Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rlgvax!bub
From: bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: BASIC's Turbo vs Quick
Message-ID: <582@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jul-87 08:12:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.582
Posted: Thu Jul 30 08:12:06 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 08:14:54 EDT
References: <716@pbhyc.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc, Reston VA
Lines: 35
Summary: Microsoft is the way to go on this one.

In article <716@pbhyc.UUCP>, jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine) writes:
> 
> I am thinking about writing a database and want a very customized product.
> For various reasons I don't want to use a database manager program.  I
> would prefer to write my own and I don't want to use C or Turbo.  Reasons
> are good but long.  So BASIC seems to be the answer but it should be
> compiled.  Between the two well know models Quick BASIC and TURBO BASIC
> which would be the best?  Does one have better libraries than the other for
> this sort of task?  Has anyone used one of these programs for this reason?
> How did it work?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jack


	I am a very staunch supporter of the TURBO products (Pascal
	and C) released by Borland, but in this case I would choose
	QuickBasic over the Borland offering.  I have used QB and it
	is a real pleasure.  It's execution times are the best, it
	completely supports BASICA (Turbo does not), and it includes
	a pretty snazzy debugging environment as well.  The new (3.0)
	version supposedly adds a great deal more to aid serious
	BASIC development.

	Turbo Basic is brand-new, while the Microsoft offering is
	now at 3.0 revision level.  Given the problems with Turbo C,
	(1.0) it seems to me that the 3.0 version of QB could be better
	than the Borland offering simply by virtue of having been
	around longer.

	I have not used Turbo Basic, but I would go with the opinion
	expressed by the majority of software reviews (that I have
	read) on these two products:  For now, QuickBasic is on top
	of the heap.