🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

4 total messages Started by Michael Patchen Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:23
Basic Compiler
#426
Author: Michael Patchen
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:23
12 lines
999 bytes
Hi, I despertely need some help.  I wrote a large program in basic and I would really like to make an executable from it.  I have used both C and Pascal and
they come with compilers but both GWBasic and QBasic do not.  At the very
least I would like to be able to hide the code in QBasic like I can do in 
GWBasic using the ,o option.

Does anyone know of any BASIC compilers that I am able to download.  I would 
really don't want to make a large investment for a compiler that I will use
only once.

Thanks in advance.

- Mike Patchen
Re: Basic Compiler
#427
Author: John Villalovos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:53
25 lines
1673 bytes
In article <104238@netnews.upenn.edu> patchen@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Michael Patchen) writes:
>Hi, I despertely need some help.  I wrote a large program in basic and I would really like to make an executable from it.  I have used both C and Pascal and
>they come with compilers but both GWBasic and QBasic do not.  At the very
>least I would like to be able to hide the code in QBasic like I can do in 
>GWBasic using the ,o option.
>
>Does anyone know of any BASIC compilers that I am able to download.  I would 
>really don't want to make a large investment for a compiler that I will use
>only once.

I would recommend you buy a copy of Visual Basic for MS-DOS standard edition.
This will allow you to generate an EXE file from your BASIC source code.  It
also has some really cool features for setting up interfaces.  I just bought my
copy (I previously had the Professional Development System 7.1) and I really
like it.  I want to get the Professional Edition later when I have more money.

I got an educational copy at my book store for $34.95.  Which seems very
reasonable for what it is.  C compilers where around $50.

Later,
-- 
John Villalovos
Certified Netware Engineer
villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu
(503) 753-7883
Re: Basic Compiler
#430
Author: John Hutchinson
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:19
26 lines
2071 bytes
In article 104238@netnews.upenn.edu, patchen@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Michael Patchen) writes:
>Hi, I despertely need some help.  I wrote a large program in basic and I would really like to make an executable from it.  I have used both C and Pascal and
>they come with compilers but both GWBasic and QBasic do not.  At the very
>least I would like to be able to hide the code in QBasic like I can do in 
>GWBasic using the ,o option.
>

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!

VB still has the upper hand, IMHO, for superior documentation and ease of use,
especially for beginners.  But GFA is worth a look, especially at $99 retail.

---

___________________________ John "HUTCH" Hutchinson _________________________
_________________ Fair Dinkum Technologies     Member - IAAD  _______________
________________ "No worries, mate... it's from Fair Dinkum!" _______________
____________ email: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov   GEnie: FAIR-DINKUM _____________
Re: Basic Compiler
#431
Author: John Villalovos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:59
26 lines
1807 bytes
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
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads