Re: BASIC & strings [Was: Why use Basic at all? (was Re: BASIC with built-in matrix functions?)]

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> I still use GWBASIC (on Win XP Pro :) for playing around with data
>>> that need to be "shuffled".  If the job is a bit more complex I use
>>> QB4.5.  (And, if I can ever find my old PDS7.1 floppies, and if they
>>> still work, I'll try to install that instead of using 4.5 ...
>>
>>Why in the world would you want to write anything in GWBASIC?
>
> Horses for courses.
>
> Some things are just quicker to do by invoking "GW" and typing in a
> few lines of code.  But I agree with you, I also invoke "QB" for
> anything that's a bit more complex, and especially if I see value in
> saving a program to use again later.

My point is that it's *never* quicker! Consider:

GWBASIC:

    GWBASIC
    1 PRINT "Hello World!"

    31 keystrokes.

QBASIC:

    QBASIC
    PRINT "Hello World!"

    28 keystrokes.

And this is for a minimal program. Every single line you type will require
at least two more keystrokes for GWBASIC than QBASIC, up to 10
lines (0-9), and from then on at least 3 more keystrokes. GWBASIC is
never, ever, ever quicker! Even if you renamed the EXE files to a single
letter, that line number on a single line will take more keystrokes with
GWBASIC than QBASIC. Oh, and QBASIC will take '?' for print just
like GWBASIC will, so there's no advantage there. Ever. Q.E.D. ;-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."