On 6 Nov 2000, at 14:15, Christof Lange wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> usually on this list questions sound like this: "how can I run
> present software on old hardware". I have on that is the other way
> round: I have the impression that my amateur BASIC programmes are
> remarkably slow on Pentium. Do not blame me! I know that I am a
> criminal. But I learnt BASIC at school twenty years ago. When I
> bought my first computer ten years ago, I got a copy of Borland's
> Turbobasic Compiler 1.0 (1987). It is only for a few utilities that
> I used it.
>
> Is it possible that the old compiler has a bad effect on performance
> on newer machines? Or is it just that I should finally learn a
> language that a computer can understand?
My experience with runing Microsoft's QBASIC v1.0 on recent
pentiums wasn't that it didn't work. Rather, it was that it didn't
work as _fast_ as I would have expected, by a simple comparison
of the clock speeds of my old 8088-4.77 and a Pentium-133.
Running a few simple loops, and doing some guesswork, I think
that it was maybe running four or six times as fast. So the
performance increase was not as much as I was hoping.
I'm thinking that it might be the way that the interpreter is written. It
certainly doesn't take advantage of any of the improved instruction,
and I wouldn't be surprised if it was generating a great many cache
misses.
However, you're not being forced into learning a new language. It
depends on what you're planning to do. If you want to write
Windows programs, Microsoft's Visual Basic is a pretty good
platform. It offers GUI interfaces, rapid prototyping, and you
already know the language... though there are some syntax
differences. And there's lots of people using various versions of it.
V3.0 or v4.0 are the last versions of MS VB that supported
Windows 3.1; I'm sure it's possible to get copies of them over the
Internet, as they are fairly small.
There are also other types of BASIC out there, some still available
for the PC - do some WWW searching with your favorite search
engine.
On the whole, for a lot of tasks on the PC, I'd recommend learning
Perl these days, if you do command-line work, and MS VB or
some brand of C/C++ for windowing application development.
(keeping in mind that this is Surv-PC.)
A quick look at CNet.com's http://www.download.com produced:
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10085-100-
2399176.html?tag=st.dl.10009_103_1.lst.td_2399176
Rapid-Q BASIC Compiler
6,328 downloads
Description From the developer: "Rapid-Q is a GUI & CONSOLE
BASIC-like (semi-OO) structured programming language but with a
lot of additional features. The 'Q' represents the resemblance to the
language QBasic. However, having said that, it's unlikely that you'd
be able to port your QBasic programs to Rapid-Q without some
major changes, especially file handling. Rapid-Q is a byte code
compiler that attaches its byte code to an interpreter. This means
all your programs will have a "fixed" overhead, and any code you
produce only adds to it. It also means you don't need to distribute
any extra files either. Just your .EXE file. I'm sure most people are
wondering about how slow it is. Just compile and run the
SIEVE.BAS program on your computer to find out. Then run the
same code under QBasic to get a comparison. Depending on what
you're using Rapid-Q for, it maybe too slow, or just right.
Hope this helps,
Anthony Albert
==============================================================
Anthony J. Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster
Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
"We took risks. We knew we took them. Things have come out against
us. We have no cause for complaint." - Explorer Robert Scott, found in
his diary after his party froze to death in Antarctica.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
