visual basic, Free/Share Basic software with compiler

Free/Share Basic software with compiler

Author	Message
Rich #1 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler.
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:44:14 GMT

Stephen J. Rus #2 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: >I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software >for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a >free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic >software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler. There's XBasic, which includes not only the compiler but graphics and GUI design tools. The syntax is rather C-ish, with most of the extensions beyond QBasic implemented as functions whose names seem to fill a whole line, but it is free (open source), and comes in Win32 and Linux flavors. There are also several BASIC - to - C translators that use the Gnu C compiler as a back end. I haven't tried them. Have you tried feeding "BASIC compiler free download" to your favorite search engine? You will probably be surprised. Writing a compiler is like building a boat from scratch; a LOT of people do it, and some manage to do it well.
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:48:49 GMT

nos.. #3 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: > I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software > for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a > free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic > software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler. Why do you need a compiler? Whats the matter with the qbasic that comes with most MS machines? LB
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:48:05 GMT

Indigo Moon Ma #4 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: >> I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software >> for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a >> free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic >> software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler. > Why do you need a compiler? Whats the matter with the qbasic that comes > with most MS machines? I can understand where he's coming from. I'm just a hobby programmer myself but I like being able to make stand-alone exe files. -- Subtract 250 to email me. Online Bible Study Tools: http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/
Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:18:40 GMT

Larry Hatc #5 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: >>>I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software >>>for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a >>>free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic >>>software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler. >>Why do you need a compiler? Whats the matter with the qbasic that comes >>with most MS machines? > I can understand where he's coming from. I'm just a hobby programmer myself > but I like being able to make stand-alone exe files. If you just need a BASIC to C translator and you do not need graphics, go to bastoc.com download qb2c, it is in a .tgz format, so you might need 7zip as well. And a free GNU ANCI-C compiler
Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:24:22 GMT

C Rod #6 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: > I am pretty new and I have been looking at most of the basic software > for Windows I have been trying Liberty Basic but it doesnt come with a > free compiler. So I am wandering if there are any downloadable Basic > software (For Windows) that comes with a compiler. If you are working on DOS then you might adapt to TP7 (Pascal) which is a download from Borland France. You might be interested in VB 5 CCE (Control Creation) which is a download from MS... You might buy powerbasic console compiler...but if you are using the easy GUI's of Liberty Basic then you might buy VB (Learning Edition) at about $100 or buy True Basic or look at SDK-style PB DDT (?) with supporting apps. If the performance and features of Liberty Basic are OK with you, then you might license it for a feature of running an app outside of the IDE.
Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:38:54 GMT

n.. #7 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler :> Why do you need a compiler? Whats the matter with the qbasic that comes :> with most MS machines? :> : I can understand where he's coming from. I'm just a hobby programmer myself : but I like being able to make stand-alone exe files. Don't forget that "being able to make stand-alone exe files" and "needing a compiler" are not necessarily synonymous. Some BASIC interpreters (e.g. 'BBC BASIC for Windows') can create a 'stand- alone executable' by combining a run-time interpreter and the BASIC program (possibly compressed) into a single file. You won't benefit from the (potential) speed improvement of a true compiler, but in most other respects the end result is equivalent. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/products/bbcwin/bbcwin.html
Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:16:43 GMT

Stephen J. Rus #8 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:55:20 +0000 (UTC), Carl E Gundel Quote: >: Don't forget that "being able to make stand-alone exe files" and >: "needing a compiler" are not necessarily synonymous. Some BASIC >: interpreters (e.g. 'BBC BASIC for Windows') can create a 'stand- >: alone executable' by combining a run-time interpreter and the >: BASIC program (possibly compressed) into a single file. You >: won't benefit from the (potential) speed improvement of a true >: compiler, but in most other respects the end result is equivalent. >Liberty BASIC also has a similar mechanism. Often a real EXE compiler >isn't needed at all, but there seems to be a bias against runtime engine >based solutions. The bias probably goes back to the days of the 8088, when many applications just wouldn't run fast enough unless they were compiled all the way to machine code. On a P4 box, even a GWBASIC application would probably run faster than equivalent machine code on an 8088.
Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:37:45 GMT

Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr #9 / 10	Free/Share Basic software with compiler Quote: >On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:55:20 +0000 (UTC), Carl E Gundel >>Liberty BASIC also has a similar mechanism. Often a real EXE compiler >>isn't needed at all, but there seems to be a bias against runtime engine >>based solutions. >The bias probably goes back to the days of the 8088, when many >applications just wouldn't run fast enough unless they were compiled >all the way to machine code. On a P4 box, even a GWBASIC application >would probably run faster than equivalent machine code on an 8088. You wouldn't even need to go that far. GWBASIC is about twice as fast as Chipmunk Basic on the same hardware; and Chipmunk Basic executes most stuff around 50x to 200x slower than the equivalent compiled and optimized C code. That means that using GWBASIC on a measely Pentium MMX 233 would easily outperform the best C or even hand-coded assembly language running on an original IBM PC with an 8088. My guess is that GWBASIC code on a fast P4 box would probably outperform a 386 PC running the best compiled C code. Chipmunk Basic (Mac Classic, Mac OS X, Linux/x86 and Windows releases): http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic IMHO. YMMV. -- Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com #include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:09:29 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 10 post ]