Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ogicse!clark!pro-hindugods.cts.com!geniusman
From: geniusman@pro-hindugods.cts.com (Chris Moylan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: MD-BASIC (was:Re: Apple ][ BBS Software)
Message-ID: <1991Jun2.214618.13193@clark.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 91 17:27:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1991Jun2.214618.13193
Sender: usenet@clark.edu
Organization: The lazy sysop did not think we needed one.
Lines: 25

In-Reply-To: message from drudman@hpcc01.HP.COM

It is NOT based on AppleSoft Basic entirely.  It has AmperWorks and
ModemWorks to give it commands AppleSoft could NEVER have otherwise.  As
for ACOS, what the HELL is it?  If I bought a BBS, I'd buy one based on a
language I already know.  I also think the GBBS compiler is no better than
MD-BASIC which compiles BASIC w/ ModemWorks and AmperWorks files into
a usable application.  ProLine is based on a UNIX type interface, which
GBBS has not, in fact, GBBS has not a lot, from what I've seen.  It's
message bases are hard to use, it has NO user friendliness, and it is NOT
AT ALL faster than ProLine on a similar system.  The reason I said it has
no user friendliness is because when I called it, I logged in new and when
I finally made it to a Main Menu of some kind, I had to keep pressing '?'
to get the menu again!  It was SO hard to use, and the message bases are
not so great also.  

BTW - I know a few BBS sysops who have dropped GBBS for ProLine, don't
underestimate AppleSoft basic's flexbility. Have you ever written a ProLine
application?  I have.

Chris
Chris Moylan                    | ProLine: geniusman@pro-hindugods 
CoSysop: Hindu Love Gods BBS    | Internet: geniusman@pro-hindugods.cts.com 
313/644-0481                    | UUCP: crash!pro-hindugods!geniusman
300-9600 bps, v.32/v.42/v.42bis | ARPA: crash!pro-hindugods!geniusman@nosc.mil