🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.151925.1231@newshost.lanl.gov> hutch@bellman.lanl.gov writes:
>Visual Basic is undoubtedly the most popular and widely used of the "new" PC
>BASICs, but it is _not_ your only choice.  For a more structured, command
>oriented type of BASIC (which is easier to port to from older BASICs, IMHO)
>I strongly suggest you take a look at GFA BASIC (DOS or Windows versions).
>Even in interpreted mode it's considerably faster than VB and has the potential
>to be quite a lot more capable for larger, more complex programs.  Like VB it
>comes with a pseudo-compiler that requires a PD run-time file accompany the
>EXE for it to work.  However, unlike VB they have announced a true compiler to
>be available by the end of this month... no more run-time file baggage!
>
I was wondering what you mean by "true compiler....no more run-time file
baggage!"?  I'm pretty sure in Visual Basic for DOS that I created an EXE file
that did not need a run-time file included with it.  It was a stand-alone EXE
file.

Also, do you have any figures on speed differences between the compilers.  You
said that GFA is faster then VB even if GFA is running interpreted and VB is
compilied.

Later,
-- 
John Villalovos
Certified Netware Engineer
villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu
(503) 753-7883