plan to pick up PowerBasic
-
Lift with your knees.
I will buy that license to work on it...
diligent hands rule....
-
My thought is ugh, no thanks. I would be rewriting those algorithms in C++ with very little hesitation.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
It seems like BASIC is much simpler than C++. I will take a quick look...
diligent hands rule....
-
It seems like BASIC is much simpler than C++. I will take a quick look...
diligent hands rule....
It can be but if you use constructs in C++ that are the same or similar to those used in the BASIC then they become similar in complexity. That's not the issue for me though. I have so many tools available to me in C++ that I would never consider BASIC.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I got few books on Astronomical algorithms that contain PowerBasic code. So to dig it through, I plan to pick up this PowerBasic tool. Any thoughts and experience to share? Also I searched on this code project site and find several posts from Chris Boss. Browsed through them and feel good.
diligent hands rule....
Because it's a form of Basic, you'll get the typical whining about that. :sigh: But so far, not too bad on that. Knowing nothing about PowerBasic, I did a brief search on it. My guess was that it's a successor to TurboBasic, and I was right, it was the product of the guy who wrote TurboBasic for Borland in the 80's. It's an active product, has 1,000+ users in an active forum. It's inexpensive, $175 for the main tools, which is cheap compared to Visual Studio Professional, which is $45/month. It produces light-weight executables, VERY unlike C# or Java. EXEs should distribute easily. The current version apparently enables OO, so you can do that where you want. And it's BASIC syntax, which is easy to read. The cons? It produces only 32-bit executables, in a world that is primarily 64-bit. Some functions require Windows API calls, which from my Visual Basic days were not always easy to do. A really important question -- what are you going to do with it? If you're looking at hobby applications, it's probably fine. If you're looking at commercial development, the 32-bit limit may be a hindrance. Here's another choice I found in my search: PureBasic - A powerful BASIC programming language[^] This product appears to do more, including 64-bit applications AND it has a free version, so you can try it before you buy it.
-
this video is great:rose:
diligent hands rule....
Yeah, it's a wormrabbit hole! If you liked that one, make sure to check out some his other content. It's tough to make real-time programming videos entertaining/fun, but this guy does it. I wish my instructors at uni would have been that good! :laugh:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse "Hope is contagious"
-
I got few books on Astronomical algorithms that contain PowerBasic code. So to dig it through, I plan to pick up this PowerBasic tool. Any thoughts and experience to share? Also I searched on this code project site and find several posts from Chris Boss. Browsed through them and feel good.
diligent hands rule....
Will it work with Windows XP?
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Will it work with Windows XP?
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
it works up to from Windows to Windows 10...
diligent hands rule....
-
Because it's a form of Basic, you'll get the typical whining about that. :sigh: But so far, not too bad on that. Knowing nothing about PowerBasic, I did a brief search on it. My guess was that it's a successor to TurboBasic, and I was right, it was the product of the guy who wrote TurboBasic for Borland in the 80's. It's an active product, has 1,000+ users in an active forum. It's inexpensive, $175 for the main tools, which is cheap compared to Visual Studio Professional, which is $45/month. It produces light-weight executables, VERY unlike C# or Java. EXEs should distribute easily. The current version apparently enables OO, so you can do that where you want. And it's BASIC syntax, which is easy to read. The cons? It produces only 32-bit executables, in a world that is primarily 64-bit. Some functions require Windows API calls, which from my Visual Basic days were not always easy to do. A really important question -- what are you going to do with it? If you're looking at hobby applications, it's probably fine. If you're looking at commercial development, the 32-bit limit may be a hindrance. Here's another choice I found in my search: PureBasic - A powerful BASIC programming language[^] This product appears to do more, including 64-bit applications AND it has a free version, so you can try it before you buy it.
very good info!
diligent hands rule....
-
I got few books on Astronomical algorithms that contain PowerBasic code. So to dig it through, I plan to pick up this PowerBasic tool. Any thoughts and experience to share? Also I searched on this code project site and find several posts from Chris Boss. Browsed through them and feel good.
diligent hands rule....
Southmountain wrote:
Any thoughts and experience to share?
If you actually want the algorithm and not just or only the results then you should analyze the code and then rewrite it in something you are already familiar with. Overwise is the code on a disc, online or in some otherwise electronic form? If not then do the the same as the first suggestion. Typing in the code and then figuring out what you typed wrong and how to run it in the first place will not be worth the time. If it is in electronic and all you care about is the results then get the compiler/interpreter and the source from the book at put them altogether in one location on your home system. With lots of notes on how to run the compiler/interpreter. That way when you get busy and then come back 6 months later you don't have to start from scratch.
-
Southmountain wrote:
Any thoughts and experience to share?
If you actually want the algorithm and not just or only the results then you should analyze the code and then rewrite it in something you are already familiar with. Overwise is the code on a disc, online or in some otherwise electronic form? If not then do the the same as the first suggestion. Typing in the code and then figuring out what you typed wrong and how to run it in the first place will not be worth the time. If it is in electronic and all you care about is the results then get the compiler/interpreter and the source from the book at put them altogether in one location on your home system. With lots of notes on how to run the compiler/interpreter. That way when you get busy and then come back 6 months later you don't have to start from scratch.
yes, I know what these algorithms do and mainly focus on the result to use...
diligent hands rule....