Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

For other topics related to the FreeBASIC project or its community.
cyBOSS
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 05, 2014 6:14

Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby cyBOSS » Oct 05, 2014 9:30

There is an article titled, "FreeBASIC vs. cyBOSS [BASIC programming language]", posted at: http://cybossbasic.blogspot.com/2014/10 ... yboss.html

Moderators, I understand that you may view this post as spam. However, I started this topic to get feed back on whether-or-not there are any technical flaws about FreeBASIC in that article so that they may be corrected. Thank you.
dodicat
Posts: 6723
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby dodicat » Oct 05, 2014 13:55

BASIC Programming Blog

blah ... blah

This article compares two 'classic' BASIC compilers for the Windows operating system. One of the compilers is free, the other is not; so let's examine what each has to offer.



FreeBASIC programming language


The FreeBASIC compiler, according to its official website at: http://www.freebasic.net, is designed to be syntax compatible with QuickBASIC (last released by Microsoft in 1988), while expanding on the language and capabilities. Based on the list of keywords, it appears to contain around 400 commands and functions.

Pros:

It is FREE. And, may be downloaded and used immediately.
It is syntax compatible with QuickBASIC, great if you've got 30 year old software that you want to modify, compile, and run.


Cons:
It lacks an IDE (Integrated Development Environment). Too bad, because trying to write and test new programs without a good IDE, is like trying to mow grass with a pair of scissors.
It is antiquated, perhaps by design necessity to maintain base compatibility with QuickBASIC.
It lacks the command depth and scope compared to the cyBOSS language.
Programs may be vulnerable to hacking and other types of data corruption due to lack of adequate security features.

========================================================
My comment (dodicat):
There are several IDES.
If Gcc is antiquated then so is FreeBASIC.
I don't think that 30 year old software is the main target.
But it is a neat option to be able to write and run really old fashioned basic syntax (note I said "option")
Vulnerable to hacking?
========================================================





cyBOSS [BASIC] programming language
The cyBOSS Runtime Platform w/ integrated compiler, according to its official website at: http://www.cyboss.org, is designed for commercial and industrial application software development. The cyBOSS language contains unique and powerful: variable database command sets, a windows-based runtime platform packed full of innovative features that save time and make programming easier. It contains over 1300 commands and functions.


Pros:
The cyBOSS Application Developer (the IDE) is packed full of so many time-saving features, that: writing, editing, and testing programs is quick-n-easy, and dare we say even fun.
Learning to program in cyBOSS is equally easy by simply watching the Getting Started video hosted by Jonathan Williams, B.S. That video title, recorded on Blu-ray, is over 2.5 hour long, and teaches: cyBOSS syntax, program flow keywords, how to use the IDE, and much more.
The compiler outputs a log file which can optionally list technical information including the actual hex data being placed in the P-code. Having ready access this level of compiler output allows programmers to find and eliminate nasty programmer-made logic bugs. For example, when a programmer places a closing parentheses in the wrong position of a long formula, the resulting algorithm generates false output.
The cyBOSS Runtime Platform executes compiled P-code lightning fast, and supports string space containers up to 500MB ea.
There are many more pros, which are described throughout the cyBOSS manuals.

Cons:
To write and test run programs in UNLIMITED_MODE requires the purchase and installation of a Runtime Key. Note: Generally, products being developed for resale will use a CPL. [1]

===================================================
My comments (dodicat)
It most likely is a great compiler.
But with so many free compilers, you would need a definite purpose in mind to fork out and actually buy one.
===================================================


Footnotes:
[1] The below excerpt is from the FAQs listed at: http://www.cyboss.org/faqs.html

blah ... blah
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby MichaelW » Oct 05, 2014 14:17

The cyBOSS Runtime Platform executes compiled P-code lightning fast…

Lightning fast is out of reach, so relative to what? And if it's not fast enough for a given task, what then?
Merick
Posts: 1038
Joined: May 28, 2007 1:52

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby Merick » Oct 05, 2014 14:18

It contains over 1300 commands and functions.


Translation: software bloat

The cyBOSS Runtime Platform executes compiled P-code lightning fast, and supports string space containers up to 500MB ea.


Translation: this is an interpreter, not a true compiler like FreeBASIC.

500MB strings? FreeBASIC can do strings up to 2GB (or possibly more with the new 64bit version)
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby MichaelW » Oct 05, 2014 15:06

Merick wrote:FreeBASIC can do strings up to 2GB (or possibly more with the new 64bit version)

Code: Select all

dim as string s1 = space(6000000000)
dim as double t
s1 &= "freebasic"
t = timer
print instr(1,s1,"freebasic")
print using "##.###";timer-t
sleep

I limited the string size to ~3/4 of my 8GB of physical memory because I'm watching a movie and don't want it interrupted :)
Result compiled with:
FreeBASIC Compiler - Version 1.00.0 (09-14-2014), built for win64 (64bit)
And running under Windows7-64 on a 3GHz Core2-i3:

Code: Select all

6000000001
 3.655
cyBOSS
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 05, 2014 6:14

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby cyBOSS » Oct 05, 2014 17:14

Merick wrote:
It contains over 1300 commands and functions.


