Free BASIC Compiler for DOS 
Author Message
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Found this on a CPM website.  It's Digital Research's BASIC compiler
for PCDOS.  Get GSX86 too for graphics.  It works just fine on MSDOS too.

http://www.*-*-*.com/

Yes it's old, but it's a compiler and it's FREE !!

--
jdm



Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS


Quote:
>Found this on a CPM website.  It's Digital Research's BASIC compiler
>for PCDOS.  Get GSX86 too for graphics.  It works just fine on MSDOS too.
>http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm/pcdos.html
>Yes it's old, but it's a compiler and it's FREE !!

  It looks interesting, and works for the non-graphics example
  files, but many keywords aren't the same as QuickBasic, and
  it won't compile code written for QB. It also doesn't have
  drivers for monitors more recent than Hercules or CGA, and
  its graphics examples, when compiled, wouldn't work on
  my VGA.
             John Kiernan, London, Canada.


Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS



Quote:
> In article


Quote:

>   It looks interesting, and works for the non-graphics example
>   files, but many keywords aren't the same as QuickBasic, and
>   it won't compile code written for QB. It also doesn't have
>   drivers for monitors more recent than Hercules or CGA, and
>   its graphics examples, when compiled, wouldn't work on
>   my VGA.
>              John Kiernan, London, Canada.

Hey, whattaya expect?  It was written before Microsoft even thought of
Quick Basic.  The
important thing is that it's a commercial quality compiler, and an
enterprising individual could
certainly adapt it to work with a VGA compatible graphics library.  GSX86
was a very primitive
first attempt at a graphics library.

John M.



Sun, 19 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

You may want to try Firstbasic by the same people who make powerbasic.
It is not free, but it is shareware and is not crippled. It has a lot
of great features and if you like it you can register it for $25.00

BTW it IS a full compiler.

On 1 Jun 1998 18:34:09 GMT, "jdm"

Quote:

>Found this on a CPM website.  It's Digital Research's BASIC compiler
>for PCDOS.  Get GSX86 too for graphics.  It works just fine on MSDOS too.

>http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm/pcdos.html

>Yes it's old, but it's a compiler and it's FREE !!



Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Just to clarify, Firstbasic _is_ crippled in that you cannot load a program
from disk with it. You essentially have to type in the entire program each
time you want to work with it. However, all other features and functions
work normally.
--
Tim Rude, Mighty Computer Services


(remove .NOSPAM to reply)



Quote:
> You may want to try Firstbasic by the same people who make PowerBASIC.
> It is not free, but it is shareware and is not crippled. It has a lot
> of great features and if you like it you can register it for $25.00

> BTW it IS a full compiler.

> On 1 Jun 1998 18:34:09 GMT, "jdm"

> >Found this on a CPM website.  It's Digital Research's BASIC compiler
> >for PCDOS.  Get GSX86 too for graphics.  It works just fine on MSDOS
too.

> >http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm/pcdos.html

> >Yes it's old, but it's a compiler and it's FREE !!



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:

>Just to clarify, Firstbasic _is_ crippled in that you cannot load a program
>from disk with it. You essentially have to type in the entire program each
>time you want to work with it. However, all other features and functions
>work normally.

I have Firstbasic which I just loaded a few days ago. I wanted to see if
it was really like QB45. Well, I was able to load qb45 source code, and
compile with no problems. Very similar. Did NOT have to type source
code from scratch.

BTW- I didn't like it, cause I am used to QB45 which allows use of a mouse.



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 06:47:47 -0700, "Tim Rude"

Quote:

>Just to clarify, Firstbasic _is_ crippled in that you cannot load a program
>from disk with it. You essentially have to type in the entire program each
>time you want to work with it. However, all other features and functions
>work normally.

No, if most definitely is not.

You're mixing up FirstBasic and TryPB. You can load, save and compile your
programs with FirstBasic. It's the shareware re-release of Pb 2.1, and
hence lacks some of the more interesting functions of the later releases.

(No inline ASM, no pointers, less datatypes, no build-in EMS access, etc.)

But despite all of this, it's still fully operational, and in no way
crippled... You get a 5-second nag-screen when you close it, but that's it.
--
Marc van den Dikkenberg
-----------------------
The PowerBasic Archives
http://www.xs4all.nl/~excel/pb.html



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

|> >Just to clarify, Firstbasic _is_ crippled in that you cannot load a program
|> >from disk with it. You essentially have to type in the entire program each
|> >time you want to work with it. [...]
|>
|> I have Firstbasic which I just loaded a few days ago. I wanted to see if
|> it was really like QB45. Well, I was able to load qb45 source code, and
|> compile with no problems. Very similar. Did NOT have to type source
|> code from scratch.
|>
|> BTW- I didn't like it, cause I am used to QB45 which allows use of a mouse.

As Ska noted, FirstBasic is NOT crippled. Tim Rude was mixing up
two beasts: FirstBasic (a shareware product) and TRYPB3 (a demo).

