BL> I switched to VB/DOS because all the pretty interfaces were
 BL> only getting in the way.

 BV> But Bob, you are forgetting one very important point. VB for
 BV> DOS is DEAD! 

  Not if there is a continuing need for it. If M$ expects DOS to die
with Windows 95, they will be nmaking a very bad mistake that will
only open the door to OS/2.

 BL> I know quite a few tricks now.

 BV> ROFL...You've been playing with programming for 3 months Bob.
 BV> You THINK you know quite a few tricks :)

  I am a genius.

 BV> However, no matter how much you rant and rave about it, you are
 BV> going to have to learn to live with it when using a real
 BV> compiler. VB isn't a real compiler and as soon as you learn to
 BV> accept this then you might be able to move on.

  That's what they told Columbus.

 BL> I invented a whole new system (probably re-invented it), and
 BL> now I can write it in C if I wish... but I could never have
 BL> created it in that awful Borland compiler.

 BV> Perhaps. I *DO* understand where you are coming from Bob.

  Now you're getting the idea.  It's obvious so far that you have
misunderstood.

 BV> An interpretive language can be great for development and
 BV> sometimes it can also be ideal for production code as well. It
 BV> depends on a few things. In general though, you won't ever get
 BV> to exploit the full potential of the machine with an
 BV> interpreter like VB.

  Of course... which is why I accept that I will have to write what I
create in C, eventually - and maybe even assembler. My hope for Delphi
was that I may have been able to avoid that extra step.

  The story about old dogs is true. I have a few tricks I developed
designing TV over the years, and I use those same tricks in whatever I
do. When I say that writing code is *exactly* the same as designing a
circuit, it is. *I* do it the same way, and VB with its quick response
is ideal for my methods of successive approximation cut and thrust.

 BV> However, the real problem with VB for DOS is that it will NEVER
 BV> be updated or improved. What you have now is what you will have
 BV> in the year 2010.

  That doesn't worry me. It's not VB/DOS I am using - it's QuickBasic,
and that has other successors already. Others will follow. I'll be
dead in the year 2010. I'll come back as one of your grandchildren,
and give you a hard time as a child prodigy who keeps telling you
Clarion sucks.

 BL> ROFL! They teach you Pascal without a function reference
 BL> manual! What a clever trick.

 BV> Serious (sic) From my first look, I think they may just do it.

  Why do you keep saying "(sic)"? It means "as
written," and usually
shows that the bad spelling was not yours, but the original. "Serious
(sic)" indicates that you know the word should be "seriously" but you
are putting it down the way it was written in the original.

 BL> Your idea of writing DOS in VB, and Windows in Delphi is silly.

 BV> Why ? They are two totally different platforms in the way that
 BV> Digital Electronics is different to Analogue Electronics.

  Half the problem is in the language itself, and learning the tricks
of the various functions. Why not use the same language for both, as
M$ has done with VB? What you say about Windows is true, but that
applies anyway and is unavoidable. It would be silly to write Windows
in Pascal and DOS in Basic, especially when Pascal does a better job
of DOS anyway.

 BV> Each requires a different development system and strategies,
 BV> Windows and DOS are the same in this regard. What works for one
 BV> may not be the best for the other.

  I need to be convinced that Pascal is inferior to Basic, DOS or not.

 BV> For me it is worth the cost to have a look at it. If it is a
 BV> product that I can use to make money, I will keep it. If not,
 BV> I'll sell it. No matter what the final outcome, I will learn
 BV> something from it and earn money from it.

  I've decided to buy a yumcha 486DX4/100. Maybe the faster computer
will let me use C (or Pascal) the way I use VB, but I'll be buggered
before I'll buy a CD. My only use for a CD is to load programs whose
owners are too cheap to supply books and proper floppies, the way God
intended. 

  I was going through my old 5.25 discs last night, seeing what I
could throw out and what has to be transferred to 3.5". I found a
legal copy of Turbo Pascal I'd forgotten I had. Do you think Borland
would accept an upgrade from Version 3.01a? The whole thing is on a
360K disc!

