GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Clair ' CDS' Sha » Sat, 07 Nov 1998 04:00:00



At 21:09:03, Wed, 28 Oct 1998  from Deja News - The Leader in Internet
Discussion said:

Quote:>any comments on these 2?
>which is easier and which one produces better(faster) standalones?

>any other comments are welcome!

I like GFA Basic better, because when you make a mistake (lets say you
type in PRNT by mistake rather than PRINT it beeps and doesn't let you
carry on until you change it)

But Hisoft is better for Gem and separate "librarys" you can have. (And
you can use line numbers)

--
Clair Shaw                                 | Murphy's Laws, coming
Aka. CDS                                   | soon to this space...
ICQ:1043359                                |

http://surf.to/shaws                       | Remove spam block to reply

 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Jo Even Skarstei » Sun, 08 Nov 1998 04:00:00



> any comments on these 2?
> which is easier and which one produces better(faster) standalones?

What types of programs do you want to make? For GEM-applications I
would recommend GFA-basic with Face Value and ErgoPro, it produce fast
and highly compatible standalones. It's also very easy to make really
good-looking GEM-apps with Face Value.

For games I would also recommend GFA, the compiler produce pretty fast
code and you can find some handy libraries for it. STOS would be
better for games though, atleast if you don't mind linenumbers...

--

/*
** Jo Even Skarstein   http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**   beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/

 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by David Bo » Sun, 08 Nov 1998 04:00:00


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>VISIT ** http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/paxton ** VISIT
>------------------------------------------------------


>>But Hisoft is better for Gem and separate "librarys" you can have. (And
>>you can use line numbers)

>Hisoft BASIC uses line numbers ?...

It CAN use line numbers. It doesn't need to though...

Quote:>Ho just wait .I gotta remember that one for the next STOS sniper :)

Can't wait ;-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQB1AgUBNkSpovt/J4yyMZyRAQFHhQL/f7YI77wMYjVaVf5sAIpXO463VlIW5AE2
SdLXuMZtnU7Pr5rV6kEclsmB6uwPpWj4qx8DZfUCybTBRpfPekyI6Mn4jJ4laBrt
1Ff+u2F71g1EqWeosJlhXBYAHN1SgppC
=ndxU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Regards,                                IRC:   davjam on #acorn and #atari

Proud owner of:
Atari  520STE 4Mb, 1Gb + 540Mb HD, NEC 3x CD, Magic 5.11, HD Driver 7.04,
              V.34bis at 57600bps
Acorn A3010   2Mb, 260Mb, RiscOS 3.10, ARM2

No, I'm not an elitist.  Why do you ask, peasant?

 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Clair ' CDS' Sha » Mon, 09 Nov 1998 04:00:00


At 10:36:49, Sat, 7 Nov 1998  from PAXTON Web said:

>VISIT ** http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/paxton ** VISIT
>------------------------------------------------------


>>But Hisoft is better for Gem and separate "librarys" you can have. (And
>>you can use line numbers)

>Hisoft BASIC uses line numbers ?...

If you want to, yes. (We found it out after using Spectrum Basic for
years then coming to the Atari scene, with Hisoft. I later found out you
don't have to after using GFA. Confused? Good.)

Quote:

>Ho just wait .I gotta remember that one for the next STOS sniper :)

--
Clair Shaw                                 | Murphy's Laws, coming
Aka. CDS                                   | soon to this space...
ICQ:1043359                                |

http://surf.to/shaws                       | Remove spam block to reply
 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Guy Harris » Thu, 12 Nov 1998 04:00:00


On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:37:13 +0000, Clair ' CDS' Shaw


>At 21:09:03, Wed, 28 Oct 1998  from Deja News - The Leader in Internet
>Discussion said:

>>any comments on these 2?
>>which is easier and which one produces better(faster) standalones?

>>any other comments are welcome!

>I like GFA Basic better, because when you make a mistake (lets say you
>type in PRNT by mistake rather than PRINT it beeps and doesn't let you
>carry on until you change it)

Why on earth would you want a feature like that? Much better with C
where you have to wait for it to compile all the source modules and
link them. Only then do you get:

[linker]: 'PRNT': unresolved external.

Much more fun! [??!!] ;-)

--

http://www.swampdog.demon.co.uk

 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Jo Even Skarstei » Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:00:00



>>I like GFA Basic better, because when you make a mistake (lets say you
>>type in PRNT by mistake rather than PRINT it beeps and doesn't let you
>>carry on until you change it)
> Why on earth would you want a feature like that? Much better with C
> where you have to wait for it to compile all the source modules and
> link them. Only then do you get:
> [linker]: 'PRNT': unresolved external.
> Much more fun! [??!!] ;-)

What kind of C-compiler do you use? Just curious.

