Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/27/11:22:56
X-Bios wrote:
> > > HAHA. OmniBasic claims "OmniBasic is the ONLY truly portable BASIC
> > > compiler in the world!"
> > > If that isn't the biggest pile... Look:
It was the 'in-your-face' attitude shown be this remark that provoked my
response in the first place. I had simply made an anouncement that my
product was available for download at a particular site. I have no axe
to grind with you, GFA BASIC or any one else.
>
> The GFA faq you mention must be prety old, or for the Atari only. Here's
> an
> excerpt from my GFA manual:
> GFA-BASIC PC is, at this time, available for IBM compatible PCs
> under four operating syatems:
> GFA-BASIC for MS-DOS
> GFA-BASIC for Windows
> GFA-BASIC for OS/2
> GFA-BASIX for SCO
> (a different section)
> Dirk van Assche took over the porting of already written code to the
> Windows
> and OS/2 operating systems.
> (a different section)
> The MS-DOS version has some 500, the Windows version about 800, the OS/2
> version roughly 1000, and the UNIX version about 900 commands and
> functions.
>
> I think that's ample proof for GFA's OS/2 port.
>
It is not my fault that the GFA FAQ is out of date and aparently from
what you are saying it is not GFA's fault either. A later post from
Chris McRae (shown below) casts doubt on the viability of the GFA OS/2
port.
> >
> > Second: It mentions 'syntactic vaiations' This is called NOT portable!
> GFA's quite portable. Sure there are some OS-specific commands, but the
> bulk of the langiage is portable. An example would be (my favorite) the
> XBIOS() function available only on the Atari.
>
This is the crux of the age-old debate on portability vs infinate
features. It is difficult if not impossible to have both.
> >
> > Third: It states that is is not sopported (at least in some cases)
> Huh? Try cleaning that up and ask again.
If your'e refering to my mispelling of the word 'supported' then check
you own spelling (I.E. 'pretty' above) and elsewhere. Otherwise just
read the faq below.
>
> >
> > Fourth: There are warnings in the FAQ (not reproduced here) that some
> > statements will not work in the compiled mode on some platforms...read
> > the FAQ for yourself. This is called NOT portable.
> Portability has nothing to do with the relationship between a language
> and it's compiler. Please. Tell us which statements won't work when
> compiled? I'm an EXPERIANCED GFA-BASIC programmer and NEVER have I had
> a command not work when compiled. And ofcorse, GFA-BASIC doesn't produce
> executable code for things like STACKSIZE as they only effect a compiled
> program.
>
Sounds like you had better luck than the guy who wrote the FAQ.
> >
> > Fifth: OmniBasic is C output and is written in itself. This means it can
> > be ported to AND platform in a matter of hours... especially if the
> > target platform supports gcc.
> Oh please. Is "being written in C" a feature when it comes down to
> speed?
> ALL of GFA's executive parts are written in ASM, and as it makes little
> difference what OS you use (as long as it's the same processor family)
> the
> ASM will work. GFA's IDE and compiler were written in C++, so ports of
> the
> IDE could be done in a matter of hours aswell.
You miss the point here. OmniBasic is NOT written in C. It is written in
OmniBasic. You are right in that a pure assembly approach would be
faster but OmniBasic was written for portability, not speed. None the
less is quite respectable speed wise. Although OmniBasic is C output, it
is frequently faster than similar C code. This is because the C the is
output is a much lower (rudimentary) C than C compilers normally
produce. In other words the code produced is more like "univesal
assembler" than classic C. There is some of the characteristic
'code-bloat' due to the c overhead (I.E. Hello World pgms that are 8 to
14k etc). This cannot be avoided. BTW my PB32 seems to have about 30k
overhead and it is not c-output)
>
> >
> > Sixth: When we say portable, we mean the source code will compile
> > correctly and run correctly on ANY supported platform WITH NO
> > MODIFICATION WHATSOEVER!
> Ok. Then you limit your number of commands by doing that. After all, how
> can a "truly" portable language support features from all of it's
> platforms
> regaurdless of the platform you are using (ie. Windows managment while
> in DOS).
