Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ukma!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!agv
From: agv@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Murrell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: BASIC comparison requested
Message-ID: <6080@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 88 19:32:51 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 31
Keywords: BASIC

I am considering the purchase of a BASIC compiler which does
not necessarily have to be compatible with GWBASIC or BASICA
in the small dollar range (ie. around $100 or less). The names
I came up with are TrueBASIC (True Basic, Inc.), MS QuickBASIC 4.0
(Microsoft) and TurboBASIC 1.0 (Borland).

If anyone has some fatherly advice concerning which of the above
is "top dog", I'd appreciate a line or two sent to the e-mail
addresses below. I realize that the question is loaded -- "best"
is highly application dependent -- but, we're interested in a
low dollar BASIC which is "serious" (supporting a healthy set
of structured language constructs, sane scope rules, and recursion),
which provides a good debugging and editing environment, and which
makes an attempt to gracefully support graphics (eg. common
transformations, windowing, viewports, clipping, etc.). Animation
may be attempted (on a crude level), so 8087 support and reasonable
execution speed are requisite.

A quick disclaimer is in order here: my apologies in advance if
this question has already been the subject of some prior net
discussion -- obviously I've missed it. If this is the case,
would some merciful soul provide me with a brief summary? Also,
I realize there are "better" languages (I defend C, lisp, and
prolog), but I'd like a nice BASIC to round out my collection.

-- Dave
-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: agv@s.cc.purdue.edu | USPS: Purdue University Computing Center
UUCP: cc.purdue.edu!agv   |       Math Sciences Building
BITNET: murrell@purccvm   |       West Lafayette, IN. 47906