🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <reichert.715377642@aloe1>, reichert@rtsg.mot.com (Charles H. Reichert) writes...
>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?
> 
----stuff deleted

>>>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



	Whoops - there are things getting mixed up here. GWbasic is strictly an
interpreted basic. Qbasic as supplied with DOS5 is also an interpretated basic
which is a stripped down version of Quick Basic 4.5 which does include a 
compiler.  As to which of the interpreted basic's is faster, I don't know. But
the Qbasic will be very easily moved into Quick Basic if you need to. GWbasic
will need to be work over more to do the move. There is also more structured
type language in the Qbasic which might make it easier to write.

	/s/	Bob Gettys