The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: NH_Guy@boxfrog.com (Dave_S)
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: 11 Dec 2002 13:22:37 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Dec 2002 21:22:37 GMT
"Steve Andrew" wrote in message news:...
> John Jardine wrote:
> > Frank Bemelman wrote in message
> > news:email@example.com...
> >> "John Jardine" schreef in bericht
> >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> >>> Stay clear of the C!. It's an obtuse and unfriendly language having
> >>> little correspondance with good machine code routines.
> You have obviously never looked at the assembler code produced by a good C
> >>> It is only pre-eminent nowadays due to it being found to be so
> >>> awkward to use that it was gladly taken up by the colleges and
> >>> microsoft. A normal PC prog' written in classical Basic (not the
> >>> present C-Basics eg VB) can be rewritten or 'broken down' line by
> >>> line, statement by statement and expanded to a sufficiently
> >>> detailed level that can translate *directly* across to a PIC or
> >>> other micro's machine code .
> Even more so when you use C. Would you care to post an example of this ?
> >>> Essentially a Basic language programme
> >>> is a line by line, condensed, idealised, equivalent of a machine
> >>> code programme. Thus a PIC Basic compiler can be written to make
> >>> use of this easy correspondance between a Basic statement and it's
> >>> machine code equivalent and can be very efficient.
> Rubbish ! - Once again - I suggest you review the asembler code produced by
> a C compiler and compare it to the mess that results when trying to use
> non-structured BASIC.
> >>> A 'C' programme and it's strange 'structuring' will not readily do
> >>> this and the corresponding PIC 'C' compilers have to go round and
> >>> round the houses to try and provide the same PIC (or another
> >>> micro) machine code functionality.
> The "Strange structuring" you refer to is copied in MS-Visual Basic and in
> pascal. NO structured BASIC (line numbered) has no structure worth talking
> There is a very good reason why major operating systems are written in C and
> not in BASIC. Apart from FOURTH, there is no other compiled language that
> produces the same sort of compact and efficient code as does C. Check the
> history of C, the assembler language and the processor it was originally
> written for and then tell me that BASIC is still the way to go...........
In the 90's Bill Gates had a standing offer that he could accomplish
writing any office/database program in QB 7.0 professional that would
function as well as anything written in C or he would pay the
To illustrate a point program the task of writting "hello world" in
Qbasic and then write it in C. What is the executable size of each?
Qbasic - maybe 10K
C - at least 300K Hmmmmm - C was described as a fine edged scapel,
why is the wound so big???
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup