limoges@ac.dal.ca (07/11/90)
In comp.sys.mac.hypercard Anthony E. Siegman writes: >But I'll point out once again -- hope this doesn't get tiresome -- >that for the amateur, occasional, part-time programmer (at any level >from high-school student to full professor) who wants to write a few >real Mac-like programs now and then, to do real work, QuickBASIC >provides a superb, powerful, easy to learn and easy to use real Mac >programming environment and language. >Certain interface-intensive tasks I'd certainly chose to implement in >HyperCard. But QuickBASIC programming on the Mac, even with interface >considerations included, is certainly no harder to learn or use than >is HyperCard scripting, especially if you want to "write a program"; >and the hardware and memory requirements are very much less. (And you >can end up with a nice small free-standing clickable application.) About a yaer ago, I was faced with the task of developing several data processing applications for the lab I work in. I didn't want to get into C programming at the time, so I purchased QuickBASIC. Big mistake! These applications were going to be used by people who knew close to nothing about computers and making a smooth mac application from QuickBASIC turned out to be overly tedious. Finally I turned to HyperCard, which made all interface related tasks simple. Furthermore, many powerful XCMD's and XFCN's were available in the public domain -with fantastic user support- to speed up things and do tasks HC could not handle. Now, I write some of my own XCMD's and XFCN's with HyperBasic, and I have to say that the HC/HyperBasic combination is much superior 'for the amateur, occasional, part-time programmer' than QuickBASIC will ever be. By the way, would anyone be interested in purchasing a virtually unused QuickBASIC? Bertrand Limoges