|Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) Glenn_Johansson@f313.n203.z2.fidonet.cd.chalmers.s (1992-08-11)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) email@example.com (1992-08-13)|
|Why is compiled basic slower than C? firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-08-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Tim Channon)|
|Date:||Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:16:15 GMT|
Have you examined GFA BASIC for the IBM pc compatible or AtariST?
This is German software and can be interpreted or compiled. There are a
good few lessons to others about how to make GUI programming simple.
Development is ongoing.
A number of years ago I needed to write a specialist editor/comms program
on the AtariST. This was done using an early version of the language (the
compiler arrived with me during writing the program). In a week or so of
odd moments I succeeded in producing a program with a full GUI, error
handling (alert boxs etc.). No assembler whatever was needed and
execution speed was excellent when compiled with comparable execution
speed to C or Modula2. The same people marketed a serious drafting
What about Basic2C?
There are a number of major commercial business packages written in the UK
which use compiled Basic. They work fine but unless you look or know how
can you tell the language used?
I don't use that implementation of Basic now but it looks much improved.
(mostly Modula2 or C for pc's, Forth and assembler for embedded)
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.