From: jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com (Jesse Dorland)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: OmniBasic Announcement
Date: 26 May 1997 22:36:01 -0700
Organization: [none]
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <338a7ff7.22358539@news.primenet.com>
References: <3385F0D6 DOT 1DCE AT vax2 DOT rainis DOT net> <3387D4FD DOT 303D AT hotmail DOT com> <33889968 DOT 4148 AT vax2 DOT rainis DOT net> <338926E9 DOT 239A AT hotmail DOT com> <338ae78c DOT 2187765 AT news0 DOT xs4all DOT nl> <338A696B DOT 42FC AT hotmail DOT com>
Reply-To: jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

>True. Missing commands are non-portable commands. But as I said (in case
>you
>failed to read it) GFA tries to get the most from it's OS. There will
>always
>be LINE routines and such. Besides, how many BASICs can bost between 500
>and
>1,000 commands! Don't complain! QB doesn't even tough GFA's command
>library!

This thread was never even related to QuickBasic, so why did you bring it in
when there was no need for it?  You should be comparing GFA to OmniBasic,
which is [obviously] what this thread is about.  

Nobody compared GFA to QB, or even mentioned QB in this thread, so you had no
reason to mention anything about the size of its statement library; it isn't
relevant to anything at all.  As usual, it seems you're only looking for a
reason to tout GFA and put down just about every other BASIC.

-Jesse
>
>-- X-Bios

=========================================================
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: 
LSD & UNIX.  We do not believe this to be a coincidence.
=========================================================