🚀 go-pugleaf

wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

>cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) writes:

>>That's pretty much the question.  Is QBASIC (supplied with DOS 5.x) faster
>>than the equivalent GWBASIC program?

>>Before some joker jumps in a tells me I should use a "real language" like
>>C or Pascal:

>>I am porting a large collection of programs written for the Commodore 64
>>(the best low budget computer ever invented) in BASIC to the PC.  I have
>>time to do some minor conversion, but not complete rewrite.

>>Since I have both BASICS, I want to use the faster one - I don't need all
>>the QBASIC bells and whistles (like mouse support and the new editor).

>>Email or Postings gladly accepted.
>>-Coyt

>Someone please correct me if i'm wrong - but I believe Qbasic is compiled
>while GWbasic is interpreted. This would make Qbasic much faster.
>It also means that once you compile the programs you don't need Qbasic
>to run them.

Yes, that's the "Basic" truth!  QBasic will compile the GWBasic unless
Commodore used some different commands.  QBasic will still use Line 
Numbering.  Using QBasic's editor you can do a search and replace very
quickly.  Example, the old TI-94 Basic used clr or clear instead of cls.
Also use of :, ; to indicate end of line was different.  I quickly converted
and then compiled using QBasic 4.5 without any problems.

	Chuck Reichert




-- 
     ====================================================================
     | Charles H. Reichert  708-632-6669 Work - MOTOROLA, INC  Cellular |
     | KD9JQ                708-358-3827 HOME - after 8PM CST  weekdays |
     |                      955 Concord Ln.  Hoffman Ests., IL. 60195   |