However, I would also like to point out to Ska that it is perfectly
possible to use either QB45's IDE, or even QBasic, as source code
editors to develop BASIC programs, and even test them. Then load
the developed source into FirstBasic's IDE, add perhaps a few tweaks
and twiddles, and compile.

This is very similar to using ANY programmer's editor. I personally
use Boxer to develop code, and use PB.EXE only for debugging purposes
only, because I can't watch variables or single step in Boxer.

--
Brian McLaughlin, Technical Writer  |"Thanks to the Internet, misinformation
Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.| now travels faster than ever before!"
Beaverton, OR, USA                  | ---- Standard disclaimer applies ----



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:

>However, I would also like to point out to Ska that it is perfectly
>possible to use either QB45's IDE, or even QBasic, as source code
>editors to develop BASIC programs, and even test them. Then load
>the developed source into FirstBasic's IDE, add perhaps a few tweaks
>and twiddles, and compile.

>This is very similar to using ANY programmer's editor. I personally
>use Boxer to develop code, and use PB.EXE only for debugging purposes
>only, because I can't watch variables or single step in Boxer.

Umm, ok. I don't see the advantage of using the FB compiler, when
I have the source loaded in QB45 already. Maybe I'm missing something,
but the QB45 compiler seems to do a great job, and makes standalone
exe's which run in Win 95.

Does FB allow larger programs than QB45? I have a program which
decodes hex data from magnetic tape, and graphs it various ways.
Very powerful, and a MONSTER. I have run into the QB45 64K limit
on this program, and had to shave remarks and other stuff to save
space. Had dynamic arrays that I had to trim down. If FB helps with
this it would be worth it.

Ska



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:


>>However, I would also like to point out to Ska that it is perfectly
>>possible to use either QB45's IDE, or even QBasic, as source code
>>editors to develop BASIC programs, and even test them. Then load
>>the developed source into FirstBasic's IDE, add perhaps a few tweaks
>>and twiddles, and compile.

>>This is very similar to using ANY programmer's editor. I personally
>>use Boxer to develop code, and use PB.EXE only for debugging purposes
>>only, because I can't watch variables or single step in Boxer.

>Umm, ok. I don't see the advantage of using the FB compiler, when
>I have the source loaded in QB45 already. Maybe I'm missing something,
>but the QB45 compiler seems to do a great job, and makes standalone
>exe's which run in Win 95.

One difference is that FirstBasic also allows you to compile 286 code,
while QB always generates XT-optimized code. (Powerbasic can generate 386+
code as well, for that matter)

Secondly -- FirstBasic is significantly faster then QB with most things,
especially at numbercrunching... Microsoft hasn't the best history writing
fast compilers... Sturdy perhaps, but not fast...
Check out www.revolver.demon.co.uk for some bench mark results,
between FirstBasic, PowerBasic, Qbasic and QuickBasic...

Quote:
>Does FB allow larger programs than QB45? I have a program which
>decodes hex data from magnetic tape, and graphs it various ways.
>Very powerful, and a MONSTER. I have run into the QB45 64K limit
>on this program, and had to shave remarks and other stuff to save
>space. Had dynamic arrays that I had to trim down. If FB helps with
>this it would be worth it.

FB and PB can break through the 64KB Barrier. Once it complains about the
64KB segment things, You can simply insert a $SEGMENT statement around
the point where the error occured, and carry on with your program. As
simple as that...

The limitation is that you can't change segments within a loop, there are
still a few limitations... But it's certainly way easier then with QB.

--
Marc van den Dikkenberg
-----------------------
The PowerBasic Archives
http://www.xs4all.nl/~excel/pb.html



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:

>One difference is that FirstBasic also allows you to compile 286 code,
>while QB always generates XT-optimized code. (Powerbasic can generate 386+
>code as well, for that matter)

>Secondly -- FirstBasic is significantly faster then QB with most things,
>especially at numbercrunching... Microsoft hasn't the best history writing
>fast compilers... Sturdy perhaps, but not fast...
>Check out www.revolver.demon.co.uk for some bench mark results,
>between FirstBasic, PowerBasic, Qbasic and QuickBasic...

Very interesting!  Now I have to write a few small benchmark programs to
see if FB is really faster!
Quote:

>FB and PB can break through the 64KB Barrier. Once it complains about the
>64KB segment things, You can simply insert a $SEGMENT statement around
>the point where the error occured, and carry on with your program. As
>simple as that...

>The limitation is that you can't change segments within a loop, there are
>still a few limitations... But it's certainly way easier then with QB.

Thanks for the info!

Ska



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:

>Secondly -- FirstBasic is significantly faster then QB with most things,
>especially at numbercrunching... Microsoft hasn't the best history writing
>fast compilers... Sturdy perhaps, but not fast...
>Check out www.revolver.demon.co.uk for some bench mark results,
>between FirstBasic, PowerBasic, Qbasic and QuickBasic...

Damn!    You are correct!

The following code took 15 seconds to run in QB45,
and just 2 seconds in First Basic.

