jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine) (07/29/87)
I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product. For various reasons I don't want to use a database manager program. I would prefer to write my own and I don't want to use C or Turbo. Reasons are good but long. So BASIC seems to be the answer but it should be compiled. Between the two well know models Quick BASIC and TURBO BASIC which would be the best? Does one have better libraries than the other for this sort of task? Has anyone used one of these programs for this reason? How did it work? Thanks. Jack
bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) (07/30/87)
In article <716@pbhyc.UUCP>, jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine) writes: > > I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product. > For various reasons I don't want to use a database manager program. I > would prefer to write my own and I don't want to use C or Turbo. Reasons > are good but long. So BASIC seems to be the answer but it should be > compiled. Between the two well know models Quick BASIC and TURBO BASIC > which would be the best? Does one have better libraries than the other for > this sort of task? Has anyone used one of these programs for this reason? > How did it work? > > Thanks. > > Jack I am a very staunch supporter of the TURBO products (Pascal and C) released by Borland, but in this case I would choose QuickBasic over the Borland offering. I have used QB and it is a real pleasure. It's execution times are the best, it completely supports BASICA (Turbo does not), and it includes a pretty snazzy debugging environment as well. The new (3.0) version supposedly adds a great deal more to aid serious BASIC development. Turbo Basic is brand-new, while the Microsoft offering is now at 3.0 revision level. Given the problems with Turbo C, (1.0) it seems to me that the 3.0 version of QB could be better than the Borland offering simply by virtue of having been around longer. I have not used Turbo Basic, but I would go with the opinion expressed by the majority of software reviews (that I have read) on these two products: For now, QuickBasic is on top of the heap.
gardner@kodak.UUCP (dick gardner) (07/30/87)
In article <716@pbhyc.UUCP> jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine) writes: > >I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product. >For various reasons I don't want to use a database manager program. I >would prefer to write my own and I don't want to use C or Turbo. Reasons >are good but long. So BASIC seems to be the answer but it should be >compiled. Between the two well know models Quick BASIC and TURBO BASIC >which would be the best? Does one have better libraries than the other for >this sort of task? Has anyone used one of these programs for this reason? > > This response doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it may be pertinent. I have recently purchased QuickBasic, and really love it! (I took a BASICA program about 1000+ lines and compiled it without one single change and increased the execution speed tremendously!!) There is one thing about QuickBasic that you might want to consider, tho -- ------ from this point on, I'm depending on my memory ------------ The license agreement states that you may distribute the run-time package freely, but, if you do, your application must contain an announcement that the Microsoft QuickBasic compiler was used, and copyright notices (imbedded) must remain intact. ----------- end of memory restriction (hopefully) ------------- I have no information on Turbo Basic. You can check the actual details on the package before you purchase. Hope this is helpful, or at least, not too discouraging. =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# Dick Gardner -- Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, New York 14650 Phone: (716) 477-1002 UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!gardner "Research is what I do when I don't know what I'm doing" =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#
bruce@dolqci.UUCP (Bruce Limber) (07/30/87)
>I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product. > . . . Quick BASIC and TURBO BASIC: which would be the best? Does one >have better libraries than the other . . ? I can't answer that, but you may want to check inside the cover of the August 87 BYTE: Borland is advertising several Turbo Basic toolboxes, one of which is for databases. -- Bruce Limber (seismo!dolqci!bruce) (202) 535-0640 The opinions I have expressed above are shared by my boss, my employer, the federal government, and all right-thinking people everywhere. (I'm more humble than you are!)
mobo@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Samuel Wilson) (07/30/87)
In article <582@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: >In article <716@pbhyc.UUCP>, jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine) writes: >> >> I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product. >> So BASIC seems to be the answer . . . > > > I am a very staunch supporter of the TURBO products (Pascal > and C) released by Borland, but in this case I would choose > QuickBasic over the Borland offering. I have used QB and it > version supposedly adds a great deal more to aid serious > BASIC development. > > I have not used Turbo Basic, but I would go with the opinion > expressed by the majority of software reviews (that I have > read) on these two products: For now, QuickBasic is on top > of the heap. I have used both for database development and I think TB is preferable. First, there is Borland's "Database Toolbox" which has big chunks of the code already written; second, it's cheaper; third, it seems to be faster for writing, compiling, test runs, re-editing, etc. [n.b. I haven't done benchmarks-- this is a subjective view acquired by using both extensively], and finally, Turbo Basic doesn't collide with memory resident programs. I ran into real problems with Quickbasic on this score. I called MSoft and they said that QB probably wouldn't run "as expected" (i.e. at all in my case) with memory resident programs (I was using screensave and sidekick. So there's my 2 cents. My third cent is: when doing a comparative review, try both. Samuel Wilson ..ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mobo FOTMOBO@UCHMVS1.Bitnet University of Chicago, Division of Social Sciences
stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) (08/03/87)
True BASIC isn't BASICA compatible, but that seems like a good
idea (not being compatible) for new programs. I don't know if
they have a database library, but it's worth a call. And your
program will run on the IBM PC, Amiga, Atari, and Mac. It
won't be Macish or Atariish, or ... though.
603 643-3882
Finally, yes, I know them, and have done some work for them.
--
Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or
(astrovax cornell decvax harvard ihnp4 linus true)!dartvax!stevel