🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 1it1kbINNpae@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU, villalj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John Villalovos) writes:
>>
>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.

Ah, forgive if I "know not from which I speak."  I was under the impression that
VB for DOS also required a similar run-time library as does VB for Windows.  But
without the Windows overhead, it's logical that such a DLL-type file would not
be necessary. My comments were primarily directed towards the Windows versions.

>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.

No, I don't have any benchmark data.  My comments are based on personal experience
and the reviews published recently in Byte, Computer Language and PC Magazine.
Again, I'm not knocking VB.  It's an outstanding product.  I just wanted to make
sure folks were aware of another alternative which may, or may _not_, be better
suited to a given task or programmer's needs than VB is.

Thanks for the clarification about VB for DOS's compiler.

---

___________________________ John "HUTCH" Hutchinson _________________________
_________________ Fair Dinkum Technologies     Member - IAAD  _______________
________________ "No worries, mate... it's from Fair Dinkum!" _______________
____________ email: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov   GEnie: FAIR-DINKUM _____________