--

/*
** Jo Even Skarstein   http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**   beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/

 
 
 

GFA basic vs. HISOFT basic

Post by Guy Harris » Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:00:00




>>>I like GFA Basic better, because when you make a mistake (lets say you
>>>type in PRNT by mistake rather than PRINT it beeps and doesn't let you
>>>carry on until you change it)

>> Why on earth would you want a feature like that? Much better with C
>> where you have to wait for it to compile all the source modules and
>> link them. Only then do you get:

>> [linker]: 'PRNT': unresolved external.

>> Much more fun! [??!!] ;-)

>What kind of C-compiler do you use? Just curious.

Ooo, you've set me off now! :-))

Mark Williams C. It's K&R "+1". It copies structures like ANSI and has
'void' but only for function results, you can't use 'void' as a
datatype. It also has one or two other ansi keywords (like 'const')
which it accepts syntactically but doesn't actually implement. It
won't handle ansi style function definitions or declarations. Nor does
it have any optimisation to speak of. A bit of peephole stuff but no
register intelligence.

That's most likely made it sound awful. In actual fact it is a very
good compiler - if wasn't I'd have switched to something else years
ago! In all the years I've had it I've only ever found one bug in the
compiler and mwc replaced the whole package without me even asking (or
expecting it). Naturally there's been one or two bugs in the library
code but they're easily fixed 'cos I've the complete source code for
the lot. Since then there's never been a single bug. That's something
which can't be said of Lattice or PureC - which is why I won't change!

It's complete lack of register optimisation is an advantage. When I do
use register variables I know exactly which variables will go in which
registers and that they'll stay there. Lack of function prototypes is
no problem - I can still use them wrapped up in a macro. That way ANSI
compilers get the info but the K&R has it mapped out - ie ...

blah    function __ARGS((void bob, int fred));

the K&R sees

blah    function ();

and ANSI sees

blah    function (void bob, int fred);

Best of both worlds! ;-)

And, who needs va_args when you can do this:

foo(r)
char    **r;
{
 printf("%r",&r);

Quote:}

main()
{int    i       =whatever;

 foo("oo-er [%s]\n","Hello World");
 foo("%d\n",i);

Quote:}

Or this ...

extern long     _stksize;

foo()
{int            fred;
 struct doofrey thingymabob;
 eek            v;

 if (&v <= (_stksize + 128))     {
        printf("Stack near overflow\n");
        return;
 }
 /* function body */

Quote:}

Who needs the overhead of a compiler option which stack checks every
call? Just do it at runtime in the deepest calls yourself, and you can
recover - even increase the stack size!

Tbh, mwc does have a source line de* but I didn't have it
originally (it were a later addition it were). Learning C via an asm
de* _is_ hard but it pays dividends in the long run. Having said
that, I must admit that although the object de* is at the asm
level, the compiler can be told to produce asm source with comments.
The comments are verbose enough to tell you source line numbers for
asm sections and where variables exist, both static and local.

--

http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

1. Wanted: ST BASIC, True vs Hisoft vs GFA 2 or others?

All this is for a mathematician friend of mine who solves problems for me.

I am looking for a BASIC that is faster than ST BASIC at doing floating point.
(faster in other areas would be ok too)

Not being TOO different from ST BASIC might be an advantage to port some of
the work done in the past.

I have been offered TrueBasic, Hisoft Basic, told about the free GFA V2.0 Basic.
Is one of these considerably better than the others?  
Or does someone have yet another Basic that would have advantages?

Someone did tell me there is an old pre-commercial version of Matlab for the ST
on a machine in Germany, if there are any other mathematically inclined folks
out there.  And then there is Derive (for MSDOS) that will run under PC-Ditto.
Educational versions of that are VERY inexpensive and Derive is about the best
thing I have seen to do simpler forms of symbolic mathematics.

please reply by email if at all possible
thanks

2. Starting thread in a signal handler

3. Hisoft BASIC v GFA Basic?

4. looking for best greyscale-printer

5. Welcome to the nclyif group

6. Hisoft Basic V Gfa Basic

7. cd-rw not seen

8. GFA BASIC -> GFA BASIC for WINDOWS

9. GFA BASIC ST <--> GFA BASIC PC Windows

10. ST Basic -> Hisoft Basic (quite long)

11. Hisoft BASIC v GFA Ba