mcguffey@muvms3.bitnet (Michael McGuffey) (06/13/91)
Does anyone have any experience using Microsoft's QuickBasic. Should it be discounted as a toy language or can it be used for developing serious applications? In particular, can it create dialogs, alerts, access resources, etc.? What about getting to the toolbox? Thanks, -- michael ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McGuffey, Director BITNET: mcguffey@marshall Office of Institutional Research Internet: mcguffey@marshall.wvnet.edu Marshall University Phone: 304/696-3212 Huntington, WV 25755 FAX: 304/696-3601 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
leue@galen.crd.ge.com (Bill Leue) (06/14/91)
In article <51051@muvms3.bitnet> mcguffey@muvms3.bitnet (Michael McGuffey) writes: > >Does anyone have any experience using Microsoft's QuickBasic. > >Should it be discounted as a toy language or can it be used for developing >serious applications? In particular, can it create dialogs, alerts, access >resources, etc.? What about getting to the toolbox? > >Thanks, >-- michael Well, there's good news and bad news about MS QuickBasic: The good news is that QB is CLOSE to a serious Mac development system. There is reasonable Toolbox support for most of QuickDraw, the compiled code runs fairly fast (not as fast as Think C), and the overall package is pretty solid. The bad news is that QB is broken under System 7.0. Specifically, the compiler hangs about halfway through compilation. MS won't say when a fix will be available. THe rumor mills say that MS is planning a major upgrade to QB, including a lot of the features of the DOS version -- symbolic constants, a real debugger, etc. This would be very nice. I'd also like to see them add support for the "missing" pieces of the Toolbox, like regions, color QD, etc. I've been calling MS every few weeks to try to find out what their plans are for QB, but they are being pretty tight with information. -Bill Leue leue@crd.ge.com
CAH0@bunny.gte.com (Chuck Hoffman) (06/15/91)
In article <51051@muvms3.bitnet> mcguffey@muvms3.bitnet (Michael McGuffey) writes: > > Does anyone have any experience using Microsoft's QuickBasic. > > Should it be discounted as a toy language or can it be used for developing > serious applications? In particular, can it create dialogs, alerts, access > resources, etc.? What about getting to the toolbox? Michael, the question which came to my mind was "Why would QuickBasic be under consideration for Mac application development?" Maybe because you have a lot of prewritten [someBrand.basic] programs which you want to host on a Mac? If so, you could just use the console I/O and you wouldn't need a development package. Or, maybe you have programmers who already know Basic well, and don't know Pascal or C so well. Believe me, compared to the complexity of learning Mac application programming, learning C or Pascal is really trivial. That is, although C or Pascal education might add several weeks onto a project, the task of developing your first "real," *conforming* application will be so much greater that the additional weeks at the front end will seem like nothing. I would say: Bite the bullet and learn C or Pascal first, then take advantage of the more complete development environments which are available. Symantek's THINK C (including compiler, debugger, libaries) is around $150 mail order. Chuck Hoffman, GTE Laboratories, Inc. | I'm not sure why we're here, cah0@bunny.gte.com | but I am sure that while we're Telephone (U.S.A.) 617-466-2131 | here, we're supposed to help GTE VoiceNet: 679-2131 | each other. GTE Telemail: C.HOFFMAN |
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (06/17/91)
Chuck Hoffman writes in a message to All
CH> Symantek's THINK C (including compiler, debugger, libaries)
CH> is around $150 mail order.
A
Lawson
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.orgrgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) (06/17/91)
I think it depends on how much of an investment you want to make in learning Mac programming. I use MS QuickBASIC to teach a microcomputer graphics course on the Mac, and I also use Think C to teach an object-oriented programing course. The students in the QuickBASIC course are writing apps with full user interfaces by mid-semester, while the Think C students are still trying to get simple apps to run without crashing. There is no doubt that BASIC is an easier language to learn than C, and in my opinion if you just want to develop one or two nice Mac progurams, you're much better off with QB than TC. You can write about 95% of a QB app without even delving into the Toolbox directly, but just using the built-in statements for graphics, menus, windows, dialogs, mouse tracking, etc. I would hope that at the same time that Microsoft upgrades Mac QB, it will come out with a Windows 3 version of IBM QB which supports all these nice graphics features of the Mac version, allowing cross-compilation. But maybe that's wishful thinking!! -Ralph (rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu)
cfejm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (John Miller) (06/18/91)
In article <Jun.16.16.10.49.1991.22843@elbereth.rutgers.edu> rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) writes: >I think it depends on how much of an investment you want to make in >learning Mac programming. I use MS QuickBASIC to teach a >microcomputer graphics course on the Mac, and I also use Think C to >teach an object-oriented programing course. The students in the >QuickBASIC course are writing apps with full user interfaces by >mid-semester, while the Think C students are still trying to get >simple apps to run without crashing. > >There is no doubt that BASIC is an easier language to learn than C, >and in my opinion if you just want to develop one or two nice Mac >progurams, you're much better off with QB than TC. You can write >about 95% of a QB app without even delving into the Toolbox directly, >but just using the built-in statements for graphics, menus, windows, >dialogs, mouse tracking, etc. > True--a BASIC program with a mac interface is much easier to get up and running than is one in C, but after the initial ease of a couple of basic (pun intended) programs, you're stuck. QB forces you to adapt to its own contrived syntax for most toolbox calls, so you have the problem of learning an obtuse context for toolbox calls which you have to understand in Pascal anyhow--to be of practical benefit. The recommendation: Use Hypercard to learn programming techniques and the rudiments of the Mac interface (plus some object-like constructs), then write some C or Pascal using a console environment, and then move on to a real Mac application using Think compilers complemented with AppMaker or Prototyper. __ John -- John Miller Music Theory Eastern Illinois University