 BV> ROFL...Fuck me dead Bob. You only have the 20-second delay when
 BV> you are trying to produce a production executable. So fucking
 BV> what if it takes 30 minutes. You should have done all your
 BV> testing using the internal interpreter and you KNOW that they
 BV> EXE will perform EXACTLY the same. What fucking difference does
 BV> 20 seconds make.

  You keep telling me conflicting stories. I know three things as
FACT.

    1.  VB is fast.
    2.  Borland Turbo Pascal 4.5 is slow. 
    3.  Borland C++ is *very* slow.

  I asked Dieter, and he admits that Symantec C++ is also slow.

  I asked Frank, and he says Pascal is "fairly" fast (on a DX/50).

  You keep telling me that VB is not compiled, even though MS says
specifically that it is, and that this is why it is so fast. In other
words, you admit that VB is faster than other compilers.

  I have conflicting information, and the only way to resolve this is
to see for myself. BC++ is so slow I find it unusable... hence I buy a
5-times faster computer.

 BL> You are watching this happen on a DX24/100. Try it on a
 BL> 386/20... or try it on a larger program.

 BV> I'd be happy to. I'll make a disk set from the CD and bring it
 BV> around one day.
  
  I would be very grateful if you did. This is what I need to be 
convinced about Delphi. My new computer solves the hard disc problem, 
and if Delphi is a *bit* slower than VB, it won't matter on a DX/100.

 BL> Yair. That really shits me. I'm all the time moving things
 BL> around trying to find the *one* spot where I can get at them.

 BV> See, this is another area where VB is full of holes. I've told
 BV> you about a product that seems to address these problems, but
 BV> yet again, you are screaming " IT'S NOT VB ".

  I'm doing no such thing. You expect me to start quacking like a duck
about a product I have not even seen on screen. All I require is that
it is as fast as VB, and not much more difficult to use. For Christ's
sake! I have accepted fucking *C* as an alternative. All I have said
is that I want to see it working.

 BV> This is one of the inherent problems with computer software.

 BV> You can NEVER have enough information Bob. Even after you've
 BV> been using the thing for 3 months, you will still find
 BV> problems, things that don't work, or things that you feel
 BV> should be better. It's a fact of life.

  I know... I bought Word for Windows 1.0 sight-unseen, after a love
affair with Word 5, and that was when I swore "never again." That was
why I just stood back and smiled when WfW 6 came out, after a love
affair with WfW 2c. IMO, the time to buy a new program is later rather
than sooner.

  But I don't agree that you can't get the feel of a program in 5
minutes. I *knew* VB was good from the moment I loaded it, even before
I knew WTF it was all about. I knew VB/DOS was not in the same class -
just cobbled together to cash in. You can tell. Genius really shines -
and shit stinks. It has a feel to it. BC++ is rubbish - made difficult
when genius makes it easy - in spite of its excellent reputation and 
#1 rating.

 BL> You are the dickhead, Brenton. You bought it sight-unseen when
 BL> there was no hurry

 BV> I won't have to buy Pascal for DOS because I am quite happy
 BV> with the tools I have for DOS. I am unhappy with the tools I
 BV> have for Windows and it seems that Delphi may be of assistance
 BV> in that regard. For the $250 it cost me, I will get a return on
 BV> my money even if it is no good.

  All right, but don't call me a dickhead because I don't fit your
parameters. My $600 on Delphi and Pascal will not be recoverable, and
I don't stand to make money either; I am *spending* money. You are
saying you risk nothing, with much to gain. I am risking $600 with
nothing to lose by waiting a month or so.

 BL> Frank's decision is sensible, and in his place I may would have
 BL> done the same. He uses Pascal, likes Pascal, and is so good at
 BL> it that he can shit on C. Now he can do it in Windows, too.

 BV> True, but if Delphi does turn out to be a dog, Frank will be in
 BV> the shit. He will be worse off than someone like myself,
 BV> because he will then have to wait until it's fixed or someone
 BV> does something better. Of course, the above should not be
 BV> directly applied to Frank, but is meant in a more general
 BV> manner.

  And that applies ten-times to me, who does not know Pascal, and does
not have a Pascal compiler. You see my point of view, finally.

Regards,
Bob
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---