Does anyone know wher I can find a compiler for GWBASIC? I have a
friend who wants to compile some shareware into .exe format. Any
help/clues appreciated. Please mail
                                Daniel

It's call QuickBASIC or Visual Basic for DOS
These will both compile GW-BASIC code but you may have to change some variable
names because QB and VBDOS have more keywords ie in QB the word SUB is a
keyword, if you have a variable SUB in GW-BASIC you will have to do a
search-change (both VB and QB will do this for you).

BTW give him QBASIC - free with DOS, I used to program GW-BASIC (and like it
cause I didn't know what I was missing). If he doesn't want to change then
force him ;)

: >  Does anyone know wher I can find a compiler for GWBASIC?

: It's call QuickBASIC or Visual BASIC for DOS.

: BTW give him QBASIC - free with DOS, I used to program GW-BASIC (and like it
: cause I didn't know what I was missing). If he doesn't want to change then
: force him ;)

Of course we should point out that QuickBasic and QBasic are essentially the
same thing but QBasic is missing features like the INCLUDE$ and compliling
options.  So if you want to make an .exe file - QBasic still wont help you.
But I agree that he should be using QBasic now - so that when he does want to
compile - and finds an old copy of QuickBasic - he can have 'plug and play'
compatablility. :)  Also - there is ways to have your basic program run
without having to hit the run key in the editor so you can simulate .exe for
the duration while you are hunting for QuickBasic of VBDos. :)

Has anybody else noticed that QuickBasic doesent really speed up it's code when
compiled?  I see a small performance boost by going to QuickBasic instead of
QBasic - but I never see a boost after that with compiling.  Is there some
secret here?  Like certin types of loops or operations to get 'compilied'
speed?  
--

For A \ oo / /   / // _ \ / / \ /\ / / \  / __  ------ Squidly Diddly Sais -----
Better \--/ /___/ // |/ // /  // // /  / / (oO) "I'm on a rocket ship to hell."
Tommorow\/ / \___/ \___/ \/  / \/ \/  / /  /||\

zum Thema "Re: GWBASIC COMPILER?":

I used to write GW-BASIC programmes, but then I found powerbasic. It  
compiles very fine EXE-stand alones. (No BRUN4?.EXE or that sort of thing  
necessary.) And, there weren't any problems compiling my old GW-BASIC  
programmes.
PowerBASIC 3.0 will even allow you creating TSRs in a very simple way -  
and much more! I find PB a very, very excellent BASIC :-)

Only a suggestion ;->

                                /~        | /
   Mit vielen Gruessen,        | arsten   |' ruse
                                \_        | \

   !!Demnaechst!! online: Bildungsecke Gera +49-365-4205249
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##

Buy a copy of vbdos.  It can compile gwbasic code with only minor changes.

--
    _      _     Dale DePriest                  San Jose, California

 o/_/ (_(_X_(`                                  fax: (408) 943-0402

[I'm the guy who claimed a 300x speedup compiling a program]

OK, I jumped from QuickBASIC 4.0 to VisualBASIC for DOS so my experiences are
with QB 4.0

slow routines like GET/PUT will have virtually no speed up when compiled, this
is because most of the time is spend in the routine rather than between
routines.

The example where I got a 300x speedup was with OUT, to control a DAC connected
to a laser (for drawing pictures) I had to send values to 2 parallel ports real
quick, experimenting in the interpretter produced depressing results, far too
slow, when compiled, vola. PEEK/POKE is similar. My theory (opinion) is that
the interpretter spends time 'interpreting' a [parsed] line then calls the
library routines in the routine, so with IN/OUT/PEEK/POKE/+/- more time can be
spent between lines than executing code. When compiled each library call gets
turned into a PROC call or similar.

I would expect at minimum a 3x speedup on integer math when compiled.
Infact I've been thinking of doing BASIC instruction timing for some time
(CURRENCY is slower than SINGLE!) so I'll post the results when I get round to
it.