over the years that it is slow, inefficient, and above all else, limited in what it can pull off by itself. QB removes some of those limitations but even QB has limits that cannot be overcome. It's a harsh reality that a select few people are having a very difficult time coming to terms with.
The beauty of QBasic is in its simplicity. The beauty of FB is in its raw power. The beauty of this post is in its truth.