From: Robert Baer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:58:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:58:16 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Steve Andrew wrote:
> Parmin wrote:
> > I am quite proficient to write in BASIC and PASCAL language,
> > but I think to keep things simple I should stick to the
> > BASIC language only. Am I right? or there is a simpler way?
> > Would C language be easier to use? I dont know C language
> > but am willing to learn if it is better for my use.
> Generally, C will produce more compact code than most other compiled
> languages, and will usually produce code that runs faster. C is also more
> portable than some other languages. For embedded software, I think C is one
> of the more logical choices, considering the low level you wish to work with
> regarding on-board systems such as serial ports, timers or whatever. If you
> have no problems with pascal then you should find C an easy language to
> learn. I have no axe to grind as over the years I have used C, C++, pascal,
> assembler, and numerous dialects of BASIC. For embedded systems work, I
> always use C, or assembler when I am forced too :)
Well, the experienc i had with C was the absolute pits.
Started with a number of unopened packages of the same M$ C compiler.
Opened and installed one on a clean system and worked for about a
month trying to get the compiler to work as advertised; there were
serious bugs and more serious lacks of capability.
*Three* times in a row; absolute crap; so bad that in each case one
had more than sufficent evidence to sue millions for fraud.
Code sections that did work had the following attributes:
1) C code to do a given function (text I/O and manipulation, screen
manipulations, pure math manipulations, data manipulation with lots of
HD I/O) *all* were longer code than the exact same functions compiled
with a BASIC compiler.
2) C code to do a given function *all* were significantly slower than
the exact same functions compiled with a BASIC compiler.
3) Reverse assembly of the resulting binary showed very compact code
(tightest for loops and math) in the BASIC case; and was essentially
impossible to follow for C binaries.
As far as i can tell, FORTRAN also gives superior binary coding
compared to C.
BTW, this bullshit concerning "portability" is just that.
"Portability" has always been the cry of new languages, and none of
the portability drummers have ever met their claims.
The *only* modern language that did not beat that drum and has the
best practical portability is COBOL (!!).
Why? because one must first tell the compiler about the working
Once those obvious variables are dispensed with, the actual *code* to
do something remains the same.
You want to say that COBOL is a "dead" language?
Then why is it available with all of the GUI that anyone could hope to
...And FORTRAN is a close (but less portable) second, in that they
also did not beat the portability drum.