I'm always looking for QuickBASIC-like language compilers for windows.
This one seems very interesting:
http://www.xpbbasic.com/
Anyone else played around with it yet?
- Dav
Nice to know. The bad point is that it is shareware. Shareware stinks
. All those QB for Windows dummies are payware... Sad
If they were good at least, I'd pay for them. But they are crap. Darkbasic is just a slow, buggy and unstable script language. Blitzbasic is REALLY slow and limited. Purebasic the same...
my personal fav 32-bit basic is purebasic (purebasic.de), but i'll check this one out. damned pay compilers...
Don't be so quick to moan, $15 bucks is nothing. I pay more than that for hosting(which itself is dirt cheap). People have the right to earn money(some do it to excessivly albeit) from their work. I used to think freeware or free everything is better but its not, low cost is better as people can actually buy food to eat while they make the programs ;-)
Back to the topic ;-) : It looks intresting, I haven't heard of it. Downloading it to see now.
yeah, but 15 bucks for a compiler that can only handle unsigned integers and strings? i'll see how this one turns out though, as it is a trial beta. the author is making an effort however to model quickbasic, as most of the examples were made from abc packets.
Dang Nabit(where'd that come from ;-)). You're not supposed to reply to my post when I'm about to delete it. My post was meant to be a bit more general ;-)
The actual program/compiler is ok, but it still seems to be very early in its devlopment. I agree though that it does seem pricey for what it offers in the trial program.
As I said, I concur on paying for good and useful software. The downpoint is that, IMHO, no QB-like Win32 compiler is worth the money they ask for it.
As for this early Basic, I would rather gone freeware until I had the complete version. That way many people would have liked to test the compiler capabilities and therefore find bugs. I can't imagine many people paying 15 bucks for a piece of software completely unuseful in its current stage of developing.
*slaps antoni gual* rapid-q? that fowl piece of compiler garbage that failed miserably in 32-bits to qb, in 16 bits, *with* the floating point bug so it's already handicapped to one third its potential performance?? oh, god i hope you're kidding.
still, all basics are pretty slow. even purebasic, which i though was pretty fast, was 2-3 times slower than gcc. and gcc isnt the fastest c compiler out there. i have yet to test vb, but it may be the fastest option regretably.
*bites Toonski's ear*You're right, Rapid Q is just a P-code interpreter, but not slower than Visual Basic..