'TEST OF FOR/NEXT  &  DO LOOPS

PRINT TIME$
FOR N = 1 TO 1000000
   n2 = 1 / N
   n3 = n2 * n2
   n4 = LOG(n2)
NEXT N
PRINT TIME$
LOOPHERE:
A$ = INKEY$
IF A$ = "" THEN GOTO LOOPHERE

I'd say that's better than a sharp stick in the
eye any day!

Thanks,

Ska - Honolulu



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Quote:


> >One difference is that FirstBasic also allows you to compile 286 code,
> >while QB always generates XT-optimized code. (Powerbasic can generate 386+
> >code as well, for that matter)

> >Secondly -- FirstBasic is significantly faster then QB with most things,
> >especially at numbercrunching... Microsoft hasn't the best history writing
> >fast compilers... Sturdy perhaps, but not fast...
> >Check out www.revolver.demon.co.uk for some bench mark results,
> >between FirstBasic, PowerBasic, Qbasic and QuickBasic...

> Very interesting!  Now I have to write a few small benchmark programs to
> see if FB is really faster!

> >FB and PB can break through the 64KB Barrier. Once it complains about the
> >64KB segment things, You can simply insert a $SEGMENT statement around
> >the point where the error occured, and carry on with your program. As
> >simple as that...

> >The limitation is that you can't change segments within a loop, there are
> >still a few limitations... But it's certainly way easier then with QB.

> Thanks for the info!

> Ska

All, here's a little bas code i've used over several years as a simple
benchmark for basic versions.  I think I d/l'd the original Phil Wheeler
posting from GEnie! (that should indicate to some how far back this goes
- w/o seeing the 1988 date in the program)....

******************start Zbench.Z88***********************
10 REM This is a benchmark program configured for the Z88
11 REM Lines 12 through 15 used MS-DOS GWBASIC interpreter.

0215 secs

0062 secs
14 REM                Z88--------- 1002 secs    Intel 486DX2/66mhz--
0009 secs

0005 secs
20 REM
21 REM QBasic ()

0059 secs

0093 secs

0012 secs
25 REM

0047 secs
27 REM Quick Basic ver 4.50     "          w/387   "    "      "  --
0019 secs
28 REM Power Basic ver 2.10a    "        (no NDP)  "    "      "  --
0015 secs
29 REM Power Basic ver 2.10a    "          w/387   "    "      "  --
0003 secs


0018 secs
32 REM Turbo Basic ver 1.00     "          w/387   "    "      "  --
0017 secs

5/98.
34 REM Now that you know the Z88 timing, you don't need to run it!
35 REM Phil Wheeler -- 12/88
36 REM Trademarks and Registered Trademarks are property of their
37 REM respective owners.
40 REM *NAME BENCH
50 DEFSNG A-Z
100 T1$ = TIME$
140 FOR N = 1 TO 1000
150 FOR K = 2 TO 500
160 LET M = N / K
170 LET L = INT(M)
180 IF L = 0 THEN 230
190 IF L = 1 THEN 220
200 IF M > L THEN 220
210 IF M = L THEN 240
220 NEXT K
230 PRINT N;
240 NEXT N
245 PRINT : PRINT "STARTED AT "; T1$
250 PRINT "ENDED AT   "; TIME$
260 END
******************end Zbench.Z88****************

FYI - the Model 100 was a Radio Shack portable (aka "laptop"), Kaypro II
was a CP/M machine (Z80a at 6Mhz) and the Z88 was a Timex Sinclair on
steroids!  I have no idea what CPU or Hz the Model 100 or Z88 used.

If anyone cares to extend the listings and repost or email to me,
thanks!




Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS

Too fast, eh?  Right, I suppose we'll need an assembler loop to count
electron revolutions before the code will be timable on a 1GHz cpu!

Oh well....bummer  :)

Thanks.




Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 Free BASIC Compiler for DOS


Quote:

> You may want to try Firstbasic by the same people who make PowerBASIC.
> It is not free, but it is shareware and is not crippled. It has a lot
> of great features and if you like it you can register it for $25.00

> BTW it IS a full compiler.

> On 1 Jun 1998 18:34:09 GMT, "jdm"

> >Found this on a CPM website.  It's Digital Research's BASIC compiler
> >for PCDOS.  Get GSX86 too for graphics.  It works just fine on MSDOS too.

> >http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm/pcdos.html

> >Yes it's old, but it's a compiler and it's FREE !!
>what's about quickBasic?

--

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>>>>>>> by THE KING <<<<<<<<



Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 28 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Free Beta Visual Basic Dos Compiler (DOS, WIN95/NT,Linux)

2. A new free dos BASIC compiler in development

3. FREE basic compiler (DOS): MoonRock

4. Compiler for MS-Dos Q-basic

5. Dos basic-compilers with NT 4 NTFS-filesystem

6. Basic Compiler For DOS, Where?

7. DOS compiler for Basic

8. 32-bit BASIC Compiler for DOS?

9. BASIC compiler (for DOS and Windows)

10. GFA BASIC COMPILER FOR DOS

11. visual basic compiler, for dos

12. visual basic compiler, for dos

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software