Translation: software bloat




Correction: Rich and unique programming environment

The cyBOSS language contains a 'classic' BASIC core command-set similar to QuickBASIC.

However, on layered on top of this 'core' are a large number of additional commands and functions to support unique features, such as: variable databases, mouse highlight action, serial communications, network communications, runtime windows and virtual text grids, printer output, screen and graphics command sets, I/O packet buffers, windows registry, raw device input, etc.

Note: Volume I of the cyBOSS reference manual (204 pages) has some good technical info on the Windows operating system which is presented in a way that is easy for BEGINNER-LEVEL programmers to understand.


_
cyBOSS
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 05, 2014 6:14

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby cyBOSS » Oct 05, 2014 18:18

cyBOSS wrote:There is an article titled, "FreeBASIC vs. cyBOSS [BASIC programming language]", posted at: http://cybossbasic.blogspot.com/2014/10 ... yboss.html

Moderators, I understand that you may view this post as spam. However, I started this topic to get feed back on whether-or-not there are any technical flaws about FreeBASIC in that article so that they may be corrected. Thank you.



Moderators, Thank you for allowing this thread on your forum. The feed back provided has been used to edit that article to address the issues raised.

The revised article may be viewed at: http://cybossbasic.blogspot.com/2014/10 ... yboss.html



_
TJF
Posts: 3604
Joined: Dec 06, 2009 22:27
Location: N47°, E15°
Contact:

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby TJF » Oct 05, 2014 19:51

cyBOSS wrote:The cyBOSS language contains a 'classic' BASIC core command-set similar to QuickBASIC.

However, on layered on top of this 'core' are a large number of additional commands and functions to support unique features, such as: variable databases, mouse highlight action, serial communications, network communications, runtime windows and virtual text grids, printer output, screen and graphics command sets, I/O packet buffers, windows registry, raw device input, etc.

Note: Volume I of the cyBOSS reference manual (204 pages) has some good technical info on the Windows operating system which is presented in a way that is easy for BEGINNER-LEVEL programmers to understand.

I use FreeBASIC with GNOME libraries (ie. GTK+ GUI toolkit, cairo grafics, libgda databases, ...). Beside the 'core' BASIC syntax I can use a few thousand functions for the above mentioned purposes, all cross platform (LINUX and wodniws). The reference manuals have much more than 204 pages, adressing beginners and advanced users, The libraries are proven in many projects, a few milion LOCs of examples. There're lots of additional featured not mentioned above (ie. I18N, or running any GUI application in a HTML5 browser without any code adaptions, ...). And in worst case I can customize the libraries because they're open source.

Do you realy think your cyBOSS project can compete with the FB / GNOME combination ?

I don't miss THE-FB-IDE. Instead, I'm happy that the IDE (Geany), the GUI designer (Glade3), the compiler (fbc) and the libraries are shipped in separate packages. That way I can use updates immediately without waiting for the all-in-one release.

Sorry, you're comparing apples and oranges. cyBOSS and FB / GNOME are not the same level !
MichaelW
Posts: 3500
Joined: May 16, 2006 22:34
Location: USA

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby MichaelW » Oct 05, 2014 20:14

cyBOSS wrote:The revised article may be viewed…

Better, but you left off several FreeBASIC pros:

The compiler can output GAS assembly code, or GNU C code, and the C code can be optimized by the C compiler.

The compiler supports inline assembly, GAS Intel syntax by default, or GCC-compatible Intel syntax, or GCC-compatible AT&T syntax.

The compiler supports naked functions.

Edit: And another feature that I forgot to mention, the compiler supports macros that expand to inline code, and the macros can contain assembly code.

Think turtle versus jackrabbit.
Last edited by MichaelW on Oct 06, 2014 9:48, edited 1 time in total.
Merick
Posts: 1038
Joined: May 28, 2007 1:52

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby Merick » Oct 05, 2014 22:37

cyBOSS wrote:However, on layered on top of this 'core' are a large number of additional commands and functions to support unique features, such as: variable databases, mouse highlight action, serial communications, network communications, runtime windows and virtual text grids, printer output, screen and graphics command sets, I/O packet buffers, windows registry, raw device input, etc.


And if someone wanted to write a small program that doesn't need any of that, would it create a streamlined runtime containing only those functions actually used, like what FreeBASIC does when including libraries, or would even the simplest of programs be forced to run on the full runtime with all that extra junk eating up system resources?

