Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!hsdndev!bunny!bunny.gte.com!CAH0 From: CAH0@bunny.gte.com (Chuck Hoffman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: ** Is MS QuickBasic worth looking at? Message-ID: <11373@bunny.GTE.COM> Date: 14 Jun 91 18:44:27 GMT References: <51051@muvms3.bitnet> Sender: news@gte.com Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc. Lines: 33 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 |