> GFA has expanded it's syntax to cover as much of an operating systems
> features
> as possible. Call that non-portable? Fine. It is in a way, but it also
> makes the
> language more powerful.
Thats true. One way around this is to have platform specific libraries
for various functions.
>
> BTW: Have you even done serious coding in GFA? You don't seem to know
> anything
> more than what you read in that outdated, NON-OFFICAL, FAQ.
No, I have not. I had no particular reason to know much about GFA BASIC
at all until you forced me to answer your inflamatory post. I did
download the DOS trial version last evening and it looks quite
repectable to me (although with no manual I'm not sure how to do
everything it can do). IT WAS NEVER MY PURPOSE TO DISPARAGE GFA or any
one else. But (also from Chris' quotation) GFA does not appear to
portable in the same sense as OmniBasic is.
>
> > >
> > > OmniBasic: Linux, MS-DOS, OS/2, OS-9000, OS9/68000, and OS9/68020
> > > GFA-BASIC: UNIX, MS-DOS, OS/2, Windows, Atari, Amiga
> > >
> > > And some of Omni's platforms are just about the same, just for different
> > > computers. Lame...
> >
> > And just what do you think different computers are if not different
> > platforms?
>
> It's true, GFA has no Mac port. Who cares tho. GFA exists for those 3
> different
> families of computers (Intel, Atari, and Amiga). Isn't that
> multi-platform? Even
> if 2 of 'em aren't popular anymore.
>
OS-9xx is not all that popular any more either for that matter. We will
have a WIN95/NT version fairly soon. (as soon as I download and set up
the Cygus/Minimalist port).
> >
> > Q: Which other platforms does GFA BASIC exist for?
> >
> > A: Apart from Atari, there was GFA BASIC for Amiga (v 3.0), MSDOS
> > (286, 386, 486), and Windows 3.1.
> And OS/2 and UNIX, soon Win95/NT. And GFA has "special-case" code for
> 8086 through
> 486 processors.
>
> >
> > Excepts from GFA FAQ:
> >
> > Q: Is GFA BASIC still supported?
> >
> > A: That depends ;) Officially, no, not for the Atari. There are
> > however many knowledgable people who (still)
> > regularily code in GFA BASIC, and help can often be found on the
> > comp.sys.atari.programmer newsgroup, or
> > in other network echo areas, such as NEST's N.ST.PROG.GFA. Q: Is
> > GFA BASIC still supported?
>
> Like I say, this FAQ (I believe that I have read it, and disguarded it
> because it's
> mainly about the Atari) is OLD.
>
> >
> > Q: Can GFA BASIC source be moved between platforms?
> >
> > A: Again, yes, if this is done in *.LST format. The program
> > structure and general commands will be the same, with perhaps a
> > few syntactic variations.
> Ah. Here is that famous quote. I believe this to be a kind of "back-up"
> so the
> author couldn't be called a fool. All of the non-platform specific
> commands have
> been the same since the Atari, as stated below.
>
> >
> > Since the PC (and Amiga) have different operating systems, most
> > of the system specific calls (GEM, VDI, AES) will have to be
> > rewritten in the importing interpreter, often as procedure
> > extensions. However, the BIOS and XBIOS calls of the Atari are
> > largely DOS-based, and so most of these will be unchanged and
> > work fine.
>
> -- X-Bios
************Quote from post by Chris MaRae:*************
I still use GFABasic for DOS and Windows3.1 (compilers) and heartily
recommend it for those platforms. I have implemented an over 11000 line
student assessment system using GFABASIC that is in constant use. Yes,
the
compiler has had its problems, but they have over the years been ironed
out.
However, I too must take exception to the term portable when applied to
GFABASIC. From bitter experience I can say uncatagorically that GFABASIC
is
at best 50% portable from DOS to Windows. While I in no way see this as
a
limitation of GFABASIC (I really didn't expect it to be 100% portable)
it is
non the less false to say GFABASIC is portable.
*********END OF Chris McRae's quote*********
-Mike
- Raw text -