And from the way that "article" is attempting to subtly bashing FreeBASIC.... almost makes me wonder if a certain ex-member of the forum is involved in some way
integer
Posts: 391
Joined: Feb 01, 2007 16:54
Location: usa

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby integer » Oct 06, 2014 3:08

cyBOSS is $200

FreeBasic is $0

For the difference in price I can tolerate the awesome beauty of FreeBasic.
ike
Posts: 387
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 18:59

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby ike » Oct 06, 2014 5:30

How dare they are? To compare self hosting multy platform compiler that is 10 yr under development with some interpreter that nobody use.

* NOT FOR EXPORT OUTSIDE USA *
???

It is kinda some secret military technology inside, or what?
marcov
Posts: 3019
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby marcov » Oct 06, 2014 7:47

dodicat wrote:BASIC Programming Blog

Cons:
It is antiquated, perhaps by design necessity to maintain base compatibility with QuickBASIC.


Remarks like that are highly opinionated. That in itself is enough to throw the whole review into the waste bucket as. Legacy is only a liability if proven to be so, not by default.

It's like saying CyBoss is antiquated because it follows QB interpreter principle.

It lacks the command depth and scope compared to the cyBOSS language.


Old fashioned Interpreters simply need more commands because they keep the OS at arms length. Like the rest of the list it mostly describes compiler vs interpreter and the consequences. (The arguments could have been copied verbatim from an eighties article, I don't see an attempt to update. The term p-code has been replaced by bytecode, oh, in 1998 or so)

The screenshot of the IDE (the only relevant image I could find!) also looks rather sad.

The whole site exhumes the vibe of a shareware product of the early nineties marginally updated to start selling again, from a one person company. Worse, it is very low on actual information, it only has sales blurbs. It is an odd mix with a retro vibe basis trying to cash in on old hobby programmers, but at the same time borrows some nineties productivity jargon. (but IMHO not really convincing)

That also has some merits though. At least no overkill of current buzzwords like cloud, BYOD etc.

Language description, examples, a feel for the IDE, nothing is easily found on the site. So probably it was never sold to begin with, or the actual site has been lost. I wouldn't spend half a dime with an hole in it on a product based on this description (and that is independent on the product itself, just on the site)

Programs may be vulnerable to hacking and other types of data corruption due to lack of adequate security features.


Careful. A principle that deflects hacking somewhat (like a safe languages in an interpreter, or a simple checksum), doesn't automatically make a system invulnerable. Just like a good start doesn't automatically mean you'll win a marathon.

Same with the "protected from hackers" claim from the website. Unless the interpreter really defeats reverse engineering, the password is sterile and probably defeated after a few minutes in a debugger. It is like doing the blinds down in an house, and claiming it is safe from burglary.

cyBOSS [BASIC] programming language
The cyBOSS Runtime Platform w/ integrated compiler, according to its official website at: http://www.cyboss.org, is designed for commercial and industrial application software development. The cyBOSS language contains unique and powerful: variable database command sets, a windows-based runtime platform packed full of innovative features that save time and make programming easier. It contains over 1300 commands and functions.


Standard blurb for a little language. Claims are not supported by anything found on the site. Simply because nothing can be found on the site. Except the impression that the great db support doesn't support real databases, only its own embedded thingy (I get that nugget from the faq, if that is not the case, better fix that real quick). My bet that internal DB is also something eighties table based (and not relational, SQL).

You are not selling enterprise grade wares here. Characterize your audience better. You are selling to ordinary joe-users outside of hardcore IT (like hobby programmers, staffers that do a bit of programming on the side and students). Adapt your sites lingo accordingly, and don't doll it up with enterprise blurbs. Exhume reliability and do a lot with examples and a stepwise introduction in baby steps. Don't pretend to be hardcore and pro oriented, because you aren't in this day and age and a cold comparison with something like Visual Studio is probably lost before you even start.

This sounds very negative, but keep in mind that it is mostly the website. I haven't even seen the product. If you want to go anywhere with this product, that website REALLY must change. And keep in mind that the criticism mainly is the content (or lack of relevant content). The criticism is without any sugarcoating, because I was reading the above quotes, and wanted to get some facts and feel of the product from the website, and kind of fell into the site unprepared. I did NOT go to the site planning to do a hatchet job, it just happened.

I haven't even started about the website's layout, simply because I'm not really a layout person, and not the right person to do that. (but I do know its layout is nineties, and only occupies about 1/6th of the width of my screen)

Summary: before you accuse anything or anybody as antiquated, take a long hard look at your site :-)
badidea
Posts: 2150
Joined: May 24, 2007 22:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby badidea » Oct 06, 2014 10:11

Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
MrSwiss
Posts: 3634
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: Article comparing FreeBASIC to cyBOSS

Postby MrSwiss » Oct 06, 2014 14:39

At least enough common sense left, to delete that "Comparison", which it wasn't from the very
beginning, simply by mentioning something like "P-Code/Byte-Code" indicating "INTERPRETER" ...

Return to “Community Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests