| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1709.1 | sure | ANT::JANZEN | Tom LMO2/O23 296-5421 | Wed Sep 21 1988 18:57 | 13 |
| Hi
I made the ball program work. I could try to get it to you.
I have written many sound programs that are quite sophisticated
for
amiga basic, that you can have.
we just have to decide on a way to get them to you.
I could save them as texts, send them to my vax disk, and you could
copy them and type them in or try to load them.
I wrote notes all over the ball program in the book, so it must
have difficult to get to work properly. Examples in books never
work, it's a rule.
|
| 1709.2 | I'll take the offer | GUCCI::HERB | AL | Wed Sep 21 1988 22:06 | 5 |
| Tom,
I can either mail you a disk or perhaps you can mail (vmsmail) the
script. If you can put them somewhere (public) so that I can copy
them from you, I'll try that too. Thanks...
|
| 1709.3 | True Basic | RAVEN1::EVERHART | | Thu Sep 22 1988 15:28 | 19 |
| I got a chance to preview True Basic, and I found that it only
had one thing going for it. It's portable to other versions of
true Basic. From what I gathered, it only has one voice for sound,
and IBM-like graphics. (It would have to have these things to be
protable) They say it's compiled, but don't tell you that it is
really only compiled to an intermediate language that gets interpreted,
but just a bit faster than the BASIC language. So, you still need
to run all True-Basic programs with the interpreter. (At least,
this seems to be the case) I really didn't think that True Basic
was worth anywhere near what they were asking for it. I suggest
that if you want REALLY fast Basic programs, use Amiga BASIC and
the Absoft compiler.
- Chris
{ My opinions are my own and do not in any way reflect the opinions
views of DEC. }
|
| 1709.4 | TRUE BASIC VS. AMIGA BASIC | GUCCI::HERB | AL | Thu Sep 22 1988 17:05 | 5 |
| I there anything better about programmming with true basic than
amiga basic?
M.A.H
|
| 1709.5 | True Basic, bleah | RDCV01::RANDREWS | Out of his mind, but not dangerous | Thu Sep 22 1988 18:31 | 21 |
| Not really. I had it for a while (and traded it for a copy of
Superbase)
As far as the commands go, it is not even really comparable. In
doing simple things like opening a window, the syntax is completely
different. This is done to maintain compatability accross the
different machines they support (ST and IBM).
Someone also said it doesn't really compile. This is true, it creates
a type of intermediate code that then is interpreted by the language.
I bought the thing so I could create standalone programs. Turns
out you need the Run-Time libraries to do this. With the cost of
the language and the Run-time library, it exceeds the cost of the
Basic compiler by Absoft(?). If you want to do anything that is
Amiga specific, there are a few libraries that you can buy from
them that will let you get a little closer to the machine.
In a nutshell, I'd say, get the real Basic compiler, write your
programs in Amiga Basic and compile them instead of using true basic.
Rob
|
| 1709.6 | | BAGELS::BRANNON | Dave Brannon | Thu Sep 22 1988 18:39 | 4 |
| I noticed an ad for GFA Basic for the Amiga. It got rave reviews
in the ST market. Has anybody tried it?
-Dave
|